What Constitutes a "Decent Interval" for Iran Outreach?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A Goldblog reader writes:
Roger Cohen says, "In the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama's outreach (to the Iranian regime) must now await a decent interval." My question is, what would be a decent interval?
Good question. Perhaps six hours for every thousand votes stolen, or two days for every demonstrator killed. Walt and Mearsheimer must hand out some sort of formula for this kind of thing at Realist Summer Camp.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
11:58 AM (15 minutes ago)
An Enemy of the World
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Totten:
The Islamic Republic regime in Iran is vividly revealing itself as an enemy of the entire world.
"Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei's police and the Basij militia are using violence and terror to suppress the Iranian people at home. His terrorist proxies fire missiles at Israel while torturing, maiming, and murdering Palestinians. He sponsored a violent coup d'etat against the elected government in Beirut last year with his Hezbollah militia. He sponsors a terrorist insurgency against the elected government of Iraq, while his fanatical proxies shoot and kill American soldiers. A car bomb cell belonging to the regime's Lebanese franchise was recently arrested in Azerbaijan, and more cells were rolled up in Egypt. Terrorists sponsored and encouraged by him and his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, have murdered civilians from Argentina to Japan.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
11:58 AM (15 minutes ago)
Time for An Obama Speech?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Stephen Hayes thinks so:
He does not need to call openly for an uprising, but he should be taking the accounts of reporters and our intelligence operatives in Iran and broadcasting them to the world. He should be amplifying the voices of the Iranians who have, once again, been deprived of any say in how they will be governed, and using them to pressure the Iranian regime at a time when it is plainly very fragile.
History teaches us (see: Carter, Jimmy) that it's important to line up with the Iranian people, not against them. Now is the moment.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
11:18 AM (56 minutes ago)
Ahmadinejad's American Apologist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Flynt Leverett, formerly of the National Security Council, compares the "election" in Iran to the 2000 recount in Florida:
Look at the irregularities Mousavi is citing now: that they ran out of ballot paper in some polling precincts, that they did not keep some polls open long enough. There is no way such things could change the overall outcome which is clearly in favor of Ahmadinejad. If you compare this to the flaws of the presidential election in Florida in 2000, it seems very insignificant.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
10:20 AM (1 hour ago)
On the Tragic Nationals
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I've taken my eight-year-old son to a bunch of Nationals (16-45) games, and he's never seen them win once. I worry that this will cause him to stop liking baseball (though he's had a good season on the Northwest Little League AA Red Sox, where his batting average is, as best as I can tell, .915).
In the Post today, John Feinstein asks the obvious question: Why are the Nats holding on to Manager Manny Acta? It's a question I've asked many times myself. Here's Feinstein:
There are plenty of reasons to keep Acta, a couple of reasons to fire him.
The reasons to keep him are evident every day. He's a class act; he's a bright, young baseball guy managing a young team. His players like him, and they show up every day and really try to play for him, albeit not very well. If Acta is fired now, you can bet he's going to get another managing job down the road, and there's a very good chance he'll be a success.
So why fire him? Because sometimes in sports you have to make change for the sake of change. One can almost feel the "here we go again" sense the players have in the late innings night after night. Most nights they know there are two guarantees: It's going to rain, and they're going to find some way to lose either by bullpen implosion or some horrible defensive gaffe.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
10:20 AM (1 hour ago)
J.C. Doesn't Want Israel to be a Jewish State
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I guess this isn't surprising:
"In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed," Carter told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
"He insists on settlement expansion, demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state even though 20% of Israel's citizens are not Jews," the former US president said.
So long as he agrees that Palestine shouldn't be a state for the Palestinians, I guess it doesn't really matter.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
10:20 AM (1 hour ago)
Nazis in the Army
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This isn't good news.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
9:21 AM (2 hours ago)
On the Difference Between Jews and Zionists
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In re: Rev. Wright's recent comments, Goldblog reader Doron Arazi shares this Soviet-era joke:
A prominent scientist is being summoned to his institute's party secretary.
"Comrade professor", says the secretary gravely, "the Party has started a new anti-Zionist campaign. Our institute was ordered to purge all residual Zionist influences among intellectuals and scientists. So, you're fired."
The professor is shocked. "But I am a loyal party member!"' he protests. "I have never been a Zionist!"
The party secretary knits his eyebrows very tight. "Comrade professor, do not try to deceive the party!" he says. "We checked. You have a Zionist grandmother."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
9:21 AM (2 hours ago)
Bibi Leaves His Father's Home
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ari Shavit:
Benjamin Netanyahu crossed the Rubicon yesterday. In order to serve the country, he abandoned his father's ideological home. The decision to leave his home came at great emotional cost. The prime minister agonized for 10 days over the text that would redefine him. But in the end, Netanyahu did the right thing. He neither stuttered nor blinked. Instead, he placed the spotlight squarely on one irreplaceable phrase: a demilitarized Palestinian state next to a Jewish State of Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
8:28 AM (3 hours ago)
Does Iran Have a Right to Uranium Enrichment?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Rothkopf:
We should not acknowledge international "rights" of countries that deny fundamental rights to their people. I would think that would be at the core of any Obama foreign policy (in fact, it seems to be with regard to Cuba, for example). Nor, as a practical matter, should the U.S. base critical proliferation decisions on the promises of countries that so callously break their fundamental promises to their citizens and then lie about it to the world. In fact, how about amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit the right to the pursuit of peaceful nuclear programs only to democracies?
This election should lead us to meet with our allies and reconsider our approach to the Iranian nuclear question -- especially because through a major multilateral rebuff of the regime we might further weaken them in their own country, a place where the opposition seems so vital and poised to make such a promising change.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
6:50 AM (5 hours ago)
The True Nature of the Iranian Regime
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I've argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama's outreach must now await a decent interval. I've also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.
-- Roger Cohen, June 14, 2009
Brutal and cynical? Really? Who would have thought that the Iranian regime could be so brutal and cynical and ruthless and undemocratic? Well, perhaps gay people, who are executed by the regime for their sexual orientation. Perhaps peace-loving Baha'is, who are mercilessly persecuted by the regime. Perhaps Iranian Jews, who are forced by the regime to abase themselves before gullible Western journalists. Perhaps the families of women stoned to death after being accused of adultery by the regime. Perhaps the dissidents of the universities, who know that a country led by a dictator who calls himself "Supreme Leader" isn't actually an incipient democracy. Perhaps the liberal Shia reformers, who know that their country has been hijacked by obscurantist fundamentalists. Perhaps Israel, which is regularly threatened with extermination by these same obscurantist fundamentalists. Perhaps men like Elie Wiesel, who know that Holocaust denial is a crime against history. Perhaps the moderate Arab states of the Gulf and beyond, who quake in fear of a nuclear-armed Iranian empire. Perhaps the International Atomic Energy Agency, which watches helplessly as the regime defies the demands of the U.N. Security Council. Perhaps the families of Iranian terror victims around the world, including those in Argentina, where Iranian agents bombed a Jewish cultural center, killing 85 innocent people.
I'm sure there are others who could have told us about the nature of this regime, if only we had asked.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
Netanyahu's Clever Strategy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Amitai Etzioni:
Netanyahu succeeded overnight in taking back a very major concession that previous Israeli governments had made and turning it into a significant bargaining chip. For years - surely ever since Ehud Barak made his famous magnanimous peace offer - Israeli support for a two-state solution was more or less taken for granted. In a surprisingly short period, Netanyahu has put Israel into a position in which if it agrees to two states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will be able to say that they and Obama have wrested a major concession from Israel's "right-wing government."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
The Sewers of the Internet
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Goldblog reader Jeff Bergman writes, in reference to Michael Gerson's excellent column:
Here's a question -- has any good ever come out of the comments section of a major on-line content provider? You don't provide a blackboard for every hater out there at the bottom of your blog -- why does the Washington Post think that it's a good idea? Why not make these guys at least get their own damn blogs?
The thinking is that comments sections engage existing readers, and bring in new readers, especially the ones with big mouths. But I've only rarely read something in a comments section that was worthwhile. In my own case, I get enough anti-Semitism through e-mail; I'm not such a masochist that I would want to make myself even more available to douchebag Jew-haters.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
Hannukah Parties at von Brunn's House
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A great letter in today's Washington Post:
James W. von Brunn -- racist, domestic terrorist and anti-Semite -- never knew that when he and his then-wife sold their Lebanon, N.H., home in 1982, they sold it to a Jewish family.
The von Brunns had moved to Maryland before we looked at the house, and he was incarcerated when we bought it, imprisoned for attempting to hold hostage members of the Federal Reserve Board. When we moved in, we realized we'd bought it from an anti-Semite survivalist because he'd left behind several boxes of anti-Jewish books. We immediately added them to the trash.
Anyway, James W. von Brunn, we want you to know we took great pleasure in living there despite the hate-filled man who occupied it before we did. We celebrated Passover Seders, exchanged Hanukkah gifts and raised two wonderful Jewish children there.
GAIL CHADWICK
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
"Who Cares Who Wins the Iranian Election?"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Rosner raises an interesting question:
It is also easy to forget that what makes Iran dangerous is not merely its pursuit of nuclear weapons but, rather, its campaign for regional hegemony, which is emboldened by nuclear development. In his Cairo speech, President Barack Obama reaffirmed "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." But until that goal is reached, there are big differences among the various nations armed with nukes. What makes Iran different is the goal that country is pursuing, not the means it is using. This is why Iran--and not France or India--turned out to be what experts call "one of the most critical national security challenges facing the United States."
In my conversations with leaders of moderate Arab states, it became clear to me that many of them want Ahmadinejad to stay president: His rhetoric helps makes their case that Iran is a danger to them. They don't expect Iran to change under new, more "moderate" leadership, because national security and foreign policy are not in the hands of the president, in any case.
Me, I'm slightly more hopeful than that: Maybe something extraordinary is brewing, and maybe the ayatollahs are learning that they are truly out of step with many of their people. One can hope.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
Wise Words About Memory
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Erica Brown:
"We cannot simply feel a moment of sadness and move on, as if this is yet another example of what happens when guns get into the wrong hands."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
What Judith Warner Left Out
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reading Judith Warner's column this morning on the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column. This is true for other columnists on the liberal side of the spectrum. The murder of Private William Long seems to be of no concern, and without larger meaning.
Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, great thinkers like Glenn Beck are blaming the attack on Holocaust Museum on -- well, it's hard to figure out what he's talking about, but it is safe to say that he's not blaming white America. And bloggers like Debbie Schlussel are blaming Islam for the Holocaust Museum attack. Go figure.
The attacks in Arkansas and Washington are both manifestations of a radical type of intolerance, and they are linked in very deep ways. The left, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge Muslim intolerance, and the right, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge white, Christian intolerance. But they both exist, and they should both be acknowledged.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
Holocaust Museum Denial
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Aspen Ideas Festival is coming up soon, and all of us here at the Atlantic have to bring an idea. Usually mine are of the "put-the-mayo-in-the-tuna-can" variety, but here's a better idea: Holocaust Museum Denial. We should try to convince anti-Semites that the Holocaust Museum itself doesn't exist, that the alleged presence of the alleged Holocaust Museum on the National Mall is actually just another aspect of pernicious Zionist propaganda. If the nutjobs don't believe it's there -- and they're gullible enough to believe that, since they already believe that the Holocaust itself never happened -- then they won't attack it.
Like I said, just an idea.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 12, 2009 (3 days ago)
Thankful for the Existence of the Holocaust Museum
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Deborah Lipstadt, who was in the Holocaust Museum, teaching a class about the evil known as Holocaust denial, when the shooting occurred:
We who were here have so much to be thankful for:
For Officer Johns who gave his life defending this museum.
For the guards who did precisely what they are trained to do and did it so very well.
For the fact that this man's hate resulted in the death of "only" one man and not of scores more.
Above all, we have to be thankful for the existence of this place. It is a place that stands to teach about the consequences of hatred and prejudice. This week it taught that lesson in the most horrifying of ways.
Today the building will be full again. There will be staff members and, we hope, people who have decided not to let the haters win.
They know that the only way to defeat those who spread evil is by not letting them stop us. Who ever thought that there would be a time when coming to a museum which teaches about hatred, prejudice and anti-Semitism would itself be an act of defiance?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
Rev. Wright Clarifies
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He meant "Zionists," not "Jews," he sez. In other words, he regrets speaking plainly instead of deploying a euphemism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
Same Hatred, Different Idiots
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shaun Raviv pointed me to 50 Cent's website, which features Max Blumenthal's video of drunk young fools in Jerusalem, and the comments section is rife with craziness and hate and also inadvertent humor and the occasional pungent piece of analysis. As a service to Goldblog readers, I've culled some of the most interesting comments:
We should stand back and let the Arabs have their way with them. See what they think then. I'm laughing at the tool who said "White power! Fuck the Niggers!" @ 0:55. Neo-Nazi's would stomp his semitic ass into Gefilte fish!! He's a retard!!
Note the proper spelling of "gefilte."
nobody like jews , not even eric cartman
Might be true, actually.
Jews have always felt like they are a superior race - they don't give a shit about Americans or anyone else in the world. It's crazy that they are repeating the same racism they felt in WW2 against the Palenstenians. I don't know what Israel has done for America as a so-called ally except make all the Muslims in the world our enemy. I am so proud and confident of Obama - if anyone can make this right he can.
Listen people and listen good these people are ignorant there drunk and their statements mean nothing. By the way don't believe in the hype that America is going to help the world. When in fact America is the one that needs help WAKE UP!!!!!!!!. And plus this is a very important fact their not the real Jews that the bible speaks of we are the minorities Blacks, latinos,mexicans. People of color. Their the synagoue of satan look it up!!!! DON'T BE FOOLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"FUCK THIS STINKING HOMO YA MOTHER FUCKERS WE FIGTHING YOUR WAR CAUSE YA PAIS U.S.A FOR PROTECTION RACIST COWARD WHY YA DONT SAID ALL DAT SHIT HERE IN N.Y. BECAUSE OF YA JEW HOMOS IS DAT DA WORLD IS FUCK UP BUNCH OF CHICK WITH DICKS,, FUCK ALL OF YA, 4 BEING RACIST AND COWARDS..BITCHES HOLD YOUR OWN YA SCARED FROM MUSLIMS,,AND IN U.S.A. YA PAID 4 PROTECTION FUCK YOUR MOMS=GIRL=SISTERS"]"
"Man, That Whole Nation Needs Therapy And Counseling"
Yes, well, maybe.
"THESE KINDA VIDEOS SUCK AND SHOULDNT BE PUT UP, CUZ THIS IS HOW WAR STARTS! OR ATLEAST HATE A RACE ISSUES!"
I don't disagree with that.
"Wow... I guess I really have been onto something...
Lyrics from one of the songs im working on:
Fuck an AIPAC, Israel got the states jacked/
probably label me a terrorist because I say that/
September 11th?, oh yea, you know they staged that/
with the CIA, same place Bin Laden's payed at."
I don't picture this selling big, but you never know.
"Obama and the united states are keeping you jewish fucks from getting fucked up by islamic radicals."
This last one might be from Rahm Emanuel. Finally, there's this piece of universal wisdom:
all i gotta say is...i want pussy!! lmao
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
The Nazi of Mensa
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Darryl Fears and Marc Fisher have written the best portrait so far of the Holocaust Museum shooter:
Von Brunn, who lives in Annapolis, was known for decades to fellow white supremacists who read his elaborate conspiracy theories on his Web site and met him through a network of radical racist groups. He was smart enough to join Mensa, but even admirers considered him a loner, a hothead and a man consumed with hatred.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
Guns and Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I've never had that much respect for the Wackenhut security company before. I've seen it operate in several countries, and it is not staffed, generally speaking, by the most enthusiastic, go-getter types. But Wackenhut certainly performed well yesterday, at a tragic cost. The guards responded to Von Brunn just as they should have, and shot him immediately without hurting a single bystander. If the guards had not been armed, the Holocaust Museum would have been the scene of a massacre.
I think the Jewish community should take this as a lesson, in particular those institutions that are only "protected" by unarmed guards. You can't fight a rifle or a shotgun with a stick, or a whistle, or good intentions. Only armed guards are at all capable of stopping an attack. American Jews -- and this is broad generalization here -- are queasy around weapons. This queasiness is rooted in our urban and suburban existence. But one of the lessons of the Holocaust to me -- I said this in my book, Prisoners, to some criticism -- is that it is more difficult to kill an armed Jew than an unarmed Jew. I'd rather see Jews guard Jewish institutions than non- Jews, because it's our responsibility to defend ourselves (that's my vestigial labor Zionist ideology speaking), but if JCCs and synagogues and Jewish museums don't want to pay extra for Israeli guards, than at least they should hire well-trained and armed protection. Wackenhut would do quite nicely, it seems.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
Obama Forgot One Middle Eastern Injustice
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andre Aciman:
The president never said a word about me. Or, for that matter, about any of the other 800,000 or so Jews born in the Middle East who fled the Arab and Muslim world or who were summarily expelled for being Jewish in the 20th century. With all his references to the history of Islam and to its (questionable) "proud tradition of tolerance" of other faiths, Mr. Obama never said anything about those Jews whose ancestors had been living in Arab lands long before the advent of Islam but were its first victims once rampant nationalism swept over the Arab world.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 11, 2009 (4 days ago)
Nazis Had Threatened the Museum Before
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Zachary Goelman reports from the front-lines of white supremacy.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Stupidest Thing Said So Far About Von Brunn
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Via Andrew comes this stunning statement from Debbie Schlussel:
"Make no mistake. Muslims created this atmosphere where hatred of the Jews is okay and must be "tolerated" as a legitimate point of view. The shooting today is just yet another manifestation emanating from that viewpoint-another manifestation of the welcome mat that Muslims rolled out for fellow anti-Semites of all stripes to no longer be afraid to come out of the closet."
Maybe this was meant to be a parody, I don't know. I've never read Debbie Schlussel before. But if it's meant seriously, then it's ridiculous. White Christians have done an excellent job being anti-Semitic for several hundred years -- almost a couple of thousand, actually -- without any help whatsoever from Muslims. In fact, it is Muslim Jew-haters who rely on the publications of European and white American anti-Semites -- most notably the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the International Jew -- for inspiration. I hope Schlussel retracts this absurd piece of "analysis." Does she have any idea what this country was like in the 1930s? I don't think Muslims dominated the German Bund.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Hobby Horses Come Riding In
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Today shouldn't be about the gun-control debate or any of the other usual debates. Today should be about two things: Remembering a victim of terrorism, and thinking about what in this world would make someone commit an act of intolerance and violence against a museum built to remind people of the dangers of intolerance and violence. Also, perhaps, the timelessness of the mental illness known as anti-Semitism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Racism "Ate Him Alive"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Von Brunn's ex-wife describes life with the abusive alcoholic.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The White Supremacist Obsession with Lists
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A few days ago I wrote about the endless stream of emails I receive about Tim Geithner's alleged Jewishness, emails that usually contain long, torrid lists of Jewish names. It turns out -- no surprise at all, I guess -- that Von Brunn was also a big lister of Jews.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
A Black Man Dying in Defense of the Holocaust Museum
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi writes:
Perhaps this means nothing but I feel that I should acknowledge that a black man was killed on guard duty at the Holocaust museum. That may mean nothing. But I think it should be said.
No, it means something. More than something, in fact. The great tragedy of the rift between blacks and Jews is that while we waste time arguing with each other, our common enemy -- racialist fascism -- goes unfought. Add Stephen Tyrone Johns to the group that includes Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman. All were victims of the same sick ideology.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Art of James von Brunn
from Jeffrey Goldberg
You can see it here.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Stephen Tyrone Johns
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He worked at the Holocaust Museum for six years, and he died in its defense.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Race and Revisionism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's all of a piece: Here's Mark Weber, the Holocaust revisionist I quoted earlier, on race: "I don't believe it's possible for Black Americans to be assimilated into white society."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Why We Need a Holocaust Museum
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From James Lileks (h/t Instapundit). Read the whole thing. It won't take you long.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Unique Threat Against Jewish Institutions
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Rabbi David Saperstein:
"This represents something else that is perhaps distinct to Jews in America compared to other groups. Other religious targets may be subject to vandalism or even discriminatory acts but there are few other religious institutions that day in and day out must be concerned about acts of terrorism in the form of bombs, gun attacks, etc. On many levels Jews have been and remain the quintessential victims of religious intolerance and hatred in western civilization."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Holocaust Museum Guard Has Died
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to CNN.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Leading Far-Right Holocaust Denier Says: It Ain't Us
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I just called Mark Weber, the director of the Institute for Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial organization in America, to ask him if he knew James Von Brunn, and to find out what he thought of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Weber said that the shooting is a "terrible and stupid and criminal thing, and any reasonable person would condemn it." He said he knew of Von Brunn because "people have sent me things from him, but that's all I know about it."
I asked him if his far-right organization, which sponsors conferences and magazines that deny key aspects of the Holocaust, has created an atmosphere in which white supremacists feel compelled to attack Jewish targets. He got angry and said "every movement and organization has insane people in it. What was this guy's point? I can't even figure that out."
I suggested that one point might be to drive away tourists who hope to learn about the Holocaust but who don't want to endanger their families while doing so. Weber said he was opposed to the creation and maintenance of the Holocaust Museum, because "obviously this museum doesn't exist as an expression of altruistic concern for humanity but as an expression of the enormous power of the Jewish community." But he said he would never countenance violence against it. He did say, however, that it does not depict history accurately; for instance, he said, gas chambers never existed.
You get the idea.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
A Fascinating E-Mail About Holocaust Denial
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Anti-Defamation League found this in its archives:
----- Original Message -----
From: James Von Brunn
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 4:08 AM
Subject: From a Friend in Germany
Time to FLUSH all "Holocaust" Memorials.
jvb
................................................................................
TWO CONVERSATIONS:
Paul:
This morning I visited Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp near Berlin. Its about my 12th visit. Why do I keep returning there? Because I learn something new every time. The first thing I noticed this visit was that the whole camp is a building site, with workmen swarming all over the camp area. The country's economy is going South at full speed but they still seem to have millions to invest in renovating the concentration camps.
The next obvious thing I noticed was, the new design plays down the very significant role of the suffering endured after the war by the thousands of Germans who were imprisoned and murdered by the Soviet occupiers, (who are now known as 'Liberators' because they liberated millions of Germans from most of which they owned or loved ). The German victims are mentioned on signs and documents but in such a way that the uninitiated are led to believe that these people too were victims of Nazi terror and not Soviet victims after the war had ended.
Because of the 'renovation work' being done much of the camp was cordoned off today, but other parts I had previously not been able to get close to, were open. The last time I was in the camp I asked the Museum curator where exactly the camp brothel was situated, at first she pretended that there never was such a building in the camp, but I pressured her into admitting it was 'approx' around the Hospital barracks 'somewhere'.
Today I could get up close to the Hospital barracks, so I started looking into all the windows hoping to discover something new...one hinderance is, many of the windows are actually glazed with milchglas, (milk glass)
However a museum staff member noticed my staring through all the windows, and asked me what I was looking for ? I told her I was looking for the Brothel, she looked at me in surprise and said 'I don't know where the Brothel was, but it might have been in the Underground rooms below us' THIS was news for me, the Area below the two Hospital Barracks had underground rooms?
If you look at this area on the photo below there is no clue that anything like underground rooms exist between the two rows of hospital barracks.
There are no air vents or similar to give clues, and nothing about underground facilities is mentioned in the camp tour broschures.
I started to quiz this lady as to what else was in these underground rooms, she shrugged her shoulders and said ' Mitunter, eine Kegelbahn' (Amongst other things they had a bowling alley) I questioned her whether I had heard her correctly, she said "Ja, aber ich muss weiter" "Yes but I have to go now" , and she went inside the barracks. Hey! A BOWLING ALLEY ??.... I had learnt something new.
Is there anyone receiving this letter that can verify what this woman told me?
Conversation Two:
While I was walking on from this last conversation I was approached by a middle aged couple who spoke no German, and English only with a strong accent I didn't recognise.
He approached me and started asking me questions about where were the 'gas chambers' ? I told him there were no gas chambers in Sachsenhausen, he became agitated and he actually frothed at the mouth, his voice went up an octave, saying I should not lie , his Grandparents had been in Auschwitz and they had told him that gassings occurred in all camps (I then realised I had just met Mr and Mrs Victimnumber from Israel)
Mr and Mrs Victimnumber told me they had just come from Dachau and he had seen the 'gas-chambers there, where the sign says in 5 languages ........QUOTE: 'never used as a Gas chamber'
But, he told me seriously 'THEY ALL LIE' he had been in the Dachau gas chambers and SEEN the shower nozzles in the roof (shower heads are there, the whole place was dandied up by US forces after the war).
There is a law in Germany forbidding people telling the facts, so I chose to shut-up and ask him to tell me what HE thought it was all about. According to him, this is how the Nazis did it, .....
'The Nazis had a gas....it was a solid gas' Solid Gas???? I asked. 'Yes it was like a soapy substance and dey trowd it true roof holes down true the shower heads and the peoples are dying witin a few seconds.
OH I said, is that right ? Yes! he asked me angrily, " VY do you tink dey had shower heads in these rooms ?" "Ah! To take showers with", I answered.
VY VOOD ZEY VANT to shower ? he foamed at me....
I looked at him and said "Don't they have showers in Israel?"
End of conversation two.
I almost expected to get back to the Camp Entrance and find the 'thought-police' waiting for me. Nope it was OK.
What I did notice however was the large library of Holocaust-anti-German-hatenazi- Literature on sale in the Entrance Hall. One could get the feeling that every survivor has written at least three books.
The propaganda is enormous, on the photo only one half of the books being offered can be seen.
Revisionists
are NOT keeping up with this flood.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
"Time to Flush All Holocaust Memorials"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This just received from the Anti-Defamation League, on the shooting suspect:
The suspect, identified as James Wennecke Brunn, is a long time white supremacist and anti-Semite who often uses the name James von Brunn. Born in 1920, Brunn is a veteran of World War II and retired Naval Reserve officer. Brunn worked in advertising and other professions until he retired. He now lives in Maryland and describes himself as an "artist" and "writer;" however, his magnum opus is a self-published anti-Semitic book, Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog ("Kill the Best Gentiles"). He has written many anti-Semitic essays as well. In recent years, he also created an anti-Semitic Web site, which he called "The Holy Western Empire." The museum shooting is not the first time Brunn has exhibited a willingness to use violence with regard to targets he considered connected to Jews.
In 1981, Brunn, then living in New Hampshire, was arrested at the headquarters of the Federal Reserve Board after he tried to use a sawed-off shotgun to take board members hostage. Like many anti-Semites, Brunn believed that Jews control the nation's banking system. He was convicted of attempted armed kidnapping, second-degree burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a pistol without a license and two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon. He was sentenced to four to eleven years in prison in 1983 and served over six. In 2004 Von Brunn posted on Fredrick Toben's Holocaust denial "Adelaide Institute" email group, "Time to FLUSH all "Holocaust" Memorials."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
On the Pervasiveness of Holocaust Denial
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A well-timed column today from Michael Gerson:
In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald.
Obama's intensity and clarity on this issue were unexpected -- and needed. Holocaust denial has long been a staple of Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. But it has grown more pervasive since the 1990s -- not merely due to the manias of Ahmadinejad but in service to a broader strategy.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Von Brunn's Federal Reserve Obsession
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From his crazed website:
Over the years Revisionists have asked me to write about my effort in 1981 to place the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (FED), under legal, non-violent citizens-arrest. The subject resides in my memory like old road-kill. What could have been a slam-bang victory turned into ignoble failure. Recalling all of this presents an onerous task. I am getting near the end of the diving board.
( I've already covered the FED in my Ms. "Kill the Best Gentiles !" which no one would publish. ) However, because there may be lessons in my story for young Americans, I have decided to give it a whirl.
The Constitution states that Congress alone shall issue and control America's currency; Congress may not delegate those functions. Nevertheless a corrupt and ignorant U.S. Congress enacted the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act (1913). Few Congressmen since have dared suggest it is unconstitutional -- fearing for their livelihood and their lives. The word "Federal" is a sham. It has no more relevance than "Federal" Tire Co. The FED is a private corporation whose stock is owned by International Bankers. It is not an agency of the United States Government. It is one of many parasitical Rothschild Central Banks infesting the world stage. Its power ascends over every U.S. citizen from cradle to grave. Every dollar in your wallet is a note issued by the FED. The U.S. Government redeems that note (principal and interest) with your taxes. Through its enormous resources and power the FED controls the machinery of the U.S. Government.
The Rothschild empire was created by infiltrating every level of ALL Western governments. Through manipulation, bribery, slander, assassination, and control of the mass media, JEWS contrived to pit nation against nation, race against race, financing all sides in the resultant wars; then at exorbitant interest rates financing reconstruction of the devastated countries. Rothschild's modus operandi has kept Western Civilization in a continuous state of war and eternally in debt.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
"Hitler's Worst Mistake"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
More thoughts from the man MSNBC is reporting may be the Holocaust Museum shooter:
HITLER'S WORST MISTAKE:
HE DIDN'T GAS THE JEWS.
JAMES VON BRUNN
WWW.HOLYWESTERNEMPIRE.ORG
Remember, the Federal Reserve Act (1913) gave JEWS control of America's MONEY. Followed by control of America's main sources of information .
Early on, during the war-torn 20th Century, the only broadcast networks : ABC, CBS, and NBC -- were JEW owned. Today, JEWS control ALL important sources of information (The major networks, Newspapers, Magazines, Book-publishing, Tin-Pan Alley, Music & Recording Industry, Hollywood, Encyclopedia Britannica, Public schools and Universities, the Catholic Church, etc.).
Bit by bit Liberalism ascended. Bit by bit the Constitution was re-interpreted. Bit by bit government institutions and Congressmen fell into JEW hands -- then U.S. diplomacy, businesses, resources and manpower came under JEW control.
Whitemen sat on their collective asses and did NOTHING - NOTHING BUT TALK. Never before in World history has a Nation so completely been conquered with absolutely NO physical resistance.
Whites LOVE their Enemies.
Today, on the World stage, Whitemen are LAUGHED AT, their women bred by stronger men.
And America ?
America is a Third-World racial garbage-dump -- stupid, ignorant, dead-broke, and terminal.
Prepare to die, Whitey.
jvb-88
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
"Blessed Be the Pro-White Activists"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Stormfront, the racist website, has this posted about James W. von Brunn, the man MSNBC is reporting is the shooter at the Holocaust Museum:
James W. von Brunn holds a BachSci Journalism degree from a mid-Western university where he was president of SAE and played varsity football.
During WWII he served as PT-Boat captain, Lt. USNR, receiving a Commendation and four battle stars. For twenty years he was an advertising executive and film-producer in New York City. He is a member of Mensa, the high-IQ society.
In 1981 von Brunn attempted to place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest. He was tried in a Washington, D.C. Superior Court; convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals denied his appeal. He served 6.5 years in federal prison. He is now an artist and author and lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore."
When I first read his biography, I realized James Von Brunn had taken direct action to deal with the banking cartel that controls and destroys so much of our lives and somehow I had never heard of his heroic deed. How could that be? How could such an amazing deed go unremarked by the journals and books that deal with monetary systems and how we are controlled by them?
After speaking with James, I must conclude many who were in a position to shine light on the situation were afraid to do so.
James Von Brunn endured having his house burned down in retaliation for publishing books that the jews viewed as hostile to their financial interests. James endured jail and personal sorrows as a consequence of his refusal to submit to tyranny.
My nomination for White Racialist Treasure: James Von Brunn.
Please feel free to add your nominations for White Racialist Treasures to this thread. Thank you.
Blessed Be the Pro-White Activists,
Elena
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
An 88-Year-Old White Supremacist?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
That's what MSNBC is saying.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Shooting at the Holocaust Museum
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Nobody knows nothing yet, so no overreaction or underreaction or even ordinary reaction here. Let's wait and see who it was who did this first.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
Rev. Wright on "Them Jews"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I suppose what them Jews should do is ignore Rev. Wright. But I can't help myself:
Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said:
"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 10, 2009 (5 days ago)
The Oeuvre of Max Blumenthal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A couple of dozen Goldblog readers have asked me to condemn Max Blumenthal for his video of young drunk Jews saying terrible things about Barack Obama. I can't quite bring myself to issue such a condemnation. Yes, I've studied young Blumenthal's videos, and yes, he wields his camera as a weapon against Jews he doesn't like, but here's the thing: He didn't force these young adults (not "kids," as a couple of letter-writers would have it) in Jerusalem to say the things they said. They did that all by themselves. Several e-mailers complained that the subjects of Blumenthal's film were drunk, and therefore not accountable for the ugliness that came out of their mouths.
Sorry, no dice. No one I know believes that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic only when drunk. The fools in Jerusalem had these thoughts in their heads; alcohol cannot plant ideas that aren't there. And yes, they are not represenative of anything much, and yes, Blumenthal would be a journalist, rather than a propagandist, if he had noted that American Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers. I understand all the arguments, and I of course understand the argument, as I'm sure Blumenthal does too, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is expressed by religious leaders while sober.
It is true: Max Blumenthal gets famous by highlighting the behavior of idiotic Jews. It's not a profession I would choose, but it's hard to blame him for the racism of other people.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 9, 2009 (6 days ago)
The Taliban's War on Hotels
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Terrible news out of Peshawar -- the Pearl Continental has been attacked by the Taliban. As of this writing, eleven people are dead, including two foreigners. The Pearl in Peshawar was really a lovely hotel, with an excellent Chinese buffet and quiet spaces in a tumultuous city. It was civilized, which is why the Taliban hates it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 9, 2009 (6 days ago)
Announcing the Arrival of Tablet Magazine
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Nextbook's new on-line magazine, Tablet, is now up and running. It is edited by Alana Newhouse, who is very smart, and it has all sorts of very smart writers contributing to it, and looks to be all around very smart, and a great alternative to the general mediocrity of Jewish publications, print and on-line. I haven't yet combed through it, but will later, but in the meantime, you should. By the way, I'm supposed to contribute to it as well. I don't know if that's an advertisement for or against, but there you go.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 9, 2009 (6 days ago)
Now Obama is Hitler?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
If I'm not mistaken, that's what Frank Gaffney is kinda, sorta saying:
After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
I swear by Allah this is crazy.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 9, 2009 (6 days ago)
Clawson: Khamenei "Worried" About Future of His Regime
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of the smartest people I know on questions relating to Iran is Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I asked him four questions about the just-past Lebanese election, and the upcoming Iranian election, and the possibility of renewed war between Iran's proxies and Israel. Here is our exchange:
Jeffrey Goldberg: When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, does it matter who the country's president is, or is the nuclear program in other hands?
Patrick Clawson: Iran's Leader -- or as he insists on being called, "Supreme Leader" -- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the one who has both the constitutional authority and the power in practice to call the shots on foreign and security policy. Iran's presidents are more cheerleader-in-chief than commander-in-chief (Khamenei controls the armed forces, among his many other powers). The nuclear issue is firmly in his hands. That said, the choice of president is important. Not because the president has much authority on the issues we care most about, but because the choice says much about the Leader's intentions. When the Leader is confident that the Islamic Republic can ignore the West, he sanctions the elections of a hardliner like Mahmood Ahmadinejad. When the Leader is persuaded that Iran has to sound more conciliatory - to blow smoke in our eyes instead of spitting in them - he allows a reformer" to win.
JG: Will Hezbollah's semi-defeat in the Lebanese election make it more conciliatory, or will it send it back to its jihadist roots?
PC: Unhappy that it and its allies lost the recent Lebanese elections, Hezbollah may well take up arms to insist that it retains its powerful role in Lebanon's government - a good example of how the principal victims of Iran's proxies are Arabs rather than Israelis. Even before the election, Hezbollah was claiming that no matter what the election results, Hezbollah was still entitled to enough cabinet seats - a "blocking third" - to prevent the cabinet from taking positions of which it disapproved. Hezbollah had sent its militia to occupy all of Beirut, including the Christian-majority East Beirut, to demand this "blocking third." While the reform March 14 movement agreed to this under duress, that agreement - the Doha Accords, negotiated by the Qatari government - was to expire with this last election, but Hezbollah insists the Doha Accords formula will remain valid. So the friends of Lebanon are likely to soon to confront the question: if Hezbollah picks up arms to reverse the election results, what can the West and moderate Arab states do to shore up Lebanon's democratic forces?
JG: When do you expect the next eruption in violence between Iran's proxies and Israel?
PC: Just as Hezbollah is more of a threat to Lebanese democracy than it is to Israel, Hamas in Gaza has killed more Fatah supporters than Israelis. Similarly, the various insurgent and militia groups that Iran helps in Iraq kill many more Iraqis than Americans.
Iran's proxies have not done well fighting Israel. Hamas' standing in Gaza has not been helped by its poor showing in last winter's fighting against Israel nor from the continuing suffering since then. And for all its bravado during the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah is no more popular in Lebanon today than it was before that war. It is seen by many Lebanese as a tool of Iran, one reason it and its allies did poorly in the recent elections. So, with any luck, Iran's proxies will exercise considerable caution before they take on Israel again.
JG: There are clearly large numbers of people in Iran, the urban elites and the young most particularly, who seem unhappy with their government's priorities. Do you think we could be on the cusp of something new and different, and, from the Western perspective, better?
PC: The majority of Iranians are profoundly unhappy with the government of the Islamic Republic, but that does not necessarily mean that change is imminent. What keeps the regime in power is its support from a dedicated minority of true believers, which is at least ten percent if not twenty percent of the population. The regime can count on its fanatical backers to use force - deadly force, if need be - to stop protests and keep the public in check. Those unhappy with the current system have overwhelmingly dropped out of politics, convinced that real change is not possible.
But Iran's Supreme Leader is worried about the vulnerability of the regime. The main focus of his public speeches is about the danger of "soft overthrow" from "Western cultural invasion." Khamenei warns that the West is plotting a "velvet revolution" like that which overthrew the Czechoslovak communist government in a mere one week's time. He is so terrified that the Islamic Republic could be quickly swept away that he has the security forces lock up journalists (like NPR reporter Roxanne Saberi), civil society activists promoting people-to-people exchanges (like the Wilson Center's Haleh Esfandiari), and physicians active in scientific exchange. Presumably Khamenei knows something about his own country, and he worries that the regime is vulnerable. Let us hope he is correct.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 3:12 PM
The Dangers of Fundamentalism, Part 94
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the Kansas City Star:
Abortion_Shooting_Tiller.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 2:38 PM
Is Obama God?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pete Wehner has a simultaneously amusing and disturbing post up about a strange exchange between Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews on Matthews' show last Friday:
"Thomas, commenting on Obama's Cairo speech, said, 'I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God.' And when Thomas was asked by Matthews, "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied, "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years."
On the matter of whether Obama is "sort of God," I would only say that this kind of thinking is one reason it's useful to believe in the One God, as a way of checking human hubris. On the other question, of whether Thomas was correct in saying that "we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way," Nexis tells a slightly different story about whether Thomas himself felt "that way" in the mid-1980s. Then with Time Magazine, he wrote the following in January, 1985:
"Viewed broadly, Reagan's agenda seems hamstrung by internal contradictions. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how he can spend more for defense, refuse to raise taxes or cut Social Security, and still chop the annual deficit in half. He almost certainly cannot expect the Soviets to reduce their arsenal of heavy land-based missiles while the U.S. plunges ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Reagan seems so dreamily unconcerned with these realities that even some of his own backers fear he may lose control of future policy struggles. Incredibly, only two months after Reagan won back the White House by a landslide, and before he had even been sworn in for a second term, many in Washington regard him as little more than a lame duck...."
Then there's this story, from October, 1984, concerning reports that Reagan's CIA was secretly teaching the contras how to torture their enemies:
"The 89-page booklet entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare is a primer on insurgency, a how-to book in the struggle for hearts and minds. Some of the "techniques of persuasion" are benign: helping the peasants harvest crops, learn to read, improve hygiene. Others are decidedly brutal: assassination, kidnapping, blackmail, mob violence. It could be a manual for the Viet Cong or the Cuban-backed rebels in El Salvador. If it were, the Administration would likely be waving it as proof of its thesis about the sources of insidious world terrorism. In fact, however, it is a publication of the CIA, written for Nicaraguan contras seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime. Its disclosure last week came as a political embarrassment to the Administration and a major moral one for the U.S. It stirred memories of CIA abuses that were supposedly outlawed a decade ago and gave Democrats a potentially hot new campaign issue."
And this, from September, 1985, about negotiations with the Soviets:
"The Administration's hold-fast position may be a sound negotiating tactic, but it gives the Soviets an edge in the war of words. The rhetoric level will increase this week as both Shevardnadze and Shultz give major speeches to the U.N. General Assembly at the opening of its 40th session. The Soviets continue to build up the summit as a "window of opportunity" for a major breakthrough in arms control that may not arise again "for a very, very long time." The U.S. just as resolutely tries to play down such talk as "wishful thinking." At his press conference, Reagan said the summit should be viewed as "a beginning point for better relations, a starting point for progress." A critical question is how public opinion will respond in Western Europe. If the U.S. is ultimately viewed as an obstacle to nuclear sanity, the result could be disarray in the alliance and strong pressure to make concessions. The Administration is trying to keep the Allies in line by dangling lucrative defense contracts for SDI research. Last week the U.S. appeared to be close to signing agreements with the British and West Germans to clear the way for such research."
Memories grow hazy, of course, but it's worth noting that most of the mainstream press in the 1980s thought that Reagan was a dimwit and a lunatic, and that the Soviet Union was immortal.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 11:36 AM
Charles Taylor, Jew for Jesus
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Goldblog reader Mike Schilling writes, in reference to the Liberian warlord Charles Taylor's apparent embrace of Judaism:
If you read the Foreign Policy article to the end, it's OK:
"Q. Does that mean he has rejected Christianity then? Because that's quite a radical departure.
A. No, no, no he hasn't rejected Christianity. He has always been a Christian. He just decided to become a Jew. He wants to follow the two religions."
So he's actually a Jew for Jesus. They can have him.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 11:13 AM
I Agree With Roger Cohen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
On the subject of Philip Roth. Cohen writes:
But don't get me started on the academy, whose prejudice against the United States and failure to recognize Philip Roth is beyond scandalous. "American Pastoral" alone merits the Nobel several times over. A further prize, for proving the creative fecundity of late life, should be accorded Roth.
His anger is entirely justifiable -- I mean, Pearl Buck gets a Nobel, and not Roth? The whole thing is nuts. On another level, I'm not sure Cohen is reading deeply the later Roth. The young Roth treated his Judaism as comedy; the older Roth has explored, seriously and at length, the marginal nature of Jewish existence. Not something that seems to preoccupy Cohen.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 8:24 AM
Semi-Good News from Lebanon
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Hezbollah made no electoral advances yesterday, which is positive news (unless you happen to be Hezbollah's Jewish supporter), but Avi Issacharoff notes that not much, in fact, will change:
For the duration of their next term in power, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's cabinet and majority leader Saad Hariri's coalition will be dependent on Hezbollah's goodwill. With last summer's violent showdown, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made absolutely clear who is in charge.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 8, 2009 8:24 AM
Tim Geithner, Not a Jew
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Goldblog inbox is regularly visited by correspondents eager to make the case that the world economy is controlled by the Jews. Most of them make the case, at best, in semi-literate fashion (when anti-Semites write properly, or even use spell-check, I'm going to start worrying), and a surprising number of them make their arguments through the use of lists, which is to say, they provide me lists of prominent Jews as proof that.... there are a lot of prominent Jews. Where it gets highly amusing is when these lists contain the names of people who are quite obviously not Jewish. These days, the lists are dominated by one name: Tim Geithner. I've received dozens of e-mails claiming that Geithner is Jewish, and in the sway of nefarious Wall Street Talmudists. Here is an excerpt from one such letter:
"The jew Summers and the jew Geitner are giving our goverment to the Isrealis locks stocks and barrels. This is the plan from the beginning with the jew bernanke and obama who is suported by the jew emanel. obama gets all his money from jews and they are using the american tax money to push the arab out of palestine forever."
I always thought it was "lox, stock and barrel," but never mind that. Here's another: "Geithner is the zionist who is controlling the taxes and is under the complet control fo the mossad the zionist murder agency. this zionist is only one. the zionists are everywhere in the government of america."
It is true that Larry Summer and Ben Shalom Bernanke (anti-Semitic letter writers are always sure to mention his actual middle name, which is a beautiful middle name) and I suppose the Jewishness of Summer and Bernanke alone is enough to send anti-Semitic fevers spiking. But I'm sorry to report that Timothy Franz Geithner is extremely not Jewish. This is not to say that some of his best friends aren't Jewish, but the man quite obviously doesn't show up on my Jewdar for any number of reasons, including that crucial "Franz." In fact, Geithner is, as best as anyone can tell, a member of the United Church of Christ.
Personally, I'd be happy to claim Geithner for the tribe (I'm happy to claim nearly everyone, except Charles Taylor), but I think the secretary is quite permanently seated on the Christian side of the aisle. In other words, please stop writing, anti-Semites e-mailers. Or at least come up with someone new.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 2:01 PM
The Party of the First Part
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's Friday: No Buchenwald commentary today, just the Marx Brothers:
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 1:18 PM
The End of Jury Duty
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The truth is, I'd like to be picked for a good trial, like a cocaine distribution ring, or Scooter Libby. But the only trials I've ever been on have been real sleep-inducers. So I'm glad I was ultimately rejected. Rachael Brown was rejected as well. But that's because she's a hooligan.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 10:31 AM
Is Obama Trying To Overthrow Bibi?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It seems to me that Obama is trying to force the collapse of Netanyahu's government. I base this mostly on intuition. Of course, the Obama Administration would never claim to be interfering in the internal politics of another country, but it seems obvious that Netanyahu's narrow coalition won't survive sustained American pressure on the settlements question. Netanyahu is in a terrible spot: He must preserve, at all costs, Israel's strategic relationship with Washington; on the other hand, he has right-wing coalition partners who are myopically obsessed with the status of the Neve Manyak outposts. Something is bound to break, and when it does, the Netanyahu government collapses. Which doesn't mean that Netanyahu is out of power. It means that he then shares power with Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima Party. If I were an American policymaker, that's the Israeli coalition I would hope for: Netanyahu-Barak-Livni, rather than Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman. You watch: It's coming.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 10:31 AM
Drunk Jews Spouting Racist Nonsense
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Max Blumenthal goes to downtown Jerusalem and prompts drunk American Jewish kids to say horrible things about Obama. On the one hand, Blumenthal is an exploiter who doesn't seem to like Israel very much; on the other hand, the things these pathetic kids say are repulsive and the yeshivas that sent them to Israel are due for a serious soul-search this Yom Kippur. Their children are an embarrassment to Judaism:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 8:16 AM
Wolpe: Obama Misunderstands Jewish Aspirations
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Wolpe on the big speech:
The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied." That is not true, and unfortunate to say. The aspiration is rooted in deep, enduring roots in the Land of Israel, which the Islamic world has lately taken to denying. Claims that the Temple never really stood in Israel, or that the Jewish connection to the land is a later fabrication, are also malevolent and ignorant denials of history. Jews do not claim Israel because we were slaughtered; that merely proved the necessity of a refuge. We claim Israel because it is our ancient homeland. That the world proved incapable of living in peace for centuries proved not our entitlement, but its urgency of fulfillment. And he might have mentioned that much suffering was a product of the Islamic world; while many historians argue that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity (an argument I believe has a great deal of merit) nonetheless the catalogue of Jewish suffering under Islam is considerable and should have been noted.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 8:16 AM
Obama is Livni
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Daniel Gordis says that the real news out of Obama's speech is that he is, fundamentally, Tzipi Livni:
"President Obama assumed positions virtually identical to those of Israel's political center -- namely, that the Palestinians must renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, while Israel must cease settlement building and permit a Palestinian state to arise. Now, Benjamin Netanyahu's problem is that it's difficult to distinguish between President Obama and Tzipi Livni. And in Israel's recent elections, Livni and her Kadima party won more votes than anyone else."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 5, 2009 8:16 AM
The Israeli Reaction to Obama's Speech
from Jeffrey Goldberg
On the Israeli reaction to the Cairo speech, from Goldblog reader Jared Sagoff:
The whole thing reminds me of the old Jewish joke about the unattended baby on the beach who wanders into the ocean, only to be miraculously saved by an attentive lifeguard. When the mother returns, she looks the lifeguard dead in the eye and says, "well, you know, he had a hat!"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 3:19 PM
The AP Doesn't Exactly Understand the Middle East
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From a dispatch today, entitled, rather stupidly, "Analysis: Obama's Islam success depends on Israel":
"Among the long list of problems that cloud American relations with the Islamic world, none is more troubling in the Muslim streets and halls of power than U.S. ties to Israel and massive support for the Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East."
Umm, no.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 3:19 PM
Unicorn Poop Mystery Solved
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm still not sure I understand the reference.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 3:19 PM
Quote of, Quite Possibly, The Year
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From today's Times:
Justice Steven G. Breyer was one of several on the court who suggested during oral argument that he was untroubled by the search. Justice Breyer said that when he was that age, boys stripped down to their underwear in the locker room and "people did stick things in my underwear," a comment that produced hearty laughter from Justice Thomas.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 1:32 PM
Meshuggeneh Mike Scheuer Strikes Again
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the National Journal website, which features Scheuer, who recently accused Rahm Emanuel of treason for, you know, being Jewish and liking the Jewish state:
The crux of the problem for the administration is that because the president is in the pocket of the Israel-First lobby of U.S. citizens; has decided against drilling and thereby increased the sway of the oil-rich Arab tyrants over our economy and foreign policy; is increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan enough to provide more casualties and humiliation but not enough to bring victory; and is pursuing the endless failure known as the "peace process" and therefore needs to keep bribing Mubarak to pretend Egypt does not hate Israel, Obama has few things to offer his audience except words unmatched by deeds.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 1:32 PM
Jury Duty Hell
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Hour six: Rachael Brown was picked first -- first, of hundreds of people -- for jury selection, so she left me. I think she was picked because she was putting her feet on the furniture and behaving in that generally rowdy way one associates with Atlantic editors.
Now they're playing us "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." If anyone out there sees this blog post, please rescue me.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 1:32 PM
Am I Projecting?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A Goldblog reader writes:
It was a great speech but you're projecting, as is Andrew Sullivan in quoting your post on his blog.
Unfortunately, the ideas in your phrase "a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland" were conspicuously absent. It would have been a great time to emphasize the Jews (Middle Eastern, European, North African, etc.) have a connection to that land in the Middle East, which goes beyond the history of their persecution in Europe.
Also, it would have been a great moment for Obama to have talked about the dangerous illusion in the Muslim world that a so-called "right of return" must be made literal. He could have dealt with that illusion in his discussion of Muslims privately accepting that Israel will continue to exist.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 8:09 AM
An Absolutely Extraordinary Moment
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 8:01 AM
Promises, Promises (Netanyahu Version)
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Netanyahu folks are upset because Obama isn't keeping promises made by the Bush Administration:
The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into the White House.
But it's worth pointing out that Netanyahu isn't keeping the promises made by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, in particular the promise to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 8:01 AM
"What Was There Not to Agree With?"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Smart words from Ya'acov Lozowick:
The narrative he presented and the vision drawn from it were admirable. It was a fine articulation of an Enlightened goal for humanity. Sadly, it's a rare politician who ever takes the time even to try to make such an encompassing articulation, much less set it up as a beacon to guide the formulation of policy. He deserves credit for trying. His determination to "tell truth" was also admirable: the speech may have been an interpretation of history but it was consistent and honest about its essential components: Fight violent extremists; two states in Israel/Palestine (with a loud rejection of Holocaust denial); no nuclear race which at this point means no nuclear Iran; democracy (tho he could have been more explicit for my taste); equality of women; respect for all religions (though he mentioned only the Abrahamic ones); equal opportunities.
What was there not to agree with?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 7:21 AM
The Atlantic's Getting a Guest-Editor, Too
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Newsweek has hired Stephen Colbert to "guest-edit" its next issue. It's a great idea, so great that I am pleased to announce that the Atlantic is appointing Harriet Beecher Stowe as its first guest-editor. A former editor of this magazine once said that an issue of the Atlantic with Abraham Lincoln on the cover is our version of a swimsuit issue.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 7:21 AM
Jury Duty Update
from Jeffrey Goldberg
9:46 a.m. One hundred and fifty D.C. citizens sitting in a room, doing nothing. "The Perfect Storm" is now showing. Rachael just got yelled at by a Superior Court apparatchik for putting her foot on a chair. Rachel is an outlaw like that. "These are new chairs, we're trying to keep them nice," the apparatchik said. They're not so nice, actually.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 6:43 AM
Maybe the Best E-mail Ever
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From a Goldblog reader:
Jeffery,
I read your Atlantic Voices column nearly every day.
I listened to Obama's speech here in Costa Rica as you did, I guess in New York. I listened to your "Fox News" comments. I denounce your unicorn/poop evaluation of Obama's speech. Your words make you sound like a cynical, bitter Republican white-guy victim. Probably your words resonate with a certain Fox demographic. They deserve better than your cynical words.
Two issues: One, my name is "Jeffrey", not "Jeffery", and two, I wasn't on Fox News this morning, or ever. But I'm very curious to figure out who was, and what the hell a "unicorn/poop evaluation" is.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 6:43 AM
Obama: Friend of Israel, Part II
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm on jury duty right now (and so is another Atlantic staffer, Rachael Brown, which means that about twelve percent of the entire Atlantic staff is in room 3130 of the Carl Moultrie D.C. Superior Court Building) and for whatever reason, the televisions in the juror holding pen, a/k/a the Huis Clos room, are showing an antique video about the career of Pete Rose, rather than the news, plus my connection to the Intertubes is slow, so I'm at a little bit of a deficit in reference to Obama's speech. From what I've seen, he established his strong belief that Israel should be a Jewish-majority democracy; he argued that the Palestinian use of violence has been counterproductive and immoral, and he didn't shift away from the traditional American understanding of Hamas; and he argued that the American idea and the Islamic idea can coexist, which is good, because it pisses off Osama Bin-Laden.
One worry grows from what he didn't say in this passage:
"It is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation... America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
What he didn't say was that many Palestinian problems are self-created; that so much unhappiness could have been avoided if Arabs had accepted the right of Jews to return to their ancestral home. But it is also undeniably true that the Palestinians deserve the dignity of their own state, and that state, by the way, is a key to Israel's salvation. More later, once I watch a recap of the 1975 World Series, which was one of the greatest ever and a lot more uplifting than the Middle East.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 4, 2009 6:43 AM
Obama: Friend of Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dear Settlers,
Enough already.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 3, 2009 8:33 AM
Stoked for Armageddon
from Jeffrey Goldberg
National Geographic this month publishes a caricature of a piece about Christians in the Holy Land. The writer, Don Belt, seems to think that it is Jews who are driving Christians out of Israel. I'll come back to that nonsense later, but for now, read this, from the lede, about Jerusalem's Old City at Easter, which he describes as "livid and chaotic," whatever that means:
Every face on Earth seems to float through the streets during Easter, every possible combination of eye and hair and skin color, every costume and style of dress, from blue-black African Christians in eye-popping dashikis to pale Finnish Christians dressed as Jesus with a bloody crown of thorns to American Christians in sneakers and "I [heart] Israel" caps, clearly stoked for the battle of Armageddon.
Clearly stoked for the battle of Armageddon? How does he know this? Mr. Belt's prejudices show through a little bit too obviously, no? Not all American Christians who love Israel love it because they dream of Armageddon. But to Mr. Belt, any Christian who expresses support for Israel is "clearly stoked" for the apocalypse. National Geographic is carefully-edited; how does a sentence like this one get through?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 10:54 AM
This is What Happens When Blacks and Jews Get Together
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm very much for staying Jewish, but that doesn't mean you can't also be black. Just ask this rabbi, or this rabbi. In reference to a recent conversation with Ta-Nehisi, see for yourselves what happens when blacks and Jews really get together:
okonedo.jpgSophie Okonedo
harper.jpgBen Harper
kravitz.jpgLenny Kravitz
rudolph.jpgMaya Rudolph
redman.jpgJoshua Redman
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 10:54 AM
Brooks, Emanuel in Secret Hava Nagila Cabal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A correction to an earlier post: According to David Brooks, it was David Brooks who handed the Secret Service agent the "Hava Nagila" sign, who then handed it to Bruce Springsteen, who then played Hava Nagila, proving that America is indeed the Promised Land. Rahm Emanuel actually handed it to Brooks, who was seated in front of Emanuel, which is as it should be, vis-a-vis journalistic privilege.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 10:54 AM
The Case Against Gay Marriage, Schulman Style
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This Sam Schulman, who believes that Hezbollah and Merrill Lynch are the same thing, is quite the tool. I'm sorry I missed Ta-Nehisi smacking him down.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 9:13 AM
Obama Said it All Before
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So let's stop acting surprised when he calls for a settlement freeze. This is from my interview with him a year ago on this very subject:
"I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 6:38 AM
A Conspiracy of Euphemism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The eight a.m. NPR news update today included word of the fatal shooting of one soldier and the wounding of another outside an army recruiting station in Arkansas. The news reader, Nora Raum, outlined the incident and stated that the shooting appeared to have "religious motivations." She did not name the suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, or tell NPR listeners what those religious motivations might be. In other words, it could have been a radical Unitarian who gunned down the soldiers, or possibly a violent Presbyterian.
Why the shyness? Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 2, 2009 6:38 AM
Hezbollah = Smart Money Magazine
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Now comes The Wall Street Journal with an opinion article that is one of the most inane and illogical quite possibly ever published. In this piece, I am accused of being a "soft-bitten" journalist, for sharing, in a sort of limited way, some of my financial woes and worries in this Atlantic cover story. The writer of the article, a person named Sam Schulman, has a theory, that journalists were once "worldly-wise, tough-minded and cynical." He writes:
"Having seen it all, they knew the phonies and the angles they played. They could turn on the idealism for a family audience until deadline -- and then turn it off when they put on their fedoras or fixed their faces and went off for a few quick ones that would restore their sangfroid for another day. That was then. Today's reporters are unreluctant confessors of how they've been conned."
Schulman begins by attacking Edmund Andrews, the New York Times reporter who wrote recently about his own personal debt crisis. Then Schulman writes:
"An even more curious case is that of Jeffrey Goldberg, a far more distinguished journalist and writer (why, thank you very much) who wrote a long story about his stock-market losses in last month's Atlantic. In "Why I Fired My Broker," Mr. Goldberg happily admits that he believed his portfolio would show double-digit growth forever."
Schulman writes that my "delusions" were very deep:
"Mr. Goldberg seems to have trusted a random financial adviser at Merrill Lynch, believed that ordinary stockbrokers possess privileged information that they share with small-portfolio clients, that the 'brokers and wealth managers and cable-television oracles who make up the financial-services industry' are primarily interested in growing the nest egg of people like Mr. Goldberg and never worry about how they themselves might make a buck."
He then writes:
No doubt many people share such beliefs. But Mr. Goldberg has spent years covering the Middle East. He has lived among terrorists and murderers, seeing the worst of human nature. Yet he also believed that, armed with a subscription to a single financial magazine, he could put together a stock portfolio that would outperform index funds and mutual funds alike."
Yes, this is his argument: Because I have shown myself to be hard-bitten and cynical about the intentions of Hezbollah, I should have also been hard-bitten and cynical about the intentions of Merrill Lynch and Smart Money Magazine. I mean, I suppose it's possible to see his point. Take Hezbollah: It is a radical Shi'ite terrorist group, sponsored by Iran, that conducts suicide bombings and has murdered many dozens of children. It is also responsible for the killing of two hundred and forty-one United States Marines. It seeks to impose radical shari'a rule on Lebanon, and use it as a base to export its radical brand of Islam to the rest of the world. Now, take Smart Money Magazine. It is a monthly service magazine published by law-abiding Americans that provides advice, often erroneous, on how to increase the worth of one's portfolio. It also has a strong service journalism component.
Indistinguishable, right?
Seriously, this is Mr. Schulman's argument, that a person who mistrusts Hezbollah and Hamas should also mistrust Smart Money and Merrill Lynch. Really, not much of an argument on which to hang an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 2:30 PM
On Israel's Obligations
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Tamara Cofman Wittes writes in regarding my last post on narcissistic settlers:
You wrote: "Everyone knows that most settlements would actually become part of Israel in a final peace deal. So these settlements should probably be allowed natural growth. But only if the settlements beyond the security barrier, the settlements in the heart of the Arab West Bank that everyone and his rabbi knows will soon dissapear, are frozen in place, and only if Israel acknowledges that the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine."
The problem with this view is that it contradicts Israel's obligations to negotiate, not unilaterally determine - especially not through the route of the fence - its final border with the Palestinians. This was specifically laid out in the Bush-Sharon letters of 2004.
Sharon's letter to Bush clearly stated Israel's obligation to "limitations on the growth of settlements" and Israel's commitment that "The fence is a security rather than political barrier, temporary rather than permanent, and therefore will not prejudice any final status issues including final borders."
For his part, President Bush made clear that "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties ... In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. "
In other words, the clear bargain between the US and Israel since the Gaza withdrawal and the security fence were settled upon was that the US would endorse the idea of territorial adjustments to the 1967 line, IF Israel would restrict settlement growth and not treat the fence as a de facto border. The issue Obama is raising with Netanyahu is that he is violating these agreements.
There are two options for Israel today in order to keep its commitments to the United States: 1) it could freeze growth in all settlements regardless of their likely disposition under final status; or 2) it could negotiate a final border with the Palestinians now (to be implemented later when all other issues are resolved), enabling the settlement issue to be greatly dissipated by allowing free construction in the settlements that will be incorporated into Israel and beginning the slow and expensive process of encouraging (and finally compelling) Israeli citizens living in other settlements to move into Israeli territory.
For a variety of reasons, I believe that the latter is not a good option either for Israel or for the PA. That leaves us back with a total settlement freeze, as stated by Secretary Clinton.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 11:54 AM
The Unbearable Narcissism of the Settlers
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Yediot, further ridiculousness from settler leaders, who have no sense whatsoever about the actual threats facing Israel, and no sense at all of how they sound to the world, and to their fellow Jews:
The demand to prevent natural growth in settlements is unreasonable and is akin to Pharaoh's demand that all firstborn sons be thrown into the Nile River," said Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz ahead of Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting.
"What will we say to a family living with one child, which now has four or five children? That the children will move to Petah Tikva? The Americans must understand that this is an unreasonable demand, and we must confront them firmly," he added.
Where to begin with this nonsense? With the implicit accusation that Barack Obama is pharaoh (which makes Hillary his vizier, or something)? Since the United States partially underwrites Israel, it has the right to make certain demands; since this demand is something that the majority of Israelis, in any case, understand, it's hard to see this as something akin to slavery. Here's the thing: The settlers are arguing that their human rights would be violated if they were made to move to Israel. That's right. It used to be that a person could fulfill his Zionist destiny in a place like Petah Tikva, but no more: Now, it's a sin against God, apparently, to live anywhere but in a government-subsidized trailer on a barren hill in the mountains of Samaria.
I don't have any problem with the American demand for a settlement freeze; the settlements are an impediment to peace, they are a security burden, and they are petri dishes for the worst sort of fundamentalist messianism (and therefore profoundly anti-Zionist, at least according to the Zionist vision of men like Herzl and Ben-Gurion).
Now, of course, there should be some delineating going on here -- everyone knows that most settlements would actually become part of Israel in a final peace deal. So these settlements should probably be allowed natural growth. But only if the settlements beyond the security barrier, the settlements in the heart of the Arab West Bank that everyone and his rabbi knows will soon dissapear, are frozen in place, and only if Israel acknowledges that the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine.
Israel and its friends in America know that the only hope for a two-state solution come in the form of an empowered and moderate Palestinian Authority. Is there a good chance that the Palestinian Authority isn't, in fact, moderate? Is there a good chance the Palestinian Authority will never be powerful? Yes. But this is the only hope. And one of the the surest ways Israel, and America, could help make the Palestinian Authority more powerful is to freeze settlements now. Israel faces a threat to its existence in the form of the Iranian nuclear program. It doesn't face a threat from the demand that a small number of Israelis eventually leave the West Bank and live in Petah Tikva.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 11:36 AM
Wal-Mart CEO To Receive Cesar Chavez Prize
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Well, no. But something similar is taking place: Syracuse University's journalism school is giving Arianna Huffington, who believes that journalists should work for free, an award. Simon Dumenco has details.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 8:00 AM
"Cruelty Is Important"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One thousand, two hundred and fifty columns later, my poker buddy Marc Fisher is giving up writing, temporarily, I hope, for a grown-up job. He'll be trying to help The Washington Post figure out ways to tell stories so compelling that people will actually pay money to read them. But his column will be missed. In his last column, he writes about his historic encounter with one of the Post's legends:
On the first day I was given this space to play with, the great columnist Mary McGrory summoned me to her office with a note: "Come see me. I have three words for you."
I scurried over and presented myself. Mary looked up from her desk and said, "Three words: Cruelty is important." To do this job right, you must name and blame the bad guys. You must call it as it is. The minute you hold back, your credibility is shot. The second you stop reporting, you're just one more pontificating, pusillanimous pundit." (When my friend and colleague Marjorie Williams launched her column, she, too, received the gift of three words from Mary: "Subtlety is overrated.")
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 7:17 AM
Jack the Rabbit and Weak-Knees Willie
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Can apparently teach the Jewish community something. Seth Cohen learns Jewish lessons from the Boss:
"Mister I ain't a boy, no I'm a man; and I believe in a promised land" (from Promised Land).
Lesson #6: We need to create personal and enduring relationships between individuals Jews and Israel that transcend childhood and teen experiences.
My friend Ken Stein often reminds me that while we must create connections with Israel at the teen level, we must not lose sight that it is when we create meaningful experiences that endure throughout adulthood we will truly be able deepen our relationships with Israel. So while we invest in programs like Birthright, we must also start younger and maintain those experiences far after the Birthright experience has ended. In our era of Jewish life we have witnessed the return of the Jewish People to the Promised Land- we need to continue to believe in its importance, and create avenues that strengthen that belief in youth and adults.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 7:17 AM
The Mysteries of the TSA
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A Goldblog reader writes about a recent encounter with a Transportation Security Administration officer at JFK:
As I passed thorough the metal detector, my carry-on bag was flagged by the TSA and, after a cursory inspection of my turkey sandwich (which was judged to be benign), the TSA officer pulled the culprit item in my toiletry kit: L'Oreal's Studio Line Invisi-Gel. "This gel container's too large. You'll either have to check your bag or I'll keep this." I shot the officer a plea for sympathy: "My Invisi-Gel?" "Don't worry," she added encouragingly,"You can get another one at Rite-Aid."
I thought it over. I'd rather lose the $5 gel tube than pay a $40 bag-check fee. "Enjoy it," I said, concealing my irritation. She replied, quietly, looking away from me: "I will." Do TSA employees get to keep this stuff? Items confiscated due to their potential for hazard wind up in employees' bathrooms?
The official answer is, Of course TSA employees don't get to keep the often-expensive, often-unopened health and beauty products that end up in TSA waste bins. The unofficial answer is, If you were an underpaid federal employee looking at a thrown-away bottle of L'Oreal's Studio Line Invisi-Gel (whatever that is), would you take it if you could?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jun 1, 2009 7:17 AM
Palestinian Ambassador: Two-State Solution Will Destroy Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki, in a TV interview this month, translated by MEMRI:
They talk about a two-state solution, and when that is achieved... Even Ahmadinejad, leader of the rejectionists throughout the region, said he supports a two-state solution. Nobody fools anybody.
With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward.
From another interview recorded last month:
Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 28, 2009 12:33 PM
On Misreading Amalek
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'll respond later to Andrew's long and thought-provoking Amalek post, if I can muster up the will (suffice it to say that one cannot understand the meaning of Amalek, or anything else in the Jewish Bible, without understanding the two-thousand-year-old religion called Rabbinic Judaism, the successor to Biblical Judaism, and the one we practice today) but there's one technical point that needs to be cleared up here, and that is that Netanyahu himself has never, to the best of my knowledge, invoked Amalek in talking about Iran. He's invoked Hitler, of course, but not Amalek. In his column today, Roger Cohen condemns Netanyahu's "attempts to liken Iran to Amalek, the Biblical enemy of the Jews," except that Netanyahu never likened Iran to Amalek. I don't know if this is sloppiness on Cohen's part, or something worse, but in the op-ed I wrote that got this particular meme started, it was one of Netanyahu's advisers who invoked the specter of Amalek, not Netanyahu himself. So far as I know, Netanyahu has never mentioned Amalek. If he has, would someone please let me know?
In any case, this whole debate is a perversion, and not only because genocide is the specialty of other religions, and not Judaism. Iran has called for the elimination of the Jewish state, and seems to be building nuclear weapons that could make that a reality; Israel simply seeks to protect itself from a country that wants to exterminate it. If Israel does strike Iran, it would bomb military targets while trying to minimize civilian casualties. Iran, through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, already has a long and distinguished record of murdering Jewish children. There's simply no equivalence here. Yes, Israel does various idiotic and immoral things. But it isn't, even on its worst day, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 28, 2009 9:31 AM
"Hateful and Disgusting and Profoundly un-Jewish"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A Goldblog reader writes in reference to the anti-democratic legislation now making its way through the Knesset:
"Even after years of watching the Arab-Israeli conflict, with all the ugly behavior it engenders, after "Who Is a Jew," after the corruption scandals, and the sexual harassment by Israeli officials and all of that, this is first time I have read about something going on in Israel to which I have immediately reacted, "I don't want to have any association with a country that does that." I would not be able to say that "Prayer for the State of Israel" in the Shabbat service. I would not want my kids to sing Hatikvah. It would be acquiescence to and association with something hateful and disgusting and profoundly un-Jewish."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 28, 2009 7:18 AM
Israel Edges Toward Thought Control
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I don't like the term "Nakba," or catastrophe, what Arabs have taken to calling the events of 1948, mainly because it didn't have to be a "nakba" -- much of the catastrophe was self-inflicted. The UN, after all, offered half of mandatory Palestine to the Arabs, and the Arabs refused, and launched a war of extermination that they then managed to lose. And wallowing in suffering only gets in the way of achieving real advancements for Palestinians, who have been badly served by their national liberation movement for as long as it has existed. (Yes, of course, wallowing isn't so healthy for Jews, either).
But now comes a group of Knesset members who want to make the term "nakba" illegal, and who want to make the "negation" of Israel as a Jewish democratic state illegal as well. According to Ha'aretz, this second bill would outlaw the publication of any 'call to negate Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, where the content of such publication would have a reasonable possibility of causing an act of hatred, disdain or disloyalty' to Israel."
In other words, anyone who says that Israel isn't a democracy will go to jail. I understand Israeli Jewish fears about the extremism found in certain sections of Arab Israeli society, but is outlawing expressions of dissent the way to battle this extremism? In the countries that border Israel, many thoughts are held to be illegal. But is Syria now the model for Israeli democracy? Gershom Gorenberg asks, "What could possibly be more undemocratic and more utterly, insanely un-Jewish than banning disagreement? What could cause greater disdain for the state?" Might I add, "What could undermine the justness of Israel's cause among Jews and non-Jews than the introduction of fascistic legislation?"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 1:24 PM
Rahm "Hava Nagila" Emanuel Turns Springsteen Jewish
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Further investigation by Goldblog reveals that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel played a key role in prompting Bruce Springsteen to play forty-five seconds of "Hava Nagila" at last week's Verizon Center concert. This news will undoubtedly fuel more conspiracy theories about Jewish domination not only of the White House and Wall Street but of the E Street Band as well (Max Weinberg and Roy Bittan counting, obviously, as the Semitic leading edge).
Goldblog reader Clifford Mendelson, who made the now-famous "Hava Nagila" sign, was seated two rows behind Emanuel (and near David Brooks and Andrea Mitchell and other such luminaries in an apparently all-Jewish section of the Verizon Center), courtesy of Bruce himself, who met Mendelson at the Arizona Biltmore hotel a few weeks back (I'm omitting some of the shaggy-dog qualities of Mendelson's story in order to get to the heart of the matter). In any case, Mendelson, a Springsteen fanatic, knew that Bruce would probably play Stump the Band, and, like many other concert-goers, he decided to bring a sign with him. "Hava Nagila" was chosen in deference to his daughter, a 14-year-old student at the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School in Rockville, Md.
"My daughter didn't want to go because of homework, so I figured she needed a Jewish excuse to go to the concert. I made the 'Hava Nagila' sign - I'm in the mortgage credit market, so there's not a hell of a lot for me to do these days - and we brought it to the concert," he said. "I made it like the Torah, two sticks on each side."
He went on with his tale: "I didn't have the sign up when Bruce came to our side of the stage, but I held it up and Patti (Bruce's wife) sees it, and Roy Bittan sees it - he's Jewish - and he gives me a fist pump. But I've got to get it up to the stage. Bruce then looked our way and saw it and he points at me. Rahm Emanuel turns around and sees it and he loves it and grabs the sign. He hands it to a Secret Service agent who handed it up to Bruce and then they played it."
He continued, "I turned to Rahm Emanuel and I said, `The least I can do for you as a great public servant is buy you a beer,' and he said `I'll take a light beer.' I mean, what a night."
There are those in Israel who say that Rahm is insufficiently zealous in his Jewishness. I think Mendelson's story is an appropriate response to such a charge.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 1:24 PM
Andrew Thinks Roger Cohen Is Friending Me
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Or something like that. I'm not so sure myself.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 11:51 AM
"Netanyahu Doesn't Seek Iran's Destruction"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A (smart) Goldblog reader writes:
"Sorry, Fareed, but I don't see the messianic equivalence here. Let's say Netanyahu does attack Iran, something I doubt, but let's say he does: Is he attacking Iran in order to kill all Iranians, or to wipe out Iranian culture, or to end Iran's existence and replace it with an Arab country, or a Jewish country for that matter? No. He would be attacking a handful of Iranian nuclear sites, and he would be trying, for reasons of self-interest that are quite obvious, to minimize the damage to civilians. Netanyahu doesn't seek Iran's destruction. Iran, however, has made it clear that it doesn't believe there is room on the planet surface for one small Jewish country, even in its ancestral homeland. Its leaders over and over again refer to the Jewish state as a cancer and a tumor, and they pray for its elimination. So where is the equivalence?"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 9:45 AM
"Let's Burn These Books"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Oy.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 7:49 AM
The Difficulties of a Two-State Deal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Smart analysis from Robert Malley and Hussein Agha:
Aspirations reflect historical experience. For Israel's Jewish population, this includes displacement, persecution, the life of the ghetto, and the horrors of the Holocaust; and the long, frustrated quest for a normal, recognized, and accepted homeland. There is a craving for a future that will not echo the past and for the kind of ordinary security--the unquestioned acceptance of a Jewish presence in the region--that even overwhelming military superiority cannot guarantee. There is, too, at least among a significant, active segment of the Israeli population, a deep-seated attachment to the land, all of it, that constitutes Eretz Israel.
For Palestinians, the most primal demands relate to addressing and redressing a historical experience of dispossession, expulsion, dispersal, massacres, occupation, discrimination, denial of dignity, persistent killing off of their leaders, and the relentless fracturing of their national polity.
These Israeli and Palestinian yearnings are of a sort that, no matter how precisely fine-tuned, a two-state deal will find it hard to fulfill. Over the years, the goal gradually has shifted from reaching peace to achieving a two-state agreement. Those aims might sound the same, but they are not: peace may be possible without such an agreement just as such an agreement need not necessarily lead to peace. Partitioning the land can, and most probably will, be an important means of achieving a viable, lasting, peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. But it is not the end.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 7:49 AM
Does Zakaria Misinterpret Iranian Intentions?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm not questioning Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek piece this week because he lifted quotes from my articles without attribution (though this sort of behavior is certainly ungentlemanly), but because some of his interpretations and assumptions strike me as obviously wrong. And I write this -- I feel a need these days to make this point over and over again -- as someone opposed to a military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, because I can't see how such a strike would be in the American national security interest. As I've stated before, I don't think a nuclear-armed Iran is in America's best interest either, but the costs of a strike clearly outweigh the benefits.
In any case, two quick points about Zakaria's piece. First, his misunderstanding of Amalek. He writes, "One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, 'Think Amalek.' The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic."
This is a grossly unfair interpretation of what Netanyahu's adviser meant (and I should know, because he said it to me) and an unfair interpretation of Amalek in Jewish thinking. It is true that the Bible calls for the smiting of Amalek. It is also true that this is a Jewishly inoperable commandment, never carried out, and never to be carried out. Amalek stands for the vicitimizers of Jews. The Nazis represent, in modern history, the archetypal Amalek, a force committed to genocide. But Judaism doesn't allow the extermination of those who seek to exterminate the Jews. Just look at relations today between Germany and Israel. Germany wiped out a third of the Jewish people, and yet the Jews, or their nuclear-armed Jewish state, have sought nothing but constructive relations with Germans. The same, by the way, holds true for Iran. Iran's leaders seek the elimination of the Jewish state; the Jewish state seeks, in the best of all possible worlds, diplomatic relations with Iran. Israeli thinking about Iran is not motivated by blood-curdling thoughts of revenge; it is motivated by justifiable fear.
The second point: Zakaria writes that "over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were 'un-Islamic.' The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral."
When ayatollahs start talking about Islamic morality, I run for the exits. Their ideas about what constitute moral acts are not, generally speaking, ours. Here's one obvious example, from the Iran-Iraq war, courtesy of the German writer Matthias Kuntzel:
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."
These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan - or "mobilization of the oppressed" - was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."
How do I say this as bluntly as possible? A leadership that could murder its own children in such a horrible way is capable of absolutely anything. Including lying about its nuclear intentions.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 7:49 AM
Especially the Jews and the Blacks
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm late on this, but Ta-Nehisi points me to this news about a newly-ordained African-American woman rabbi. V. exciting. I think we're about to enter an age of black-Jewish harmony. I always think that, but more now. We have a black-Jewish White House (Deputy White House Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen is both at once!) And we'll always have Lenny Kravitz. And Joshua Redman.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 27, 2009 7:49 AM
On Understanding Only Palestinian Suffering
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dennis Yedwab writes in reference to the Amalek controversy:
What is interesting to me is that Duss' comment represents something I find fairly common among folks who criticize Israel at the existential level, especially the smart writers (Duss is very smart and while he may not be against the existence of the State of Israel, his writing sure gives no evidence that he supports it). That is, if an argument is misused by right-wing extremist then that entire argument is illegitimate. E.g. The fact that Israeli politicians use apocolyptic scenarios re: Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah to justify failed policies re: the Palestinians means that those arguments are in and of themselves illegitimate.
But the facts are that Hamas has not yet reconciled itself to Israel, that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken of the destruction of the state of Israel, and Hezbollah is in the process taking over the government of Lebanon. Just because extremists misappropriate the argument doesn't mean it isn't real.
Duss' point (and I don't mean to pick on him, but he brought is up) also is a useful catalyst to bring up another point. The rise of the right in Israel has been explained to death but the collapse of the left has not. And I think one of the key things is that commentators like Duss are extremely attuned to the psychological issues involving the Palestinians (the humiliations at checkpoints, loyalty oaths, Nakba Day bannings, the idea of honor and respect for the loss they suffered to be acknowledged) but ignore it among Israelis Jews (that there is always another Amalek out to destroy the Jews - if its not Hitler it's Nasser. If not Nasser than Arafat If not Arafat then its Nasrallah etc). The failure of the political left in Israel and its supportive commentariat throughout the world to acknowledge and deal with that psychology has been critical to its utter evisceration as an force in Israeli politics - and not for the good.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 26, 2009 1:28 PM
McCain on Obama and North Korea
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Sorry to microchunk this McCain interview, but when I talked to him last week, the subject of North Korea came up -- this was before this most recent nuclear test -- and I thought I should post his comments on the subject right away. When I asked McCain to assess the Obama Administration's record so far on Iran and North Korea, he said:
I really believe that reality is going to strike with this (Administration). I don't think you're going to get progress by quote-unquote talking to the Iranians. I don't think you're going to get the progress they think they're going to get with some of these countries, with North Korea.
What has North Korea done since Obama came to office? And we were going to have a new dialogue with them. God Almighty! You know? Two journalists are now in prison. They announced they're reprocessing, proceeding with the fissile material. They were threatening or did shut down that town that the South Koreans funded for them. I mean, I think reality's going to hit the Obama Administration.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 26, 2009 1:28 PM
Touchy Roger Cohen Writes Me a Letter
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Roger "Thin-Skin" Cohen wrote me yesterday in response to my post about his apologia for Vietnam's ruling regime:
Jeffrey,
In light of your deep concern about human rights, not least in Vietnam, a country you clearly know well, I thought you might find these two messages of interest.
Roger
It's undoubtedly true that I don't know as much about Vietnam as I do about, say, Iran, but I also believe that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International aren't completely fabricating their reports about gross violations of human rights by the Communist regime in Hanoi.
By the way, has anyone ever seen a New York Times columnist behave so defensively?
In any case, here are the two messages Cohen forwarded. His sharing them proves that... Roger Cohen takes inordinate pleasure from e-mails that don't excoriate him. I'm looking forward, by the way, to his next column: Misunderstood Myannmar.
Dear Mr. Cohen, I am just writing to say how much I appreciate your articles on Vietnam. I work with a Paris-based Vietnamese organization monitoring human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam (our President, Vo Van Ai is international spokesman of the outlawed Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam led by Thich Quang Do). When I first came to work with Vo Van Ai, the first thing he said was, if you are really oncernhed about helping for human rights in Vietnam, then learn Vietnamese and read books about Vietnamese culture. Then you can truly help. It did, and it was one of the best lessons I've ever learned, because since then, I have begun to appreciate the Vietnamese people in a completely different way. This is why I appreciate your articles, for you are not imposing "white skinned" values and concepts on the Vietnamese people, but you analyse their strengths and their weaknesses, their pride as well as their complexes and fears. So thank you, sincerely, We are in close contact with the Vietnamese dissident movement and especially the Buddhists, and we produce frequent news releases. I would like to send them to you if you could give me your E-mail. In your recent article, I was very interested to hear your comment that a Russian delegation had visited Vietnam to teach hanoi how to comntain NGOs. I have worked on a report on "Defending Civil Society" where the backlash in Russia against NGOs was very clear. Vietnam has no independent civil society as yet, but if it learns from Russia, it never will. I would be happy to have your E-mail if you agre, so that we can exchange and send your our information on Vietnam. I also double as an Edditorial Consultant of the Washington-based Radio Free Asia, which broadcasts to Vietnam. I think I am their only blond, "white skinned" correspondent. It's fun. With very best regards, Penelope Faulkner Vice-President, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights
Dear Mr. Cohen, I've been a fan of your column for some time now, and I read your last two on Vietnam with great interest. I'm a Viet Kieu who has been working in the NGO sector in HCMC for the past three years, and in that time I've come to similar conclusions as you on the country's future. I currently work for a private foundation that is supported by Vietnam's largest investment fund, and it's been an interesting perch from which to observe all of the changes. Your last column on the evolution of the political system in Vietnam is spot-on. It's one of those two steps forward, ten steps back situations, but the overall direction is positive because Vietnam has such a single-minded focus on moving from its identity as a war-ravaged country into a true global player in all arenas. The time will come, sooner rather than later I think, when the country will have to decide which direction it will follow, and that push will come from the inside. You can feel it already. Vietnam is in its extreme nouveau riche stage, to put it crudely, but at some point people will stop caring about fancy cars and designer labels and seek something more existential. As for NGOs, I think it's a more complicated situation than your column implies. Yes, NGOs are less welcome here than, say, Cambodia, but they are still welcome if they know how to play the game. The government knows that it needs outside help in order to reach all of its development goals; however, this chafes because they have to admit that they can't do it on their own. It's a constant struggle between swallowing their pride and accepting help, or losing face. I find that it's always a delicate dance between NGOs and the government, but generally if you cross your i's and dot your t's and are completely transparent, it'll be fine. There are just too many poor people in Vietnam, and again, progress is king. My own experience working in the NGO sector has been very positive. Most people's reaction when they find out my professional and ethnic background is one of wonder (why would I leave America and all of its riches), gratitude (I've left all of America's riches to help poor people), and pride/condescension (of course I would leave America's riches to come back to Vietnam because it's the best)--it all depends on if I'm speaking to an ordinary person on the street, one of my beneficiaries, or an official. In the end, everyone approves. It's very important to me that Vietnam develops well. I am fearful that HCMC, a reflection of the rest of the country, will turn into another messy and generic Asian city like Bangkok with its open sewers, thousands of power lines among the designer shopping malls, and extremely poor people living on the fringes. Part of it is because it's my job to worry and find solutions, but the other part is my Vietnamese pride that knows no nationality. It's the pride that my parents drummed into my head every time they reminded me to never forget my heritage, that made the government open up the country and markets to drag millions of Vietnamese out of poverty, that makes them accept the help of NGOs. This pride has been with the Vietnamese for 2000 years, beyond ideology or religion and through countless foreign invasions, and it's the single driving force that is propelling this country forward. I have a lot of hope for Vietnam, and I'm happy to see that you've had a positive outlook on its future as well. Warmest regards, Mimi Vu
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 26, 2009 10:23 AM
The New Newsweek, Now With Less Reporting
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I think Fareed Zakaria just friended me. But it is the friendship that dare not speak my name.
Zakaria's cover story today on Iran contains the following sentence: "In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as a `messianic, apocalyptic cult."
In an interview with whom, exactly? Zakaria's wording makes it seem as if the interview was conducted by, oh, Fareed Zakaria, but as best as I can tell, the interview was conducted by yours truly, for The Atlantic. And not, by the way, "last week," but in March.
A few paragraphs later, Zakaria writes, "One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, `Think Amalek.'" Said it to whom? Again, yours truly, for a New York Times op-ed piece that did, indeed, run last week.
The question is, How do I reciprocate this new friendship? By stealing his shit? Maybe Goldblog readers could help: Are there any good quotes from Zakaria's interviews with world leaders that I could lift for the Atlantic?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 26, 2009 8:46 AM
Temperate Letter of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the Goldblog inbox:
Since when does a group have a 'right' to steal land, steal water, ethnicaly cleanse a territory, burn the homes, orchards and livelihoods of the residents, kill them their children and then cry victimhood?
Your Zionist allies are the most evil scum on the face of the earth. Sieg Heil, Zionism! Crush the Gaza Ghetto like your forebearers did in Warsaw!
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 23, 2009 2:09 PM
The Pessimism of Benny Morris
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My review of his new book in the Sunday Times Book Review is here. The man is dark. Sometimes he's appropriately dark, and not at all wrong about the Palestinian (and Muslim) unwillingness to see Jews as people with a right to their historic homeland, but sometimes I think he's giving up too soon:
Morris ignores the possibility that recent Israeli mistakes have marginalized the lives of Palestinians who might in fact have been ready for compromise. Take the Palestinian reaction to the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005. The Morris camp would cite the rocket fire that followed the withdrawal as further proof of unyielding Arab rejectionism. But the empowerment of Hamas was inevitable, given the foolish way Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, engineered the withdrawal. He could have negotiated the pullout with the more moderate Palestinian Authority government, which would have then been able to prove to its constituents that it could extract concessions from Israel. But Sharon handled the pullout unilaterally, which allowed Hamas to claim -- not wrongly -- that it pushed out the Israelis by force, while the Palestinian Authority stood by impotently.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 23, 2009 2:09 PM
How the Saudi Initiative Could Work
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Robert Satloff looks at all the angles:
The relevance of a "23-state solution" approach, as it was termed recently by British foreign secretary David Miliband, to promoting the "two-state solution" will depend on whether the Arab contribution to peacemaking is connected to political realities. In the early Oslo era, Israelis were smitten with the idea of economic conferences in Casablanca and water desalination projects with Oman. Today, in the jaded era of suicide bombers, Qassam rockets, and the Hamas coup in Gaza, Israelis are far more concerned with basic security matters than with peripheral political achievements. If Arab states can contribute on that front -- by taking unprecedented action to cripple Hamas, strengthening the Palestinian Authority, and working with Israel to prevent smuggling of weapons, money, and technology to anti-peace elements -- then a regional initiative has a real chance of bolstering peace prospects.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 22, 2009 7:39 AM
The Abuse of Amalek
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Matt Duss asks why I didn't mention, in my op-ed on Bibi and the Iranians, that right-wingers, especially the messianists of the settlement movement, often invoke the specter of Amalek -- and the (thank God widely-ignored) biblical commandment to wipe out Amalek -- as a way of demonizing all Palestinians:
Interestingly, as Goldberg himself has reported in the past -- but for some reason neglects to mention in his article -- invocations of "Amalek" are a feature of extremist Israeli settler propaganda against Palestinians and Arabs, something which I'm sure is not lost on Israel's more right-wing American supporters. In a 2004 New Yorker article on the Israeli settler movement, Goldberg asked Benzi Lieberman, the chairman of the council of settlements "if he thought the Amalekites existed today." Lieberman responded:
"The Palestinians are Amalek!" Lieberman went on, "We will destroy them. We won't kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism."
The shorter answer to the question of why I left out this aspect of Amalek in the op-ed is lack of space. The longer answer is, I should have included it. The existence of Amalek is empirically true: Hitler certainly filled the historical role of Amalek. But the idea of Amalek can be abused, as I have noted. In the case of this op-ed, I was trying to provide a window into the thinking of Netanyahu and his people. But I should have mentioned the danger of what we could call, for lack of a better term, Amalek-abuse. In the case of Ahmadinejad, by the way, I think the analogy is appropriate. He preaches of a "world without Zionism," which means, essentially, a world in which Jews are not granted their right to exist as a nation.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 22, 2009 7:39 AM
Ouch
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Kinsley the knifeman:
"(Jon) Meacham--a very smart and thoughtful guy, which in my experience is not necessarily true of all newsmagazine editors (all two, that is)--actually says that his model is "the great monthlies of old" like Harper's and Esquire."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 21, 2009 6:46 PM
McCain: Cheney Endorses Spanish Inquisition Technique
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I stopped by to see John McCain this afternoon in his Senate office. I haven't seen him for several months, and was glad to see that he seemed rested and ready, if not tan. He was in high spirits, and we talked for a while about the Obama Administration's embrace of realpolitik, Pakistan, Iran, the whole nine yards. But first I asked him about Dick Cheney and his defense of Bush Administration torture policies. He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: "When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn't torture, then I'm not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position," he said. "But look, he's free to talk. He's a former Vice President of the United States. I just don't see where it helps."
And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition."
I'll post more of what McCain said -- including his critique of Obama's speech -- tomorrow.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 21, 2009 9:54 AM
A Clarification Regarding the GDS Pick-Up Line
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In a previous post, I mentioned that the Springsteen audience the other night looked like the pick-up line at Georgetown Day School. Some readers were confused by this formulation; I meant the car-pool pick-up line at GDS. As in, everyone in the audience looked like parents at GDS. This got me thinking, however, about what a Georgetown Day School pick-up line would actually sound like. Probably something along the lines of, "Hey, you want to come upstairs and see my etchings of the continued persecution of Native Americans?" Or, "Hey, after I finish acquiring 501(c)3 status for my NGO that will rid the Congo of viral hemorrhagic fevers, do you want to come upstairs and see my etchings of Congolese people living with viral hemorrhagic fevers?"
Any other suggestions from GDS parents out there?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 21, 2009 9:54 AM
Synagogue Security
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In the wake of the troubling news from the Bronx, I'm hoping Jewish leaders take the threats to their institutions more seriously than they do now. Here are a couple of sites that might help them think through the challenge: The Secure Community Network from the UJC has a wide range of resources for synagogue security, and the ADL's site on security awareness for Jewish communities is a useful resource -- especially its comprehensive 132-page guide, "Protecting Your Jewish Institution."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 21, 2009 6:53 AM
Roger Cohen's Vietnamese Paradise
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Roger Cohen, the John Mearsheimer manque of The New York Times, has an on-line column (the Times doesn't seem to be publishing him on the op-ed pages anymore, for reasons unknown) on the glories of foreign policy realism, Vietnam edition. Vietnam, Roger writes, has "peace, stability and independence. It also has Communism, but of a form that allows a Vietnamese leader to ring the opening bell on Wall Street."
That's the Vietnamese regime's version of life in Vietnam. For an alternative view, I turned to two leading human rights organizations. Here is Human Rights Watch on the state of worker freedom in Vietnam:
Since 2006, at least eight independent trade union activists have been sentenced to prison on dubious national security charges. All have been held under Vietnamese laws that violate fundamental freedoms. Those who have been tried have not been afforded internationally recognized due process rights. Other labor activists have been harassed, intimidated, and forced to cease their union activities or flee the country.
Amid double-digit inflation and the global economic downturn, labor unrest continues to soar in Vietnam. Thousands of workers, primarily at foreign-owned factories, have joined strikes to demand wage increases and better working conditions. Though permitted under international law, virtually none of these strikes are considered legal by the Vietnamese government.
Workers are prohibited from forming or joining unions - or conducting strikes - that are not authorized by an official labor confederation controlled by the Communist Party. The minimum monthly wage was increased to 650,000 dong (US$36) for most workers, but it still fails to provide an adequate standard of living, especially given racing inflation, and the increase has failed to stem labor discontent.
And here are a couple of excerpts from Amnesty International's 2008 report on the general state of freedom in Vietnam:
* On 30 March Father Nguyen Van Ly, a former prisoner of conscience, was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for "conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam" under Article 88 of the Penal Code. He was manhandled by guards as he tried to challenge the court. Two co-defendants were sentenced to six and five years' imprisonment, and two women were given suspended prison terms. Father Ly was a founding member of Bloc 8406 and the Viet Nam Progression Party (VNPP) in September 2006 and had spent 15 years in prison for peacefully criticizing the government.
* Two human rights lawyers, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan, were sentenced to five and four years' imprisonment respectively in May, reduced by one year each on appeal. Nguyen Van Dai was among the founding members of Bloc 8406. Le Thi Cong Nhan is a spokesperson for the VNPP. Both had held human rights workshops and documented human rights violations. At the appeal hearing in November their lawyers argued that Article 88 of the Penal Code, under which they had been charged, was unconstitutional and did not conform to international conventions that Viet Nam has signed, and should be reviewed.
* Truong Quoc Huy remained detained without trial since August 2006. He was charged under Article 258 of the Penal Code with "abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State, the legitimate rights and interests of organizations and/or citizens". He was accused, among other things, of joining an internet forum and disseminating anti-government flyers.
* In November six people were arrested in Ho Chi Minh City, where they had been meeting to discuss peaceful democratic change. The police claimed to have found "subversive" leaflets and stickers, and official media stated that they were being investigated under Article 84 (Terrorism) of the Penal Code. The six comprised two Vietnamese nationals; Nguyen Thi Thanh Van, a French citizen and a journalist and activist; two US citizens and a Thai national, all of Vietnamese origin. Nguyen Thi Thanh Van and one US citizen were released and deported in December.
Roger Cohen is at least consistent: He always lines up on the wrong side.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 20, 2009 11:01 PM
Only a Matter of Time
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Until an American synagogue is blown-up. I'm sorry to say it, but there it is. These four alleged bombers picked up in New York this evening were "aspirational" anti-Semitic murderers, according to the police, but one day someone will plant a real bomb outside a synagogue. And you know what? The American Jewish leadership knows this, and yet does virtually nothing to help prepare for the inevitable.
More to come on this case, undoubtedly, but let's contemplate for a moment the unique nature of anti-Semitism: These plotters are evidently upset at America for its actions in Afghanistan. So they target the U.S. military -- this makes a perverted kind of sense -- and they target synagogues. This makes no sense at all unless they believed that Jews are Satan's representatives on earth. Which a frighteningly large number of people apparently do.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Engagement with Iran is Going to be Interesting
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm for engagement, by the way, and I'm not too much the skeptic. There are parts of the Iranian regime that I think might be susceptible to Obama's outreach. But then you read news like this, and think that there's no way it's going to work.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Iran, the Palestinians and Bibi's Father
from Jeffrey Goldberg
All were discussed on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday by an outstanding (and superlative) panel of Middle East panelists, including Daniel Levy, David Makovsky, and yours truly.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 20, 2009 7:28 AM
Iran: 11 Days to Wipe Israel Out of Existence
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Courtesy of MEMRI. I'm sure they don't mean "wipe out" as in "annihilate." They probably mean wipe out as in, "We'll come by and scrub your kitchen counters." I'll wait for Juan Cole's translation.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 19, 2009 6:03 AM
On Getting Old at Springsteen Concerts
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My first was at the Spectrum in Philadelphia (or maybe at the Nassau Coliseum. Yes, it was the Nassau Coliseum. And it was more than five years ago. Possibly more than 25.) Springsteen shows used to feel slightly (okay, really slightly) dangerous; now they feel like the pick-up line at Georgetown Day School. I mean, I bumped into Peter Orszag at the Verizon Center last night. I thought it was uncool to be at a concert with the head of OMB, but then my friend Laurie Strongin said that it would have been uncool to bump into the head of Bush's OMB (quick, for five bucks, name Bush's last OMB director) but not Obama's. Anyway, I think Springsteen sang "Outlaw Pete" for him. Or maybe not. He shouldn't have sang it at all.
But he did sing Hava Fucking Nagila! And as a segue to "Blinded By the Light," which was incredible. I'll have more later on the concert, and the set list, but suffice it to say that if you have to grow old, you might as well grow old with Bruce. The audience seemed mainly older than I am (this might be a delusion) but it was mainly younger than Bruce, who seems, from the semi-distance, mostly ageless.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 12:32 PM
Great Moments in Democracy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I was just by the White House when I came across this inadvertently-joint demonstration by Sri Lankan Tamils, in support of the now-finished Tamil Tigers, and Kach and the Lubavitchers, who were yelling words of encouragement, or possibly excoriation, to Bibi Netanyahu, who is staying at Blair House across the street. The LTTE flag is red; the yellow flag, which reads "Moshiach," messiah, is Lubavitch.
The two different groups were actually mingling. Just another example of Obama bringing people together.
tamil.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 9:25 AM
Would Israel Commit National Suicide?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jackson Diehl is probably the smartest foreign affairs columnist writing today, but he misses something crucial about Israel and Jewish history in his current column. He writes:
Contrary to what it would like Iran and the rest of the world to believe, Israel would not attack Tehran's nuclear facilities without U.S. consent. Militarily, it would be next to impossible; politically, it would be suicidal to flout the United States on a matter of such strategic importance. If there is armed action against Iran during the next several years, it will be because Netanyahu somehow persuades or compels Obama to overrule the prevailing judgment of the U.S. government, which is that an attack is not a viable option.
But national suicide is a Jewish specialty! For instance, those schmucks on Masada, and Bar-Kochba. Not to mention the settlement movement. I'm not sure that wanting to protect yourself from the Iranian nuclear program qualifies as national suicide (and I'm not sure an Israeli attack would bring about a permanent rupture in American-Israeli relations), but I'm reasonably sure that settlements are self-destructive. Here's why. For more on the general subject, I recommend reading Yehoshafat Harkabi.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 8:24 AM
Ben-Gurion on the Threat from Amalek
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Worrying about Amalek isn't a recent phenomenon. From the April 16, 1956 New York Times:
Grim as an Old-Testament prophet, Mr. Ben-Gurion welcomed the ninth year of the Israeli republic by reminding the people that the war against the Arabs had never really ended. He charged that Egypt, Jordan and Syria had been conducting a guerrilla war since the defeat of their "criminal attempt to invade Israel."
"It may be," he said, "that in the ninth year of our renewed independence we shall have to face a supreme test, graver and more difficult than that which we faced successfully eight years ago.
"Now our enemies are concerting their designs against us, saying, 'Let us go and cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.' There was no helplessness or fear in our hearts when we faced our enemies, nor will there be if we shall have to face them again.
"We shall not be terrified by the ambushes of a galaxy of murderers sent here by the Egyptian dictator nor will the hosts of Amalek from north, east and south, who are now concentrating on the other side of our border, be able to subdue us."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 8:24 AM
Israelis and Palestinians as Spoiled Children
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Bradley Burston explains:
As with parents who become more and more indulgent the more clueless they realize they actually are - and the more out of control their kids get - Washington and the world have allowed Israel and the Palestinians both to run off the rails in whatever direction they happen to see fit at the moment.
Why? For the same reason that bad parents spoil their children:
They're afraid of them.
For generations, both Israelis and Palestinians have been snowing their respective allies, who have been afraid, either electorally or physically, of being perceived as not loving them enough.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 6:08 AM
Obama Violates Boiled-Frog Ban
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shocking news from the redesigned Newsweek (now with even more Meacham!): President Barack Obama, the smartest man in the history of the world, doesn't understand basic frog biology. As I mentioned in my first blog entry a little more than a year ago, debunking the myth of the boiled frog -- the false notion, advanced by countless writers, that a frog in water will happily die, if only the heat is turned up slowly -- is a mission I share with James Fallows, the Strunk and White of the boiled-frog-cliche opposition movement.
Here is Obama, not getting it:
Did you consult any former presidents or celebrities about the fishbowl effect in raising the girls?
Well, you know, the truth of the matter is that the campaign was the equivalent of me being the frog in the saucepan of water and the temperature slowly being turned up. By the time the inauguration had taken place, we had pretty much gotten accustomed to it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 18, 2009 6:08 AM
Gerecht on Iran's Intentions
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The whole piece is worth reading, but I was struck by this unearthed quote:
....Thérèse Delpech, a leading nonproliferation expert at France's Atomic Energy Commission, warned last October at a Brookings Institution lecture, "We [the Europeans] have negotiated during five years with the Iranians . . . and we came to the conclusion that they are not interested at all in negotiating, but . . . [only] in buying time for their military program." In those five years, she also noted, Tehran never implied that if only the Americans were at the table the clerical regime would be amenable to compromise.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 17, 2009 7:31 AM
Where's Haman?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shmuel Rosner asks me via e-mail why I left out Haman from the list of Amalek's successors in my Times op-ed today. Amalek is the eternal, symbolic enemy of the Jews, the adversary who seeks Jewish annihilation. Haman, the villian of Purim, the Persian vizier whose plot to murder the Jews was thwarted by Mordechai and Esther, is considered to be the model of Amalek-like behavior, so Rosner asks, justifiably, why I didn't include him, but did include Nebuchadnezzar, Hitler, Stalin and all the rest. The reason is simple: Haman probably didn't exist. The story is a metaphor, as best as anyone can tell. The Amaleks on my list were real.
There's a group of people who argue that Jews are unjustifably paranoid about anti-Semitism. I think the paranoia is more-or-less a rational response to historical reality. Since Haman isn't part of historical reality (though he is a part of the Jewish narrative reality) it seemed appropriate to leave him off the list.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 17, 2009 7:31 AM
Amalek's Arsenal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My op-ed on Netanyahu -- and how Obama might want to interpret Netanyahu -- is in the Times today. Here's a brief excerpt:
To understand why Mr. Netanyahu sees Iran as a new Amalek, it is essential to understand two aspects of his intellectual and emotional development: The scholarship of his father, and the martyrdom of his older brother.
His father, Benzion Netanyahu, 99, is a pre-eminent historian of Spanish Jewry. "The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain," his most notable book, toppled previously held understandings of the Inquisition's birth.
Over more than 1,300 pages, Benzion Netanyahu argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was not merely theologically motivated but based in race hatred (the Spanish pursued the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood) that reached back to the ancient world.
The elder Netanyahu also argued that efforts by the Jews of Spain to accommodate their adversaries were futile, in part because the charges against them were devoid of logic or fact, and, perhaps most important, because the written or spoken expression of Jew hatred (his preferred term for anti-Semitism) inevitably led to physical persecution. "What emerges from our survey," he wrote, "is that the Spanish Inquisition was by no means the result of a fortuitous concourse of circumstances and events. It was the product of a movement that called for its creation and labored for decades to bring it about."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 14, 2009 2:10 PM
Gone Campin'
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm blogging from the woods. Except that I'm not really blogging. My 2nd-grader and I are on a class field trip on the Eastern Shore of Maryland for a couple of days, so bug-collecting takes precedence over blogging. And everything else, except hygiene. It's amazing how much Purell Washington parents can carry into the woods. It's just too bad that Blackberries can't dispense Purell. This would represent a much more efficient use of pocket space.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 13, 2009 6:18 AM
Philadelphia to New York in a Half-Hour
from Jeffrey Goldberg
We can dream. Richard Florida on the bright future of fast, effective rail travel:
Philadelphia becomes a veritable suburb of NY, its commute time shrinking from nearly two hours to slightly more than a half hour. Washington-NYC and Boston-NYC become hour-and-a-half trips. San Diego becomes a bedroom suburb of Los Angeles.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 13, 2009 6:18 AM
Kevin Youkilis and the Dual-Loyalty Problem
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This just in from Goldblog reader John Youkilis:
I have to thank you for mentioning my first cousin once-removed, Kevin Youkilis, in your recent post. Kevin has miraculously converted me into an erstwhile Red Sox fan, a radical departure in light of the abuse I endured as a Reds' fan in October 1975 while a freshman at Brown. I still shrivel at the mention of Carlton Fisk. I do have an anecdote you might appreciate. In August 2001, my wife, a New Yorker, and our three sons saw Kevin play for the Lowell Spinners against the Brooklyn Cyclones in their fantastic new ballpark near Nathan's. We sat behind two young men wearing kipot who rooted mightily for the Cyclones. I have always respected Kevin's privacy in this celebrity-crazed world but I succumbed to instinct and told them he was Jewish. They switched allegiances instantly. Unfortunately, my fellow Jews who are Yankee fans have not behaved accordingly.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 11, 2009 11:53 AM
KKK, 4, Hebrew All-Stars, 0
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The results of the strangest baseball game ever are in, and unfortunately the Jews lost. Our only consolation is that we have a stronger lobby. And Kevin Youkilis.
KKK_Victors_Stars.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 11, 2009 8:40 AM
Al Manar, Extra-Crazy Edition
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Al Manar, Hezbollah's TV station and website, purveyor of Roger Cohen columns and wacked graphics, trumpets nutjob stories every day. This one is particularly over-the-top: Dick Cheney killed Rafik Hariri. Abu Muqawama translates:
Dick Cheney, the name that always pops up whenever there is talk about a serious crime someplace in the world. Well, Cheney had his own death squad CIA unit which he ran from the white house. By Cheney's orders, the assassinations unit killed former Lebanese minister and Lebanese Forces chief Elie Hobeika on the 24th of January 2002 and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on the 14th of March 2005...
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 11, 2009 8:40 AM
Beinart Gives Up on the Moderates
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Peter is calling for U.S. talks with Hamas:
The argument for talking to a government that includes Hamas is that Hamas is more like the Taliban and the Baathists than like al-Qaeda. First, Hamas is deeply rooted in Palestinian society and thus very difficult to uproot by force. It operates a vast social-welfare network and according to many polls is now the most popular Palestinian political party. For 22 days beginning last December, Israel pummeled its institutions in Gaza, but the war hasn't turned Palestinians against the group. To the contrary, it is more entrenched than ever in Gaza and on the verge of seizing power in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as well.
I'm not quite so ready to give up on the secularists and moderates (I know, I know, they're neither terribly secular nor terribly moderate by our standards, but everything is relative). And I also tend to think that power will not moderate the extremists. Khaled Meshaal and company are saying what needs to be said in order to make Hamas the undisputed leader of the Palestinian national movement. Once Hamas gets there, I tend to think its leaders will interpret their victory as a sign from God that He is with them, and behave accordingly. Which is to say, no participation in interfaith seders, for starters.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 11, 2009 6:02 AM
Talking to Hamas: Inevitable?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Marc Perelman reports from Beirut:
Osama Hamdan, the organization's top leader in Lebanon, said in an interview in Beirut that Hamas had in recent weeks established "solid, direct contacts" with four European Union countries, and that there had been unofficial talks between Hamas and the team of President Barack Obama's Middle East special envoy, George Mitchell. Hamdan refused to elaborate.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 8, 2009 9:51 AM
Next Week's Doubleheader: Aryan Nations v. Hadassah
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Bill Francis, a research librarian at the Baseball Hall of Fame, passed this article on to Michael Chabon, who passed it on to me. It's from the September 1, 1926 edition of The Washington Post:
baseball.JPG
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 8, 2009 9:51 AM
Is Jerusalem Dead?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Yehudah Mirsky, who just had a day from hell there, thinks so.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 8, 2009 6:55 AM
The Philip Gourevitch-Title-Concept-Rip-Off Award Goes To....
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew Rice, author of the forthcoming, "The Teeth May Smile But the Heart Does Not Forget," which is subtitled, "Murder and Memory in Uganda."
A wee bit obvious, no?
When Philip first told me that he was thinking of calling his Rwanda book "We Wish To Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families," I said something akin to, "WTF?" It seemed very... long. Of course, the title turned out to be a stroke of genius (the actual book was pretty damn good as well).
So, of course, the great temptation when writing a book about atrocities in Africa is to steal the Gourevitch model. Which is fine, except that this Uganda title doesn't have the same lyricism, or the same blood-chilling juxtaposition of high manners and the forecast of imminent murder. On the other hand, I'm not going to judge a book by its title, and Rice is on to an important story. Uganda, where I used to spend a lot of time, is a fascinating place, today a more-or-less functioning (well, sometimes less) country that was not long ago the scene of unparalleled horror. Rice is a very good journalist, so I'm looking forward to reading it. Despite the title.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 6, 2009 10:43 AM
Shimon Peres on Iran: Overreaction Is Better Than Underreaction
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, was in town this week, and I went to his hotel to talk to him about Iran and Israel and Obama and the Sunni-Shiite split and the future of the Jews; all the good stuff, in other words. The most interesting moment came when I asked him, in reference to Iran, if he thought that Israel had over-learned the lessons of Jewish history. He said: "If we have to make a mistake of overreaction or underreaction, I think I prefer the overreaction to underreaction." Here are some excerpts from our conversation:
Jeffrey Goldberg: While there is a perception that Prime Minister Netanyahu is particularly hawkish on the Iran question, listening to you in recent days, and listening to the Labor Party defense minister, there seems to be something of a national consensus on the Iran question.
President Shimon Peres: I want to make the following point about Iran, starting with the United States. The greatest asset for Israel, both moral and strategic, is our relationship with the United States. We should not permit any rift, any rupture. This remains our top consideration. And since Iran is a world problem, we should participate in facing its dangers, but without trying to monopolize it. Now there are many options. Whatever can be achieved diplomatically or economically is better. But if there will be a guarantee that these are the limits of our options, the Iranians may make the wrong call. The Iranian danger is composed of two parts: The weaponry and the character of its rulers. And I don't think that the present rulers of Iran are the permanent answer to the Iranian destiny. There were (government) changes in the past and maybe changes in the future. I don't suggest that other countries will introduce the changes, but others can call upon the Iranian people to come back to their own history.
JG: Is there a chance that Israel is over-reacting to the language that comes out of Tehran? Let me ask this another way: Is it possible to over-learn the lessons of Jewish history?
SP: If we have to make a mistake of overreaction or underreaction, I think I prefer the overreaction to underreaction.
JG: That's a lesson of Jewish history?
SP: This is a lesson of world history, not Jewish history. Because if the world had correctly read Hitler at the time, it would have saved 50 million lives.
JG: Are you equating Ahmadinejad or Khamenei with Hitler?
SP: No. I am equating the danger. I don't say they are the same. I'm talking about estimations. I think one of the greatest mistakes in history was to underestimate the danger of Nazism. All of us paid heavily for it. To prevent is better than to regret.
JG: Talk about this more in the specific Jewish context.
SP: One of the Jewish lessons is to have a state. Both to prevent the world from looking upon the Jews as a sort of helpless people. And because a state is a guarantee for Jewish life.
Zionism started, in fact, at the Dreyfus trial, 100 years ago. And in the Dreyfus trial you had Herzl as a journalist. You had two different reactions to Dreyfus. Jewish journalists asked questions: "Why is that? Why are they hating the Jewish people? What are the reasons?" And there were two different answers: One is, the world is wrong, the other is the Jews are wrong. The ones that say the world was wrong became Communists or revolutionaries. They said, we have to change the world to one without nations, without classes, without religion. They say if there won't be those differences, the Jews won't be different. The others said: "There's not a chance to change to the world. The right thing we have to do is change ourselves." They became Zionists. Let's go back to our land, let's return to our history. Let's go to normalcy. And this is the real lessons of Jewish history in the last 100 years.
JG: Isn't there a negative side to the subsequent ingathering? You have a situation in which you face a threat to your existence from a neighbor, and so many million of Jews lives within this small portion of land. Isn't one of the ironies of the success of Zionism that you've gathered too many Jews into too small a place?
SP: No. I'll tell you, it fell on us to make an army and to win seven wars. And not only did we face the threats, but we have advantages as well. Israel today is a very strong people. Don't judge us by the size. Judge us by our level. Today, physical sizes are inferior to spiritual, scientific capacities. And as we say, it does not matter how many square miles you have, what matters is how many scientists you have per square mile.
JG: There's a growing feeling in some quarters that Israel is not a strategic asset to America but sometimes that it drags down America's reputation in the Middle East. How do hope to counter that?
SP: Israel is the only country that has destroyed two generations of Russian weapons. Completely. I know that to produce weapons is an advantage, but to destroy competitive arms is also an advantage. We did it. Even today, strategically, I don't say that Israel is part of the American defense, but as an ally, politically and militarily, I don't think that we are passive or unimportant concerning information, intelligence, understanding the region. Imagine the Middle East without Israel. And imagine that Iran is a problem for us, but it's a greater problem today for the Arabs. So they have to think. The President has decided to try engagement. Okay. But he says he doesn't cross out other options.
JG: Do you believe engagement could work?
SP: I have my doubts. But I don't suggest that my doubts should become American policy. The President thinks differently. Let him try.
JG: Is the danger, in your mind, that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel or allow someone access to a nuclear weapon to use against Israel -- or is the danger Iranian hegemony of the region? When I spoke to the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, he said he believes that Israel could be in a situation where it will actually fail to thrive as a state in a Middle East in which Iran has a nuclear weapon.
SP: My only answer I can give you is that we shall do what is necessary and possible to prevent it from happening. And we feel that we are not alone.
JG: Do you think the Iranian leadership means what it says about Israel, Jews and the Holocaust? Or is this simply a kind of propaganda directed toward Arab populations that Iran is trying to alienate from their own Arab leaders?
SP: Look, I cannot put myself in the mind of Ahmadinejad. Frankly, I don't know the answer. Since I don't know the answer, I have to consider the dangerous part of it, not only to the promising part of it.
JG: You mean you can't afford to assume that he's not serious?
SP: If there is a threat, if there is a danger, and we ignore it, we lose. Now I don't suggest that we shall lose our mind, but whatever is reasonable to do. Start with the preferred option, which is engagement and economic pressure
JG: Put this threat in the context of other threats that Israel has faced in the past. Is this comparable to pre-'67 in terms of existential danger?
SP: Nothing is the same. But the greatest danger was in the early '50s when the Russians started to supply the Arabs with the smaller weapons and we didn't have a reply.
JG: You're not just talking about the Egypt rocket programs, you mean the whole?
SP: Yes, I mean the heavy tanks, the anti-tank missiles, the anti-air missiles, modern planes, plenty. And we were empty-handed. We didn't have an answer. And I went to France to try to break the embargo.
JG: So you're saying the bigger danger is when Jews are defenseless.
SP: Right.
JG: You hear this more and more, people talking about the one-state solution. It used to be a radical idea to suggest a two-state solution, now we're moving toward a discussion -- at least on the left, obviously -- of a one-state solution. Do you think that the Palestinians and their supporters would ever agree to an end of claims --
SP: There is not a one-state solution; there is only one-state conflict instead of two-people conflict. Look, you have a conflict in Iraq; it's one state. You have a conflict in Lebanon; it's one state. You have a conflict in Sudan; it's one state. Who says that one state puts an end to the conflict? On the contrary, it makes it more dangerous. You have one state in Pakistan. You have one state in Afghanistan.
JG: But what I'm asking you is this: If you came tomorrow to the Arabs and said, "Fine, you want 100 percent of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as your capital, fine here it is, and Gaza too." Do you think that the Palestinian/Muslim side would ever say, "that's enough," and stop making claims?
SP: It will make a difference on the Arab side. I don't think all of them without exception, no. There will be exceptions, but it will clearly change the proportion of Palestinians (ready to compromise) once we shall have it.
JG: It will tip over --
SP: Tip over and not only that. You know, there is an Arab poet that I admire very much, Nizar Qabbani. He said, "The time has come for the Arabs to get rid of the yoke of imperialism. Thousands of years we live under the imperialism of words. We are victims of our words." So I wouldn't understand the Arab position by words alone. So I think, to be fair, I wouldn't judge everything said as though it is everything they think. I think many of them are sick and tired of war, of backwardness, of stagnation. I think there is a young generation, that watches television -- even their television -- and they see there is a different world.
You know, today, we have in Israel close to 1.1 million Arab citizens. Sixty thousand of them are university graduates. Where are they? Many of them are doctors. There is no hospital today in Israel that doesn't have Arab doctors and Arab nurses. Now look, an Israeli who would be reluctant to employ an Arab is not reluctant to enter the hospital, to lay on the bed and an Arab doctor will come with his knife and open his stomach. And he'll say, "Thank you." My hope is that what happens in a hospital with sick people will happen in the land with healthy people.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 6, 2009 6:34 AM
A Big Scoop on Israeli Nukes
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Eli Lake is reporting that the Obama Administration may force Israel out of the nuclear closet:
President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say. The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 6, 2009 6:34 AM
Philo-Semites: Anti-Semites Who Like Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In the three or so weeks since my cover story on the financial crisis appeared in the Atlantic (subscribe now, and you're guaranteed a place in heaven when you die, and also possibly a tote bag), I've received more than two hundred solicitations from financial advisers and brokers looking for my business. I'm touched, but I'm now in a steady relationship with a new guy who's going to manage my vast wealth. More on that later.
I've also received a fair amount of anti-Semitic mail (big surprise there). One letter links me to Madoff and Pollard and Menachem Begin. Go figure. Then there are letters like this one, which fall into a gray category. Read it carefully, and you'll see why:
Dear Jeffrey,
I enjoyed your article so much that I sent it to a dozen or more friends and family.
My investing experience is similar to yours except that it is longer (I retired at age 71, 3 years ago) and it probably involved more money due to my long career. But the losses, observed unhelpfully by my advisors and custodians, sound similar.
I decided to fire Fidelity Professional Advisory Group and put much of our savings into investment grade bonds maturing in 1-5 years. I entrusted $200K into the care of a professional bond manager with a Jewish name, low fees, and good reputation. Besides all that, she buys flour in 50-lb bags for baking at home. My kind of business person.
In 5 months her small firm has grown my account to $210K, while avoiding junk and without putting more than 5% into any one issue. I doubt that they can duplicate that indefinitely because there were some rather unusual opportunities in the midst of the recent debacle, but even if the performance drops in half from 1% gain per month to 0.5%, I will be happy. And I'll sleep well at night.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 5, 2009 12:44 PM
Biden Goes Soft on Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shmuel Rosner explains how:
Let's examine his words line by line:
1. "Israel has to work toward a two-state solution". That's in the Road Map, that Israel accepted. In fact, Netanyahu has already achieved something. if he now says he agrees to a two state solution the Obama team will be able to show some success without him giving anything that wasn't already given.
2. "not build more settlements". Israel doesn't build "more settlements". The question is whether it can build more in existing ones - to which Labor Party leader Ehud Barak just responded with a resounding yes (see here).
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 5, 2009 9:08 AM
Hamas's New Message
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Is not so new, actually. The Times is reporting that Khaled Meshaal won't recognize Israel and won't make peace with Israel, but won't get in the way of Palestinians who do. Or something. The only thing this interview proves is that Hamas finds President Obama truly flummoxing, which is a good thing. But it doesn't mean that Hamas is going to make itself useful to the peace process anytime soon.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 5, 2009 7:16 AM
What Rahm Emanuel Really Said at AIPAC
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to my in-box, which is an acute gauge of Jewish anxiety, Rahm Emanuel crossed a red line the other day at a press-free session at the AIPAC conference, by linking American efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program to Israel's willingness to create a Palestinian state. This is how The Jerusalem Post put it:
Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday.
Rahm apparently did no such thing. I have it on good authority that Rahm told the audience that Obama believes that it will be easier to enlist Arab allies in the confrontation with Iran if visible progress is made on the Palestinian front. This is inescapably true. But he did not suggest a quid pro quo. That would be blackmail, and in any case, a quid pro quo would suggest that Obama believes that Iran's nuclear program constitutes a threat only to Israel. And he's never said anything to suggest that he believes this to be so. He's certainly heard from America's Arab allies -- most notably King Abdullah of Jordan, who in his visit here let Obama know exactly what he thought of Iran -- that they too consider Iran a dire threat to their security.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 4, 2009 8:11 AM
A Couple of Observations About Michael Oren
from Jeffrey Goldberg
As I've said, Michael and I are friends, so take this under advisement. But I think it's an uncharacteristically clever move by the Israelis to make Michael their ambassador in Washington, not only because he will be able to explain Israel on American television without all the "ehhhs" and the "Look, rubber bullets aren't fatal except if they hit you in the brain" kinds of explication that we've grown used to from certain Israeli "diplomats." It's a clever move because there is no one who understands the American-Israeli relationship better than Michael -- why, he's written part of a whole book on the subject! -- and we're heading into a difficult moment in the bilateral relationship.
It's also a clever move because Michael is not Likud. Maybe technically he is, I don't know, but his roots are in Labor Zionism. It is the idea of Israel that is most important to him, rather than every last square inch of land Moses may or may not have eyeballed. He believes in Israel because it marks the Jewish return to history. Even when Israel makes mistakes -- and he believes Israel has made many mistakes, of the rubber-bullet variety, and others -- he finds joy in the fact that the Jews, after 2,000 years, have been given the chance to make their own mistakes, that their destiny is not in the hands of others.
He is not-so-much enamored of the settlers. He was, years back, I think, but that was before he took part in the evacuation of the Gaza settlements. He was shocked by the behavior of some of the settlers -- I remember him calling to tell me that some of the more fanatical settlers were calling the soldiers "Nazis." The settlers lost much of Michael's sympathy right then. So, for this, among other reasons, he is clear-eyed on issues related to the West Bank. And no, he is not for another unilateral disengagement from the West Bank. He knows Israel must separate from the Palestinians of the West Bank, but it is a mistake to think, as some have alleged, that he wants to repeat the experience in Gaza.
You can read why here, in an excerpt from an article I wrote a couple of years ago, after the 2006 Lebanon War, for The New Yorker. You'll also see in this piece strong hints of Michael's cleverness:
In July, I visited an artillery battery on a dusty field in Israel's far north. The ceasefire was three weeks away, and the soldiers, reservists, were firing 155-mm. howitzer shells into south Lebanon. I had driven up with the historian Michael Oren, who is a fellow at the center-right Shalem Center but has also been a critic of the settlers. Oren had been drafted into active service--he is a reserve major in the Army spokesman's office--and his task that morning was to guide the "Today" show news anchor Ann Curry to a front-line position so that she could interview soldiers. At a checkpoint, Oren explained Curry's mission to the commander of the artillery battalion.
"Hem antishemim?" the commander asked, half jokingly. "Are they antiSemites?"
"No," Oren answered. "They're from NBC."
Oren was accompanied on his rounds by the screenwriter Dan Gordon, who wrote "The Hurricane," and who served in the Israeli Army as a young man. He had come to Israel this summer to help the Army explain itself to the foreign press, but he was having a hard time understanding Israel's strategy--an air campaign that was simultaneously aggressive and ineffectual, and a stop-and-start ground campaign conducted by ill-equipped and poorly led troops. "If you can figure out even the tactical goals here, let me know," Gordon said, as we drove down Katyusha Alley.
Oren, like Gordon, was depressed by the events of the summer. "I don't lament leaving Gaza, not for a second," he told me. "I'm mourning the fact that we didn't respond the first time they fired Qassam rockets at us. That's when we began to hemorrhage the benefits of the unilateral disengagement. It's a very simple calculus--you can shoot the Jews out of Lebanon, you can shoot them out of Gaza, why not shoot them out of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? It's a logical syllogism. I don't fault them for making that syllogism at all."
Oren said that among the victims of Israel's unimpressive response to Hezbollah would be the Palestinian moderates. "The way this war is being understood will kill whatever minuscule chance remains for talks with moderate Palestinians," he said. "Hezbollah is a hero. The thinking among the Palestinians would be: 'Hezbollah beat you guys and you ran away, and now I'm supposed to sit down at the table and make concessions to you?' We hurt the Palestinian moderates when Barak unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. The proof of the failure of the policy is in the rockets Hezbollah is firing at us. We did more damage to the Palestinian moderates from our lack of strength than from our lack of magnanimity."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 4, 2009 8:11 AM
The Hebrew Mamita
from Jeffrey Goldberg
She's the best:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 4, 2009 8:11 AM
Reactions to the End of the Ridiculous AIPAC Case
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jonathan Tobin at Commentary:
This was long overdue. The problem here was not just that court rulings had made convictions impossible. It was that there was no case to begin with. The idea that the government could prosecute two private individuals under the 1917 Espionage Act for passing along government leaks was absurd. The whole point of the exercise was obviously an attempt on the part of some people in the FBI to embarrass the pro-Israel lobby.
...
A shameful chapter in American judicial history is closed but the recriminations over this outrage should just be getting started.
My colleague Marc Ambinder:
In general, this is fairly good news for anyone who receives classified information -- like journalists -- and then publishes it in some form. (There are several types of classified information -- if the defendants had passed signal intelligence or evidence about collection systems to Israel, they'd have been tried under a different statute). Had the case gone to trail, the government was facing a loss, as its efforts to keep information out of the discovery process failed and its contention that the two AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, broke the law was challenged by U.S. government classification experts.
From the WSJ Editorial Board:
But Washington is not a normal world, and this prosecution needs to be understood in the context in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and the swirl of conspiracy theories about "neocon" and Jewish influence over U.S. policy. In this bizarro reading of events, President Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice chose to invade Iraq due to the influence of Jewish officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and Richard Perle. One sign of those times: In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Franklin's arrest, CBS's Lesley Stahl asked whether "Israel [used] the analyst to try to influence U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?" In other words, the Aipac case resembled a political hit more than a legitimate "espionage" case.
...
Mr. Holder should also re-examine the Aipac case from start to finish. The real scandal in this case starts with the attempted criminalization of policy differences and legitimate lobbying, and ends up in the wiretapping of Congress and the wrecked careers of Messrs. Rosen, Weissman and Franklin. This smacks of abuse of power, and somebody at Justice should be held to account.
From David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy:
From what I've read, this investigation involved long-term phone taps, surveillance, and a sting operation, and they only managed to catch the staffers in [arguably] illegal activities once Franklin told them that he had classified information that the lives of specific Israeli agents in Iran were in danger. This seems like rather thin gruel given the scope of the investigation, which could mean that (1) the hearsay [that AIPAC staffer were engaging in wrongdoing, leading to the investigation] was wrong or exaggerated; (2) as the commentator above suggests, someone was out to get AIPAC; or (3) that the staffers had become more careful about not stepping over the legal line than when the feds got their original information. We are left to wonder whether 1, 2, or 3, or some combination, is correct.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 4, 2009 6:10 AM
Israel Ramps Up Preparations for Iran Attack
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From my former employer, The Jerusalem Post:
Air Force reservists who operate the Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems have recently begun spending one day a week on duty to sharpen their skills, amid fears that in a conflict with Iran, dozens of long-range missiles would be fired at Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
...
"We are working hard to be ready for the Iranian threat," a top IAF officer said. "We are preparing for barrages, split warheads and other surprises and therefore we need to retain a high operational level by everyone, including reservists."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 1, 2009 8:27 AM
Steve Rosen E-Mails With Some Thoughts
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I just received this e-mail from Steve Rosen, the now-vindicated ex-AIPAC official who was about to stand trial for passing classified leaks to reporters and to an Israeli embassy official. Here is what he wrote: "Thank God we live in a country where the courts can correct injustices like this. I have written a book on the truth about classified information leaks. The manuscript goes to publishers on Monday morning."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
May 1, 2009 8:27 AM
The End of the Ridiculous AIPAC Case
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to dismiss all charges against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman in the AIPAC leak case. It's about time. It was an idiotic case to begin with; the men were being prosecuted (under an ancient, seldom-used law) for receiving classified information passed orally -- not even on paper -- from a government stooge, and then passing it on to a reporter and to an official from the Israeli embassy. I'll gather up some reaction later, but suffice it to say that this day was long overdue. Rosen and Weissman did what a thousand reporters in Washington do everyday, hear about information that's technically classified. The only difference is that these two worked for a demonized lobby.
It's a sad day for the Walts and Mearsheimers of the world, who believe that AIPAC is a treasonous organization, and it's a sad day for AIPAC too, because it abandoned the two men to the fates when it should have stood by them. More to come.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 30, 2009 1:57 PM
Pete Wehner on the Blasphemous Pat Buchanan
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Far be it for me to judge these things, but Pete is a righteous Christian, especially when compared to Pat Buchanan, who might be in for a big surprise if he ever does meet Jesus (Hint: He'll be the Jewish dude with the stringy hair and the kipah, and quite possibly a guitar):
This is really all quite ugly. For Buchanan, a Catholic, to compare Demjanjuk to Jesus -- who, according to Christian belief, was deity, holy and without sin -- is strikingly offensive. So is his effort to revive the charge of blood libel. Rarely do you find such an obscene mix of blasphemy and bigotry, and all in less than 900 words.
William F. Buckley, Jr. did many great deeds on behalf of conservatism over the course of his life. Near the top of the list was when he said in 1991 that he found it "impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what [Buchanan] did and said during the period under examination [the first Gulf War] amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 30, 2009 9:52 AM
Hillary's Going Looking for Hamas Moderates
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Laura Rozen:
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as you've heard from us in the last nearly 100 days we will not deal with Hamas unless they renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by prior Palestinian Authority agreements. We do not in any way support the kind of extremists that you see. What we are looking for is to separate out those who are, as we found in Iraq, part of an armed campaign for political reasons that can be reconcilable.
Hmmm. The hunt for the Hamas moderate can be a frustrating one. As Bibi suggested, correctly, moderates in Hamas would leave Hamas because the organization is, at its core, jihadist and committed to the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 30, 2009 4:57 AM
Gaza = Power
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Literally. And it turns a profit:
Running a power plant in Gaza might sound like a losing venture but, thanks to payments from the cash-strapped Palestinian government, its owners are making profits and promise another year of "unstoppable growth".
While Gaza's 1.5 million residents, blockaded by Israel, face electricity shortages, the Palestine Electric Co.'s (PEC) PEC.PL profits were $6.3 million in 2008, up from $4.4 million in 2007. Profits are largely distributed in tax-free dividends.
The gains came even though the plant has been operating at less than half capacity due to the embargo that chokes fuel and spare parts, and past bombings by Israel.
But, of course, there's the corruption:
Past efforts by West Bank-based Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reopen the PEC's contract stalled. Many large PEC shareholders play a powerful role in the Palestinian economy and are close to Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas, officials say.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 29, 2009 3:11 PM
Wake Me Up When It's Ebola
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I was in a Starbucks today when I was struck by an allergy-induced cough. Three people stared at me with something approaching panic. "Don't worry, it's just Marburg," I said, which caused them to visibly relax. Not that they knew what Marburg was. They were just glad to hear that I didn't have the dreaded swine flu. (Fun fact about Marburg: Those who manage to recover from Marburg frequently suffer from orchititis. Look it up.)
This is a bad flu, and I'm terribly sorry for the few people who have died from it, but I'm reasonably sure we're not all going to die (if we do, at least my family won't die hungry, since I have a bunch of MREs in my basement).
Frank Furedi, an expert on hysteria and paranoia, has this to say about our latest cable-television-induced panic: "The explosion of global fear about the outbreak of a deathly flu virus in Mexico is more a response to the dramatisation of influenza than to the actual threat it poses." He went on:
There is nothing unusual about the outbreak of flu. Every year, thousands of people die from the flu, and, in normal conditions, society has learned to cope with the flu threat. From time to time, an outbreak of flu turns into a global pandemic, leading to a catastrophic loss of life. However, there is no evidence that the so-called swine flu, which has so far claimed a relatively small number of lives, will turn into a pandemic. Rather, what we are faced with is a health crisis that has been transformed into a moral drama.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 29, 2009 6:09 AM
Pat Buchanan is Slipping, Poor Thing
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It used to be that Buchanan was clever and arch and indirect in his loathing for Jews. Occasionally, though, in particular when he was defending the rights of Nazis, the mask would slip. But never like this. In his latest defense of John Demjanjuk, Buchanan let's it all hang out. As Menachem Rosensaft points out, Buchanan has now deified Demjanjuk and, in so doing, revived the Christ-killing libel:
In his syndicated column of April 17, Buchanan not only called Demjanjuk an "American Dreyfus" and "the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany's sins," but he wrote that the "spirit" behind the U.S. Justice Department's efforts to bring Demjanjuk to justice is "the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 28, 2009 9:36 AM
On Israel's Remembrance Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Brad Hirschfeld makes a good point about the importance of remembering civilian deaths and military deaths separately:
For the second year in a row, Yom HaZikaron (Israel's Memorial Day) will mark the deaths of all those who have died, including civilian victims of terror. And despite having losses to remember from each group, this blurring of lines strikes me as a poor idea with potentially dangerous consequences.
Israel, like any other nation has both the right and the obligation to mourn those men and women in uniform who have sacrificed their lives for the safety and security of the citizens of Israel. But we ought not to confuse the issue by layering on our desire to mourn those civilians who died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are not the same and should not be seen as such.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 28, 2009 7:38 AM
100 Days of Obama Foreign Policy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I recently spoke with my colleague Robert Kaplan about U.S. foreign policy. We discussed many different interesting things, including the new envoy system at the State Department, the China threat, South America and the break from the Bush Administration. You should read it, mainly for Bob's insights:
Goldberg: I think the tonal difference--and tonal differences can sometimes lead over to actual substantive differences--is enormous. Obama is hyper-consciously doing what pre-9/11 George Bush said he would do, which is to have a humble a foreign policy. My basic take is that national interests are permanent and a president is there to advance American national interests. If he does that through charm or bullying or bribery or glibness or appeals to morality or military force--it doesn't actually matter as long as he advances American national interests in the appropriate way.
Kaplan: I agree. And I would add that in a global media environment, charm and packaging matter a lot more than they used to matter.
Goldberg: This is where tone actually become substance in a way.
Kaplan: Yes. We do live in this fishbowl media environment where setting the right tone matters so much. But that's been the real shift. ...
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 28, 2009 7:38 AM
An Increasingly Ridiculous Country
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Jewish State -- emphasis on Jewish, as in Maimonides and a thousand years of innovation and leadership in medicine -- has a fundamentalist shmendrick named Yakov Litzman currently running its health ministry. On Monday, he said that swine flu would be known in Israel as "Mexico Flu," because swine isn't kosher. What is kosher, apparently, is embarrassing your country and alienating Mexico.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 28, 2009 7:38 AM
Libyans Sure Do Know How to Dress to Impress
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Libyan national security advisor Mutassim Qadhafi, who visited Secretary of State Clinton last week:
qadhafi_suit.jpgsuit_libya.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 27, 2009 12:40 PM
Ahmadinejad Sows Confusion on Israel (Again)
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In an interview broadcast yesterday, George Stephanopoulos asked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he would support a peace agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinians. Ahmadinejad answered, "Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well."
The Israel Policy Forum's M.J. Rosenberg responded to this by writing, "This is a huge story. Kudos to George and ABC."
Well, kudos to George and ABC for getting the interview, but Ahmadinejad isn't really saying anything new. Last September, when David Bradley, the Atlantic's chairman, James Bennet, the magazine's editor, and I went to New York to interview Ahmadinejad with a small group of journalists (all a tin-pot dictator has to do to get attention from the American media is to deny the Holocaust), James asked him almost the exact same question. Here was Ahmadinejad's response: "If the people of Palestine make a decision, everyone must abide by that decision. What we say about Palestine is very clear: we say let the Palestinian nation determine its own fate, without anyone interfering."
In 2007, Ahmadinejad told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes, "The decision rests with the Palestinian people. This is exactly what I'm saying." Pelley asked him, "And if that decision is a two-state solution, you're good with that? You could support a two-state solution?" His response: "Well, why are you prejudging what will happen? Let's pave the ground first for a free and fair choice. And once they make their choice, we must respect that. All the people, all the Palestinian people must be given this opportunity, allow them to make their own decisions."
Ahmadinejad's consistent position is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state, and his policy has been to support terrorist organizations that seek its destruction. This isn't so hard to see. Unless you're the Israel Policy Forum's M.J. Rosenberg, who gives the benefit of the doubt to Iranian leaders, but not to Israeli leaders.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 27, 2009 7:59 AM
From a Former Merrill Broker
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm getting a lot of mail off my cover story on the financial debacle. I thought I'd highlight the more thoughtful ones (and maybe a couple of the stupid ones as well). Here's one from a former Merrill broker:
First and foremost, I never "sold" my clients something that I thought would harm them. What would be the point? Take the other side of the transaction for a minute -- if a broker recommends something and it goes sour, he/she has to call each and every client and relay that unpleasant fact to them. Try doing that all day. Because, frankly, as a broker, no matter how much you read, study and learn there is NO WAY that 100% of your recommendations will work. Not possible. If averaged about 70% to 80% on the right side. But I had my losers and after one week of calling customers and explaining what went wrong and why I thought we needed to sell the stock I became ill. I kept going back, however, because until the last five years the business was basically run in an ethical, moral way. Merrill NEVER told me what to present to a client. When I retired in 1996, I knew my clients, their families, their pets, their dreams and their aspirations. I felt I had helped them navigate and understand the financial world and I felt proud of the job I had done.
As a retiree, however, I am saddened at how Merrill's name is dragged through the mud on a daily basis. Mr. O"Neal can be held largely responsible for the demise of the firm, though Mr. Thain did not do much to help it either. It is ironic to me that they both came from the investment side of the business, not the brokerage side of the business. Previous CEO's had all come up through the brokerage side and understood the importance of client relationships. Think you you would feel if your career went up in smoke as people attacked on a daily basis the firm you were once proud to work for. And think how you would feel if the stock you were given turns out to be worthless with no income coming from it to help ease your retirement years.
I sympathize with the broker who did not call you. After 16 consecutive months of markets blowing up right and left, I can imagine that he/she was shell shocked and also felt betrayed -- believe it or not as betrayed as you felt. Wall Street is not full of liars and thieves. There are bad apples in every profession. But the vast majority of Merrill brokers are caring, hard working and smart. My heart goes out to them and to you.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 24, 2009 3:08 PM
King Abdullah II To David Gregory: America Tortured
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Earlier today, David Gregory interviewed Jordan's King Abdullah II for this Sunday's Meet the Press and asked him if he thought the United States engaged in torture. The King's answer: "Well, from what we've seen and what we've heard, there are enough accounts to show that this is the case. But there is still a major battle out there. And I think that America, and I think what President Obama is trying to do, is make sure that the legal system that America is known for is transparent."
David then interjected: "That's an important point. You actually do believe that the United States engaged in torture." To which King Adullah responded, "From what I see... on the press they show that there were illegal ways of dealing with detainees."
King Abdullah II has emerged as the linchpin leader of the Arab world -- it's no coincidence that he was the first Middle East leader to visit President Obama (noticeably ahead of Bibi Netanyahu), so I'm looking forward to the whole interview, to be broadcast this Sunday morning. Here's a preview:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 24, 2009 10:17 AM
Michael Oren as Israel's Ambassador
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Oren, who may become Israel's ambassador to the United States, is a friend of mine, so I haven't commented on his possible appointment, but now that David Rothkopf, who is also a friend of Oren's, has weighed in, I will too, mostly by quoting David. Minor controversies seem to erupting in Israel about Oren's past statements (he is an accomplished historian and a frequent commentator on the Middle East, so there is a great big body of past statements to dissect). Gershom Gorenberg astutely points out that, depending on which Israeli newspaper you read, Oren is either too hawkish, or too dovish, for the job. Here is Rothkopf on the article that is drawing the most attention:
While he did indeed write an academic article that speculated about the consequences of the possible election of either Barack Obama or John McCain, it was not only an admirably thoughtful, fact-based, balanced and accurate piece (and do let's try to remember he is the possible Israeli Ambassador to the United States and not the other way around) but he is distinguished among leading experts on these issues by his broad bi-partisan base of admirers in the United States including - and I can say with absolute certainty -- many at high levels within the Obama administration. As for categorizing his views as being too close to the neocons, that's just a distortion and reflects a deep misunderstanding of Michael's views which have often diverged with that group (or those closely associated with it in Israel) whether on Iraq or on the issue of how to handle the question of settlements on the West Bank and, in fact, are difficult to categorize except to say that they are exceptionally and consistently well-informed and independent.
I'll leave it here for now, but I think Michael would be a terrific choice for the post: No one is better qualified to explain America to Israelis and to explain Israel to Americans than Michael. And no one is smarter.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 24, 2009 8:55 AM
More News from the JNFL
from Jeffrey Goldberg
On the one hand, distressing news from the Jets. On the other hand, this Sunday, former Patriots linebacker Andre Tippett, who was just a huge sack machine, will be inducted into the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. Mazel Tov.
tippett1.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 23, 2009 8:48 AM
The NFL Can Kiss My Tuchus
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Jets have a problem:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 23, 2009 7:44 AM
A Ron Paul Tea Party Goes Off the Rails
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A California Tea Party isn't trying very hard to win over Jewish taxpayers. Here's the graphic pitch:
taxes.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 23, 2009 7:29 AM
Meshaal: An Explosion is Coming
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In a speech to British members of Parliament, Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal said that "resistance" was just "a means to an end" -- though he didn't appear to mention to the MPs that the end Hamas yearned for was the destruction of Israel -- and he looked forward to finding a different way to end the occupation. He also threatened an "an explosion in the region" if Hamas didn't get what it wanted.
But no doubt Hamas is secretly moderating its views on the Jewish right to self-determination.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 22, 2009 8:51 AM
Further Proof that Washington Is Hostile to Jewish Life
from Jeffrey Goldberg
No, not the Jane Harman mess (sorry I'm not blogging on it more, but I'm busy with other journalism, and anyway the whole ridiculous AIPAC case makes me ill, because it shouldn't even be a case).
This is why Washington is so un-Jewish. I meet David Ben-Gregory this morning for breakfast at Morty's, a deli in my neighborhood, and I overhear a woman in the booth behind me ask her companion, "What kind of bread is challah?" except that she pronounces the "ch" like she's saying "chapstick" (or "cholent," not to introduce another foreign concept here). I don't think she was Jewish, but it doesn't matter -- in New York, everyone knows how to pronounce challah. I'm sure by now that that 16-year-old Somali pirate in a New York jail cell knows how to pronounce challah.
Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land. I want to move back to my true homeland, which is to say, 92nd St. and West End Avenue.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 22, 2009 8:51 AM
Do Palestinians Really Want a State?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My colleague Bob Kaplan considers whether the Palestinians actually want a state, because statelessness has its benefits:
[T]he most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.
...
Statehood would mean openly compromising with Israel, and, because of the dictates of geography, living in an intimate political and economic relationship with it. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.
Bradley Burston asked a similiar question a while back:
Today, the question of whether the Palestinians can take the steps necessary to maintain a state - that is to say, whether they really do want a state, rather than just the flag they already have and the representative at the United Nations they already have, and the righteous indignation that they have in spades - remains an open question.
If they would rather demand the right of return until the end of time, rather than accepting some formula that amounts to a lesser gain, and with it, a Palestinian state, then the question is answered.
If they would rather insist on the right to violent resistance against Israel - allying themselves in the minds of others, if not in their own, with terrorist movements that bedevil civilized countries worldwide - rather than a renunciation of armed struggle and entrance into the community of nations, then we have their answer. If they insist on a one-state solution, then it is a one-state solution that they will get, and that state will be Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 21, 2009 3:56 PM
What Passover is Like in My House
from Jeffrey Goldberg
People often ask me, "Jeff, what is your seder like?"
It's exactly like this:
goldberg_seder.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 21, 2009 2:53 PM
Is The AIPAC Case Over?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Washington Post is reporting that federal prosecutors are considering dropping charges against Rosen and Weissman. Stay tuned.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 21, 2009 8:48 AM
One Small Observation on the Jane Harman Case
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Congresswoman Jane Harman is in a pickle this week after Jeff Stein at CQ reported that an NSA wiretap caught her wheeling and dealing with a suspected Israeli agent (for more on this complicated matter, see Laura Rozen's invaluable blog). This alleged conversation was prompted by accusations that two AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, received secrets from an American government source and passed those secrets orally to an Israeli embassy official and to a reporter for The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to go on trial in June for passing these secrets. But by the standards set by the Justice Department (standards never before enforced -- the law under which the two men are being prosecuted was passed in 1918 but never employed until now), shouldn't the government be investigating the source of the NSA leak to Stein, and shouldn't that person -- and Stein, for that matter -- be prosecuted for trafficking in presumably classified NSA material?
The answer, of course, is no, because this is not Great Britain and we don't have an Official Secrets Act in this country. And we certainly don't punish the recipients of leaked information.
I know the conspiracists out there believe that the Rosen/Weissman case is about the pernicious influence of Israel on American foreign policy, but, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, in an editorial arguing that the case ought to be dropped, this is a free-speech issue, pure and simple.
UPDATE: The annoyingly accurate Jack Shafer points out to me that the Espionage Act has been employed before, in the case of a Navy intelligence analyst caught providing classified satellite photographs to a British military journal.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 20, 2009 4:40 PM
Goldblog Reader Explains the Market
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In response to my article on the financial mess, Goldblog reader Dan Simon writes in to explain the market's recent follies. In essence, investors have lost discipline:
Why have stocks consistently outperformed bonds over the long term?
The answer is simple: stocks have long outperformed bonds because stock market investors have consistently demanded superior returns from stocks, to the point of being willing to unload stocks that they judged incapable of generating those returns. That discipline has had the effect of keeping stock prices down, and hence return rates up: a stock too expensive to generate the requisite return on its investment gets bid down to the point where its return, given its price, is superior to that available on the bond market.
Then, around the early 1980s, the idea of index investing gained popularity. The original idea was quite clever: savvy, disciplined investors provided a reasonably good estimate of long-term stock returns, and ordinary investors could exploit that estimate by simply investing in the market as a whole, and sharing in the resulting high return rates. And as long as such passive investors were a small enough fraction of the investor population, the strategy worked perfectly.
But like all successful investment strategies, it fell victim to its own success and resultant popularity. As millions of investors poured their money robotically into the market, they bid up the price of stocks to the point where they couldn't possibly generate returns at their traditional rates. By that time, however, the strategy of carefully following the lead of disciplined investors had morphed into a kind of blind faith in the power of the market to generate high long-term return rates. So the zombie-like buy-and-hold investors kept coming, bidding stock prices higher and higher, and thus pushing return rates lower and lower.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 20, 2009 8:44 AM
Jane Harman and the Israeli Spy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This story smells a bit funny, and Ron Kampeas points out why:
There are a lot of problems with how this story came about. Its sources seem to have it in for Harman, yet their supposedly damning leaks are rehash - and the story's major news is not about her alleged misdeeds, but that the National Security Agency was listening in on her call, and that the CIA boss wanted to get a tap on her.
Also, the timing, weeks before the trial, is supect, and looks a lot like a desperate late in the game bid to salvage what has become a dog of a case.
Also, Haim Saban is an Israeli spy? Really? He's Israeli, yes, but a spy? This is what is being intimated, at least.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 20, 2009 6:43 AM
Erectile Dysfunction and the Yankees
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I'm watching the Yankees play Cleveland yesterday (it was definitely fan interference on that Posada home run, in my humble opinion), and I leave the room for a minute, at a commercial. When I come back, my eight-year-old son asks, "What's E.D.?"
E.D., huh? Why do you want to know? He tells me he just saw a commercial for Niagara that promises help with E.D. "Niagara" gives me a way out: "E.D.," I explain, "is.... Earth Dissection. Waterfalls like Niagara are signs of geological dissection. The river is just going along and all of a sudden it drops over a cliff, like there was a sudden dissection of the earth."
"That's not what it is," he says, but the game starts up and I duck the subject for a while, until the next commercial break, which features a commercial for Levitra. Unbelievable. Does Broken-Johnson Syndrome afflict all Yankees' fans, or just most? I'm a pretty diehard Yankees supporter, but if this is the ultimate price, I would even pull for Boston. (Sorry about that one.)
Advertisers surely know their audiences, but is it really necessary during a day game to be assaulted by these commercials?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 20, 2009 5:56 AM
Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Christopher Beam assesses the program's problems -- especially the exorbitant expense of high-speed rail tickets:
Obama has spent his career opposing policies that disproportionately benefit the rich. But it's hard to think of a service more skewed toward the wealthy--and employees of wealthy companies--than high-speed rail.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 17, 2009 10:01 AM
On Firing My Broker, and Other Financial Shenanigans
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My new cover story on the financial mess is now posted, but do me a favor, and yourself a favor, and The Atlantic a favor, and civilization as a whole a favor, and buy the magazine on the newsstand. Or better yet, subscribe -- just click right here -- and help protect journalism from the tapeworms at Google.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 17, 2009 10:01 AM
David Brooks on Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He gets it:
One Israeli acquaintance recounts the time he was depositing money into his savings account and everybody else behind him in line got into an argument about whether he should really be putting his money somewhere else. Another friend tells of the time he called directory assistance to get a phone number for a restaurant. The operator responded, "You don't want to eat there," and proceeded to give him the numbers of some other restaurants she thought were better.
He also has Roger Cohen's number:
Today, Israel is stuck in a period of frustrating stasis. Iran poses an existential threat that is too big for Israel to deal with alone. Hamas and Hezbollah will frustrate peace plans, even if the Israelis magically do everything right.
According to Roger Cohen, of course, Israel poses an existential threat to Iran.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 17, 2009 9:03 AM
The Hard, Unleavened Cracker-Like Bread of the Jewish People
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Thurber on 1933-vintage matzah:
During the past six months, something like five hundred and twenty million matzoth have been baked for Passover. A matzoh (unless we have it backward, that's the singular) is the hard, unleavened cracker-like bread of the Jewish people. Some of the matzoh bakers round about are interesting. The B. Manischewitz Company is the largest--in the world--with four plants, the nearest being Jersey City; that one takes care of New York business, a big proposition, for about half of the yearly output of the matzoh bakeries is consumed in this city.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 17, 2009 9:03 AM
Glasnost, Saudi-Style?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A Jewish professor wins a big Saudi prize.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 17, 2009 8:41 AM
But They Told Me The Social Work Part Was Separate from the Terrorism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It turns out that Hezbollah doesn't distinguish between its jihad wing and its Head Start programs. According to Borzou Daragahi in the L.A. Times, Naim Qassem, the Hezbollah Number Two, said that "Hezbollah has a single leadership." He went on to say, "All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Now, if you listen to Hezbollah apologists in the U.S. you would think that a) Hezbollah's terrorism is run by a completely separate organization, possibly based on Saturn, but not based in Beirut, and definitely not in Teheran, and, b) Hezbollah doesn't commit terrorism anyway.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 16, 2009 2:10 PM
Israel, the Common Enemy of the U.S. and Iran?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Max Boot shares an interesting insight into the addled mind of Roger Cohen. He suggests that Cohen moves from "wishful thinking" to perniciousness when he argues that the latent love affair between the U.S. and Iran could be derailed "at any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won't accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads."
Boot writes:
So you see the Iranians are ready to change their ways, to become a paragon of Western liberal virtue. The only thing standing in the way is mindless Israeli belligerence. If only the nasty Israelites would let the nice Iranians have a nuclear program, everyone could walk off into the sunset, arm in arm. It is rare to get such insights outside of official Iranian government organs.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 10, 2009 6:29 AM
A Memo to Roger Cohen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Everyone knows that the first rule of writing a New York Times column is: Never attack your critics, particularly in personal terms. Columnists for the Times have scaled the Mt. Olympus of punditry; when they attack their critics they demean their lofty position, and inevitably draw more attention to the criticism than it would otherwise receive. Roger Cohen never learned this rule. Please don't get me wrong -- I'm happy to have gotten under Cohen's skin. He is a Jewish apologist for an anti-Semitic regime, and he should be reminded often that he has debased himself. But in a way, I'm disappointed that he's so easily rattled.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 7, 2009 12:01 PM
Peace
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm checking out for a while. I've got to go buy horseradish, among other things. Happy Easter, and Happy Passover to everyone.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 7, 2009 5:29 AM
Oh, Come On Already
from Jeffrey Goldberg
News from Pakistan:
Federal Minister Senator Azam Khan Swati of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) said on Saturday that the flogging of the 17-year-old girl in Swat was a Jewish conspiracy aimed at destroying peace in Swat and distort the image of those Islamists who sport beards and wear turbans.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 2:14 PM
An Annotated Guide to America's Top Rabbis
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Every year, Newsweek, for reasons not entirely clear, runs a very entertaining list of the country's 50 Most Influential Rabbis, a feature has become the NCAAs of the rabbinate. The list is meant to be picked over, so pick over it I will, especially because after an almost-literally endless book tour, I think I've met most of the rabbis in America. Now to Newsweek's list, with my comments beneath each entry in italics:
1. David Saperstein (2008 Ranking #5) Saperstein jumps to the top spot because of his role as Washington insider and political powerbroker and Friend of Obama. He is the Director of the Religious Action Center and the Co-Chair of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty.
This pick is typical of the list, which slights congregational rabbis (the ones who interact with, you know, Jews), but it makes a certain amount of sense: Saperstein has become a central player in the liberal wing of American Jewry, which is the wing on steroids.
2. Marvin Hier (2008 Ranking #1) Hier is a major player in national and world politics and has built one of the world's leading human rights organizations, the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Not so sure about this one. The Wiesenthal Center represents yesterday's sort of American Judaism, i.e., the relentless focus on anti-Semitism and Israel. Hier wouldn't be here on the list if Abe Foxman were a rabbi, by the way.
3. Mark Charendoff (2008 Ranking #10) Charendoff is President of the Jewish Funders Network, an international organization of family foundations, public philanthropies and individual funders.
Again, he plays a role in Jewish life that could be played by a non-rabbi. But the Jewish Funders Network decides where what remains of the money goes.
4. Yehuda Krinsky (2008 Ranking #4) Krinsky's impact continues to grow as the global leader of the Chabad movement.
The Lubavitcher survivor. He's probably still mad at me for reporting 15 years ago in the Forward that the Lubavitcher rebbe spent his last days watching CNN. He's taken effective control of a tumultuous organization, so credit him with serious management skills.
5. David Ellenson, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #8) Ellenson is charged with training tomorrow's leaders as the President of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the nation's oldest institution of higher Jewish education.
The father of a friend of mine, so I'm biased, but he's a real mensch who has helped introduce tradition into Reform Judaism.
6. Robert Wexler, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #3) Wexler is the President of American Jewish University.
Don't know him. American Jewish University is a lacrosse powerhouse, I think.
7. Shmuley Boteach (2008 Ranking #9) Boteach calls himself "America's Rabbi." He continues to promote himself and his perspective on his daily radio show, on television and in his long list of books, including the recently published "The Broken Male and How to Fix Him."
Oh, come on. If self-promotion were a Jewish virtue, the man would be the new Moses.
8. Eric Yoffie (2008 Ranking #2) Yoffie is the leader of the Reform movement, representing 1.5 million Jews in over 900 synagogues. He has pioneered dialogue programs with Christians and Muslims nationwide.
Yoffie should be higher on the list. He's rescued the Reform movement from the assimilators. Also, he represents the vast silent middle of American Jewry that is sometimes uncomfortable with AIPAC but uncomfortable with its alternatives as well.
9. Uri D. Herscher, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #6) Herscher is the Founder and President of the Skirball Cultural Center.
Nice place, that Skirball Cultural Center.
10. Irwin Kula (2008 Ranking #7) The Co-President of CLAL and bestselling author continues to raise his profile nationally as an innovator committed to reshaping America's spiritual landscape.
Very charismatic and thoughtful. I met him in Aspen. He's the sort of rabbi who shows up in Aspen.
11. David Wolpe (2008 Ranking #12) Wolpe is considered one of the most dynamic pulpit rabbis in America
One of my all-time favorite rabbis. Should be higher on the list. Actually has a pulpit. Also took on Roger Cohen, to his credit.
12. Peter J. Rubinstein (2008 Ranking #15) Rubinstein is the spiritual leader of New York's Central Synagogue.
Never met him. I've heard good things, for what it's worth.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 7:40 AM
J Street Gets it Right On Lieberman
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Among other things, the rise of Avigdor Lieberman could rupture relations between many American Jews and Israel:
We as an organization cannot and will not remain silent in the months and years ahead should Israel adopt anything like the policies and views outlined by Avigdor Lieberman as a candidate and politician prior to entering the Foreign Minister's office. Those views - particularly towards the minority Arab citizenry of Israel - are in our opinion contrary to both our democratic and our Jewish values. Not only will we ourselves make our views clear, but we will urge other Americans, Jews and Jewish organizations to do so as well.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 7:40 AM
Gerecht on Farsi Verbs and Nuclear Obliteration
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in:
That was a nice but limited posting you did on Ahmadinejad. This subject is embarrassing: the issue is not whether Ahmadinejad wants Israel to go bye-bye. He, Khameneh'i, Rafsanjani, Larijani, and every member of the ruling elite in whom some have put hope for a normal relationship have stated repeatedly their desire for Israel to cease to exist. It matters not whether it's from a map or from our memories, it's the verb that always matters. "Mahve Shodan" is a strong verb. It is in the passive here ("mahve shovad" in the original), but the intent is beyond dispute. One can take some comfort that Ahmadinejad did not use the active voice, but that would be presumptuous even for him. I don't have at my finger tips the original Persian newspapers celebrating the destruction of the US Marines in Beirut in 1983--I can't recall reading a mournful account from Iran--but I'm willing to bet large quantities of money that the verbs used to describe the slaughter of the US Marines were not in the active since there was no desire on the part of the regime to take credit even though credit was deserved.
The issue was surely not the voice employed, but the explosion. Those who dwell on verb voices and tenses make one deeply suspicious about their intellectual integrity. Ali Khameneh'i might not use a nuclear weapon against Israel for a variety of mundane reasons--and each of those reasons is a little less compelling when the delivery mechanism is an unnamed and unclaimed terrorist. But among those reasons would not be the most comforting reason of all: because he ethically would find it horrific. His statements, those of Ahmadinejad, and even those of the reformist clerics in whom some people had once put their faith do not allay the fear that we are dealing with a regime that would, if it could, slaughter Jews in Israel as it once slaughtered US Marines. Joyfully.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 7:40 AM
Quote of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From The Washington Post: "Even if the Israelis had done better operationally, I don't think they would have been victorious in the long run," said Andrew Exum, a former Army officer who has studied the battle from southern Lebanon. "For the Israelis, the war lasted for 34 days. We tend to forget that for Hezbollah, it is infinite."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 7:40 AM
A Man Who Makes Bibi Look Like A Radical Leftist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Which is to say, his father, the ninety-nine-year-old Benzion Netanyahu. Noam Sheizaf's Promised Land blog carries translations of Benzion's Ma'ariv interview this weekend. One excerpt:
Q: You don't like the Arabs, to say the least.
A: "The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases.
The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won't allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn't matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Avineri: Talk to Hamas About its Anti-Semitism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A smart idea:
...Perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Paging Stephen Walt: Obama's Mind Captured by AIPAC
from Jeffrey Goldberg
President Obama, speaking in France, had this to say about al-Qaeda's motivations:
Al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is-- al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is, you know, don't fool yourselves because some people say, well, you know, if we changed our policies with respect to Israeli/Palestinian conflict or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly, these organizations would stop threatening us.
That's just not the case. It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect and changing our language and changing our tone. It is true that we have to work very hard for Israeli/Palestinian peace.
But what is also true is that these organizations are willing to kill innocent people because of a twisted distorted ideology and we, as democracies and as people who value human life, can't allow those organizations to operate.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 3, 2009 10:24 AM
Questions About Ahmadinejad's Famous Quote
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Questions periodically arise about whether or not Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement that he wants to see Israel "wiped off the map" really means, in the original Farsi, that he seeks the elimination of the Jewish state. I republish here, then, a handy list of Ahmadinejad's statements on the subject. Judge for yourself what he hopes to see happen to Israel:
October, 2005: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine... I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."
July, 2006: "Nations in the region will be more furious every day. It won't take long before the wrath of the people turns into a terrible explosion that will wipe the Zionist entity off the map...The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem. It is a usurper that our enemies made and imposed on the Muslim world, a regime that prevented the progress of the region's nations, a regime that all Muslims must join hands in isolating worldwide."
August, 2006: "Our position on the Middle East is clear. We want the root of tensions to be removed. During these sixty years what was the root of massacres, crimes and conflicts?...The solution is clear and nothing has changed."
October, 2006: "This regime (Israel) will be gone, definitely..."You (the Western powers) should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people...The wrath of the region's people is boiling... You should not complain that we did not give a warning. We are saying this explicitly now..."
November, 2006: "The great powers created the Zionist regime to extend their domination in the region. Every day this regime is massacring Palestinians...As this regime goes against the path of life, we will soon see its disappearance and its destruction."
December, 2006: "The Zionist regime is on the slope of disappearance and the freedom movement and the struggles of the Palestinian people have more success every day...It is the religious duty of all Muslims to stand by the Palestines...The continued crimes of the Zionist regime will only accelerate the downfall of this fake regime."
December, 2006: "I want to tell [Western counties] that just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and does not exist anymore, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out and humanity will be free."
June, 2007: ''God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime..."
June, 2007: ''In Lebanon, the corrupt, arrogant powers and the Zionist regime did all they could in an unfair 33-day war. But after 60 years [Israel's] greatness fell apart...The countdown to this regime's destruction started through the hands of Hezbollah's children...We will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future thanks to the endeavours of all Palestinian and Lebanese fighters.''
August, 2007: "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else."
August, 2007: "The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan...When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."
October 5, 2007: "Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don't you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?"
November, 2007: "It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime..."
January, 2008: "I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line... It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall. The ones who still support the criminal Zionists should know that the occupiers' days are numbered."
February, 2008: "World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region."
March, 2008: "Gaza is the beginning, the real issue is elsewhere. They should know that both in the prelude and in the real thing they face a defeat and this time they will be uprooted."
April, 2008: "The time has come to see the weakness and collapse of the Zionist regime and its supporters. They are doing everything in order to save it, but they will not succeed."
May, 2008: "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken... Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned and this regime is on its way to annihilation...has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese."
June, 2008: "(Israel) has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 2, 2009 1:26 PM
Netanyahu and Obama: A Controversy, and an Update
from Jeffrey Goldberg
There's some controversy about just what Bibi Netanyahu said to me when we were talking about the challenge President Obama faces on Iran. Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of the New York Jewish Week, writes:
"This week (Goldberg) landed another major interview, this time with Benjamin Netanyahu on the day he was sworn in as Israeli prime minister. The interview offers insights into Netanyahu's priorities and strategies in dealing with foreign policy. But it does not make good on its headline: "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran - Or I Will." Nowhere in the Goldberg piece does Netanyahu say that Israel plans to attack Iran, nor does it even hint that the new Israeli leader will offer an ultimatum to Obama."
Rosenblatt's got a partial point here -- the headline is an interpretation of Netanyahu's statements, and framed in such a way to perhaps make an Israeli prime minister squeamish -- even when Israeli leaders make demands on America, they don't like to be seen as making demands on America. On the other hand, Netanyahu signals in about a dozen different ways that if the world doesn't deal with this problem, Israel will be forced to. And his advisers, speaking on background, made themselves even more clear.
But since there's some confusion on this point -- and since, through the miracle of blog technology, I can update articles as I see fit -- I'll give you two quotes that I neglected to include in the first piece. The first one is from one of Netanyahu's defense advisers, speaking on background: "We have to make sure our friends in Washington know that we can't wait forever. There will come a point soon when it will be too late to do anything about this program. We're going carefully, but if we have to act, we will act, even if America won't."
The second is from Netanyahu: "Iran has threatened to annihilate a state or to have a state wiped off the map of the world. In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It's a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there's no j'accuse - there's no shock and there's a resigned acceptance that this is acceptable practice. Bad things tend to get worse if they're not challenged early. Iranian leaders talk about Israel's destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance."
I followed this statement with a question: Is there any chance that Iran could be stopped through non-military means? Netanyahu responded: "Yes I do, but only if the military option is left on the table."
Based on all these statements, I think it's fair to say that Netanyahu, when he comes to America, will tell President Obama that should America fail to suppress the Iranian nuclear program, Israel will have to try.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 2, 2009 1:26 PM
Joe Klein on Netanyahu
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Joe calls my Netanyahu interview "more depressing than alarming, since you've got to figure that the new Israeli prime minister is mostly blowing smoke."
Netanyahu is also completely wrong when he says that Iran, with a bomb, will be able to coerce Arab neighbors to its side. The precise opposite is true: Iran with a bomb would touch off an Arab arms race. The very prospect of Iran with a bomb is freaking out the Arabs now--in private, your average Egyptian, Jordanian or Saudi diplomat is far more passionate about the threat from Iran than the "atrocities" Israel undertook in Gaza.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 2, 2009 11:52 AM
Is This How the Israeli Media Works?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Department of Insane Phone Calls:
A half-hour ago, my phone rang; it was a reporter from Israel Channel 10 News.
"There's a big controversy about your Netanyahu interview," the reporter says.
"What is it?" I ask.
"Netanyahu's people are denying that he threatened President Obama. Do you have proof that he threatened him?"
"What are you talking about?"
"You wrote that Netanyahu threatened Obama and told him that if he didn't attack Iran, Israel would. Do you have a recording of this?"
"Of what?" I asked.
"Of Netanyahu saying this to Obama."
"This is completely crazy. What are you talking about?"
"People here think you said that Netanyahu threatened Obama."
"People? What people?"
"Everyone."
"What I wrote is that Netanyahu told me he believes Iran is going to be Obama's principal foreign challenge, and that he needs Obama to work to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And Netanyahu's people said that Israel might have to deal with Iran itself if America and the West don't stop Iran."
"That's what you wrote?"
"Yes. Did you read the story?"
"Only quickly. Where is it?"
"At www.theatlantic.com."
I hope Israeli intelligence is applying more stringent standards of fact-checking to this general subject.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 2, 2009 11:52 AM
The Mesopotamian Balance of Terror
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ross Douthat being smart on the subject of Iran's nuclear program. I'm looking forward to his many debates with Roger Cohen:
I think we need to be clear-eyed about what a Mesopotamian balance of terror is likely to mean for U.S. policy in the region. Saying that we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran is the beginning of managing the problem, not the end of it. Deterrence proposed is easier than deterrence implemented. In an earlier post on the subject, Massie expressed the hope that "the United States retains (I trust!) sufficient institutional memory as to be able to play the nuclear game with rather more finesse, subtlety and confidence than it has sometimes shown in more assymetric struggles." I hope so too! But that game isn't an easy one to play, and it has tendency to enmesh you in ever-deeper layers of regional commitment, with all the difficulties that such commitments entail.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Apr 2, 2009 9:45 AM
Israel Denial
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Howard Jacobson on the abuse of the Holocaust by Israel's enemies:
We are now described as abusing the Palestinians in exactly the same terms as the Germans abused us - "abused" for God's sake! And in this way, we are actually made to pay for the Holocaust itself. I talk about it as a kind of retrospective guilt for the Holocaust. It's almost as if we've turned time the wrong way round, that because of what we are now doing to the Palestinians, we lose the right to the dignity of the Holocaust, if you can call it dignity.This is a very sinister move. It's at the heart of the Caryl Churchill play [Seven Jewish Children, performed at the Royal Court Theatre] and you get a lot of it at the universities, because it's appealing in its neatness, it's vaguely post-modern, you can mention Freud, you can chase around the names of several fashionable intellectuals. It is also very sinister, because it begs the question of what Israel is in fact doing or not doing to the Palestinians.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 31, 2009 9:44 AM
My Interview With Netanyahu
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Can be found here. He doesn't like the Iranian regime very much:
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 30, 2009 8:36 AM
Heroes of Fact-Checking
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Thanks to Ta-Nehisi for pointing me to Ian Parker's recent Letter from Reykjavík in The New Yorker (sub. required), which is just masterful. It also represents a masterful feat of fact-checking. Here are some names appearing in the article: Jónína Benediktsdóttir; Hildur Margrétardóttir; Thorhallur Vilhjálmsson; Ingibjörg Pálmadóttir; Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson; Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson; and, of course, Svein Harald Øygard.
What a fact-checking höfuðverkur! The Atlantic and the New Yorker are staffed by remarkable fact-checkers, who don't get enough credit for their work. So this is a salute to the New Yorker fact-checker who worked on Parker's impossible piece. Make yourself known to Goldblog, and I'll celebrate you publicly, and maybe even send you on a trip to Iceland, which, I understand, is very cheap right now.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 30, 2009 7:44 AM
Hamas Lags Behind Hezbollah in P.R., Among Other Things
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The official English website of the "military" wing of Hamas, the Izz Al Din Al Qassem Brigades, is pretty sparse compared to the flashy, constantly-updated English, Spanish, French and Arabic versions of Al Manar, the Hezbollah TV station and website. Al Manar has its own graphics department which creates such gems as this, as well as these:
manar.jpg
Each graphic is linked to an outside article, written by such figures as Roger Cohen and John Mearsheimer.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 30, 2009 6:01 AM
J Street Backs Theater J, Which is Semi-Palindromic
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From J Street:
The decision to feature Seven Jewish Children at Theater J should be judged not on the basis of the play's content but, rather, on its value in sparking a difficult but necessary conversation within our community. To preclude even the possibility of such a discussion does a disservice not only to public discourse, but also to the very values of rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself.
By this standard, of course, Theater J should also -- as I've suggested to its director, Ari Roth -- stage a reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because it too would spark "a difficult but necessary conversation within our community."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Caryl Churchill and Ari Roth: A Dissent
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My colleague Shaun Raviv writes:
Some observations from seeing the play at Theater J.
On paper, Seven Jewish Children isn't really a play. It's more of a simplistic poem. I haven't read any of her plays since Cloud Nine (not a fan) or seen any other than A Dream Play (she translated it, too dreamy for me). But the staging (by Ari Roth) added surprising depth to the words. He had the actors read the lines as concerned and confused parents. So, the lines:
"Tell her they want to drive us into the sea."
"Tell her we kill far more of them"
"Don't tell her that"
is read as a discussion by two concerned parents, as to how best inform their child of the situation. It seems to me, from the staging, that the parents don't know what is the truth and what part of the real story to tell the child, who they only want to protect. They may be facts in Churchill's mind--I haven't read much on her views--but Ari's staging was a discussion, clearly not a diatribe. In the talk afterward, many members of the audience complained that the play is missing 99% of the story, and only covers one side of the argument. As a writer of several short plays, including one read at Theater J a few years back, I would argue that a ten-minute play is not long enough a form to tell 100% of any story of any size, much less the story of Israel. You can tell a fragment of a bigger story or create a sketch. Churchill's done both, if not successfully, then a bit lazily. Ari Roth, however, has taken her words, however she meant them, and staged them in a very useful, thoughtful way. Even though much of the audience was just there to get a few simplistic words of their own off their chest about how Israel is a demonic state or a model of good, neither of which it is, a more thoughtful audience would gain from Theater J's somewhat risky venture.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 27, 2009 2:55 PM
You Think You're Having a Bad Week...
from Jeffrey Goldberg
At least you're not the owner of the monkey jungle at Longleat in Wiltshire, who has real problems.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 27, 2009 9:11 AM
The Limitless Potential of Rail
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reihan Salam, who really loves trains, as I do, points me to this article by Phillip Longman, who really, really loves trains, and makes the persuasive case that much of the stimulus money now going to roads should go to rail. Read the whole thing:
[I]f we're willing to think bigger and more long term--and we should be--the potential of a twenty-first century rail system is truly astonishing. ... Yet despite this astounding potential, virtually no one in Washington is talking about investing any of that $1 trillion in freight rail capacity. Instead, almost all the talk out of the Obama camp and Congress has been about spending for roads and highway bridges, projects made necessary in large measure by America's over reliance on pavement-smashing, traffic-snarling, fossil-fuel-guzzling trucks for the bulk of its domestic freight transport.This could be an epic mistake.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 27, 2009 7:40 AM
Scheuer: Emanuel is a Treasonous Israel-Firster
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The viscerally anti-Jewish Michael Scheuer is for some reason now posting his bile on the illustrious sister site of this magazine. As part of a panel of "expert bloggers," he recently answered this question, posed in the wake of the Chas Freeman controversy: "What are the specific steps President Obama, leaders of Congress, the State Department and yes, those of us on this blog, can take to ensure that a rational discussion, and a possible consensus, can be reached on U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine?"
The entire question is of course predicated on the belief that the discussion in Washington about Israel and Palestine is irrational. Here is the way the question is introduced: "Defenders of Freeman -- a man that many members of the foreign policy community and the press know and respect -- say he was unfairly maligned; some of his defenders, and Freeman himself, have said he became a target for the so-called "Israel Lobby," an amorphous collection of groups and individuals whose views on Israel tend to align with those of Israel's harder-line political parties. Other defenders have said he was targeted by a mob."
None of the substantive criticism from this alleged "mob" is quoted. I don't know why. Perhaps because the reader might then understand the actual charges?
In any case, Scheuer responds to the question first by asking the other participating bloggers "what they think about Rahm Emanuel -- a man who chose the IDF over the U.S, military in wartime -- serving as President Obama's chief of staff and being privy to the nation's most sensitive information?" And then he goes on to accuse all Americans who support Israel, and not merely the White House chief of staff, of treason:
This is a good question, but the discussion will be feckless if it avoids what the moderator refers to as intimations that may be "ugly." Well, friends, ugly is here and it has been here for decades. There is indeed an identifiable fifth column of pro-Israel U.S. citizens -- I have described them here and elsewhere as Israel-Firsters -- who have consciously made Israel's survival and protection their first priority, and who see worth in America only to the extent that its resources and manpower can be exploited to protect and further the interests of Israel in its religious war-to-the-death with the Arabs. These are disloyal citizens in much the same sense that the Civil War's disloyal northern "Copperheads" sought to help the Confederates destroy the Union. The Israel-Firsters help Israel suborn U.S. citizens to spy for Israel; they use their fortunes and political action organizations to buy U.S. politicians with campaign donations; and most of all they use their ready access to the media to disguise their own disloyalty by denigrating as anti-Semites or appeasers fellow citizens who dare to challenge them. The Israel-Firsters are unquestionably enemies of America's republican experiment and will have to be destroyed as the Copperheads were destroyed -- by the people, after a full public deabte (sic), at the ballot box."
There you have it: a cluster of anti-Semitic tropes in a single long paragraph. American Jews (pardon me, "Israel-firsters") hate America; they spy on America; they buy politicians with their vast (Jewish) wealth; they control the media; and they accuse people like Michael Scheuer of anti-Semitism when all he wants to do is "destroy" them. Scheuer is not the equivalent of Chas Freeman, not by a mile. Chas Freeman is a Likudnik by comparison. Scheuer is the modern-day incarnation of Father Coughlin, a man who believes that Jews are the eternal enemy. Scheuer is the man who once told an appropriately-shocked gathering at the Council on Foreign Relations that the Holocaust Museum is part of a clandestine Jewish operation to control American foreign policy: "Well, the clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress--that's a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust. I find--I just find the whole debate in the United States unbearably restricted with the inability to factually discuss what goes on between our two countries."
The man is simply a hater.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 27, 2009 5:12 AM
The TSA Should Investigate This Airport
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Prague's Franz Kafka International Named World's Most Alienating Airport
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 9:51 PM
The Brave Pat Oliphant and His Semitic Shark Unicycle
from Jeffrey Goldberg
How clever and bold is Pat Oliphant! Risking violence and rioting and even beheading by speaking a harsh truth about the Middle East. Oh, wait a minute, this cartoon is directed against Jews. How brave is Pat Oliphant! Risking letters-to-the-editor and snarky blog posts and aggressively-written press releases by speaking a harsh truth about the Middle East.
Will someone please explain this cartoon to me? It looks to be a headless jackbooted muscle-man with a sword pushing a Star of David-shaped shark unicycle? Or am I missing something?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 9:51 PM
Ignatius: American Tax-Deductions Help Settlements
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Ignatius writes about a tax-exemption that should end:
There's nothing illegal about the charitable contributions to pro-settlement organizations, which are documented in filings with the Internal Revenue Service. They're similar to tax-exempt donations made to thousands of foreign organizations around the world through groups that are often described as "American friends of" the recipient.
But critics of Israeli settlements question why American taxpayers are supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that the government condemns. A search of IRS records identified 28 U.S. charitable groups that made a total of $33.4 million in tax-exempt contributions to settlements and related organizations between 2004 and 2007.
These donors should know that they are actually undermining the cause of Zionism by encouraging the bad behavior of the most self-destructive segment of Israeli society.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 1:16 PM
"I Am Not Shylock," a New Play at Theater J
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From a prominent New York theater type who just read my exchange with Ari Roth:
Ari Roth's comical incoherence on Caryl Churchill and her odious playlet is not only a classic case of "Bad for the Jews," it's also bad for the American theater. This is a guy who admits the play is pernicious, and freely acknowledges Churchill's bad faith in writing it, but turns his stage over to her anyway, because she once upon a time wrote some good plays and can still turn a decent phrase. Those of us who devote our lives to the notion that the American theater needn't be just a Vaudeville act consigned forever to the margins of the national debate can only hang our heads when the leader of a hitherto well-regarded institution punts so totally. Here's an idea: let's turn your conversation with him into a performance piece. You'll launch a new career as a playwright, and Roth, this Tony Kushner-manqué, will get what he really wants: eight shows a week sitting center stage, in the spotlight. We'll call it, "I am Not Shylock," and we'll stage it in Caryl Churchill's living room, where all her other American theater Jews will give it a perpetual standing ovation.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 9:38 AM
"Drunk Enough To Say I Love You?"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of Caryl Churchill's recent efforts, about which The New York Times had this to say:
Imagine that someone hands you a pamphlet attacking the United States with full-blown rage and loathing. Your first inclination is to toss it. It's the usual screed, spewing standard-issue accusations about American megalomania, imperialism and destructiveness.
But there's something about the typeface, the quality of the paper and the very arrangement of the words that hypnotizes you. You find yourself grinning, not at what it says -- whether you agree with it or not, the content is old news -- but at the way it says it. That's how I felt watching "Drunk Enough to Say I Love You?," the brief and bilious new play by Caryl Churchill that opened Sunday night in a superlative production at the Public Theater. On paper this 45-minute allegory about the seduction of Britain by the United States -- presented as gay men locked in a seriously sick love affair -- reads as a minor work from a major playwright, little more than a political poison-pen letter.
It does seem to be true that hating America and hating Israel go hand-in-hand. And I don't think those who hate America hate it because it supports Israel; they hate it for deeper reasons than that.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 9:06 AM
"Caryl Churchill Advances Demonization of Jews"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Goldblog reader Raeefa Shams:
I just returned from watching "Seven Jewish Children" at Theater J. It was a propaganda piece, pure and simple. Palestinian talking points (Israelis rejoice at dead Palestinians, Israelis steal water, the Jews have no claim to the land, every Israeli child lives in a "Palestinian" home) were presented as fact. There are "good" Jews - the characters at the beginning hiding during the Holocaust or some other persecution (it isn't specified) and the characters who say the Palestinian talking points ("Tell her we would never have come if we knew [what we did to the Arabs]", "Don't tell her it's water for their fields"....) And then there are the "bad" Jews - those who feel that Israel is their rightful home, those who celebrate victory after the Six Day War. There is no nuance whatsoever. Either you are deeply ashamed at having to raise a child in such an awful country as Israel, or you rejoice when Palestinian children are killed. Your interview with Ari Roth was very good and very telling. Unfortunately, despite his copious talents, or perhaps because of them, Mr. Roth seems like the sort of person whose adulation of artists and their technique supersedes his understanding of our current reality. In other words, in a time when Israel is demonized around the world and has few friends, it was a JEWISH theater that performed a play demonizing it further, all for the sake of artistic expression and dialogue.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 26, 2009 9:06 AM
Netanyahu's Rise, and How it Will Affect Debate in the U.S.
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jason Horowitz on how Bibi's second term might change the discussion of Israel in the U.S.:
The fact that debate exists over Israel's policies isn't new. What may begin to change, with the advent of the second Benjamin Netanyahu era in Israel following the February election, is that the "out there" described by Mr. Foxman won't be limited to America's political margins-the Cynthia McKinneys and Jim Morans and Ron Pauls in Washington, or those Juan Coles and Stephen Walts and John Mearsheimers in the academic world, who constitute what amounts to a political niche as European-style critics of the Israeli enterprise and of what they believe to be a much-too-powerful Israel lobby in America.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Caryl Churchill: Gaza's Shakespeare, or Fetid Jew-Baiter?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Against my advice -- and the advice of others -- my friend Ari Roth has decided to stage two readings of Caryl Churchill's "Seven Jewish Children" at his Theater J, in Washington. (The first reading is tonight at 8:00 p.m.; the second is tomorrow at 10 p.m.) Given Churchill's strong distaste for all things Israeli and the not-entirely veiled blood libel embedded in the text, Roth's decision to put on a reading has been controversial, but has at least produced a steady stream of publicity for his theater (of which I am generally a fan).
"Seven Jewish Children," (the full text -- it's a quick, if gross, read at eight pages -- is available here) was dismantled by some critics -- "ludicrous and utterly predictable lack of even-handedness" -- and lauded by others -- "heartfelt lamentation for the future generations." I'm in the first camp, in case you couldn't tell. Anyway, Ari asked me if I would come and talk to the audience after the reading, and I said no, but I said I would interview him on his decision to provide Churchill's play with Jewish oxygen. Here's our bizarre and sometimes-entertaining argument on Churchill and theater and Jews.
Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, tell me why I'm wrong.
Ari Roth: Well, let me ask you, do you think you're still right?
JG: I read the play five times. It reads like anti-Jewish agitprop to me. I see it as a short polemic directed against one party in a complicated conflict. Take the line, "The world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it's not her." I mean, I think she moves from the traditional smug, self-righteous European morally superior stance --
AR: When you say she starts, she doesn't start there --
JG: No, no, no, let me finish my sentence. I think she moves into an area that she has to know has this very, very terrible historic resonance. It's associating Jews with the spilling of innocent blood. She knows what that means and I think it kind of feeds into, obviously, the very worst and most dangerous stereotypes about Jews. How they revel in non-Jewish blood.
AR: I totally agree with you. I mean, I'm on the watch for this as well --
JG: Then why are you putting it on?
AR: I wrote in the Washington Post and the Washington Jewish Week when the Royal Shakespeare company came over with their Canterbury Tales two years ago and included The Prioress's Tale and they brought, in order to make it pungent and fresh again, they did this re-enactment of essentially a blood libel, a young boy was slaughtered by Jews and buried under the floorboards, and all the Jews wore hook-noses. This was very primitive and I blasted it. They wanted to make it fresh, they wanted to elicit outrage, they didn't contextualize, they didn't -- they wanted to surprise the shit out of people and surprise they did.
JG: Let's start at the beginning --
AR: One other thing, can you be available one of those nights? I want to give voice to a critic.
JG: I'm not going to validate it by arguing against it.
AR: Validate what? The play?
JG: What am I going to do, debate every hater?
AR: No offense, you're a critic who went out in public and said something strong about the --
JG: I don't want to treat this as a serious piece of art worthy of argument. I want to argue against what I think is a grotesquely unfair.
AR: I wouldn't be doing this if I thought it was as bad as you do.
JG: I hope not.
AR: But then I think you should be open to the possibility that it's not as bad as you think. And the fact that some of this piece is incredibly deft in accurately overhearing the trauma that the Jews felt, you know, way back when. When they were hiding a child in the closet. I mean there's tremendous accuracy --
JG: Hold on, are you equating what happened to Jews in WWII to what happens to Palestinians children at the hands of Jews now?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 25, 2009 12:53 PM
You Want an Anti-Semitic Circus?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew-Silow Carroll points me to one:
A man dressed in Chasidic regalia speeds in a go-cart around Moscow's one-ring Circus Nikulina. Aziz Askaryan then dismounts and leads two gangly orangutans -- one in a suit and kipah, the other in a full bridal gown -- on a lurching matrimonial march toward a hastily constructed chupah in front of a guffawing audience.
The mock Jewish wedding between two orangutans has been the closing number for weeks in Act I of the famed Moscow circus, whose theme is "Empire: A Magical Show with Bright National Flavor."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 25, 2009 4:54 AM
An Anti-Circus Reader Writes
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I have to hand it to the anti-circus people; they have a way with words. Here is a letter from one Jan Karpel:
Mr. Goldberg,
As a Jewish woman, I'm astounded at your lack of intelligence, let alone insight. You expected your children to see the elephants abused at Feld's Ringling Brothers show? How stupid can you be? I'd advise you instead to have them gather round and watch many of the videos showing elephants routinely beaten with bullhooks.
So, what would you say of a Jew who routinely chains elephants 22 hours a day. Elephants who walk 50 to 60 miles a day in their natural habitat! Magnificent, intelligent beings who care for their young tenderly, mourn their dead, and have social matriarchies just as Jews do?...Next time, Mr. Goldberg, don't be a lazy Jew who spouts opinions rather than facts. Do some homework. I hope you are a better father than a writer.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 9:52 AM
On Circus Cossacks
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader writes, in reference to my earlier post on the infiltration of Ringling Brothers by a posse of anti-Semitic Slavic horsemen:
I think it's great they're in a Jewish owned circus. Let's hope that 100 years from now there's a troop of flying shahids who blow themselves up on stage, last remnant of a once terrifying movement. (Of course you'd need a large troop and a lot of insurance...)
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 8:59 AM
Bring on the Bullet Trains, Already
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of the many reasons I'm just like Joe Biden: Trains. I love trains. My fondest wish is for high-speed rail between Washington and New York (and Boston, if need be). It would revitalize the Northeast. And it's possible. But not with the current stimulus package, which has $8 billion set aside for high-speed railroad projects. That's just not enough to make any real headway:
That money will not be enough to pay for a single bullet train, transportation experts say. And by the time the $8 billion gets divided among the 11 regions across the country that the government has designated as high-speed rail corridors, they say, it is unlikely to do much beyond paying for long-delayed improvements to passenger lines, and making a modest investment in California's plan for a true bullet train.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 8:59 AM
Charming E-mail of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Welcome to my in-box:
Hey Goldberg,
Shouldn't all American Jews sign loyalty oaths? (the kind Mr Lieberman is advocating in Israel). After all just like Israel, that is a Jewish state, America is a Christian state. A lot of American Jews, as well documented, including you, have more loyalties to the state of Israel than this country.
The way I see it, we've got two non violent options:
1- To deport American Jews;
2- To get them sign loyalty oaths (legally binding i.e. to be used in the court of law if they show suspicious behavior that may require legal actions) and keep a real close tab on them i.e. wire tapping, logging their internet activeness, investment strategies, and recording all their conversations, etc.
I'm ccing Andrew to see if he might want to add to this list of options above.
Keeping America and American values should be our core focus.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 7:41 AM
This Will Get Iran to Stop its Nuclear Program
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Israel is now boycotting Iranian-grown pistachios:
In theory, Israel maintains a trade embargo on Iran. In practice, valley growers say, they have repeatedly found evidence of Iranian pistachios finding their way into Israel. Since 1997, when then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright weighed in, U.S. officials have periodically pressed Israel to stop the Iranian shipments. Earlier this year, the maneuvering culminated in Israel raising its tariff on non-U.S. pistachios to 23 percent. That tariff, plus an added weight-based duty, effectively rendered the tariff-free U.S. pistachios a better buy than the foreign competition.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 7:41 AM
Rothkopf Not Liking the Austrians
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The top two from his list of the world's biggest losers:
2.) The pope
To non-believers he may be just a creepy old ex-Hitler Youth member who wears funny clothes and has appalling values, but to Catholics he is so much more than that. For example, according to one Vatican insider quoted in the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph newspaper, "he's out of touch with the real world" and his papacy is "a disaster." Another is reported to have said he "is isolated and fails to adequately consult his advisors." At least. His Africa trip pronouncement that condoms not only don't help the fight against AIDS but that their distribution actually "aggravates the problems" is not just a PR nightmare for the Holy See; delivered on the continent where both AIDS is most rampant and the Church is growing fastest, it is a formula for massive death and suffering.
1.) Josef Fritzl
Back in the good old days, when Joseph Alois Ratzinger was a little boy, being an Austrian sadist was a surefire path to the top, it could lead anywhere, perhaps even to world domination. But today, Austrians are outraged that one of their own could have locked his daughter in the basement, made her his sex slave, and killed one of the seven children he had with her. Which is really bad. Austria has changed, you see. There is no tolerance for twisted brutality there anymore. Well, less. In fact, fewer than a third of Austrians voted for the hate-spewing, neo-fascist extreme right parties like the Freedom Party and the Alliance for the Future. And while cynics (Jews or Muslims) might point out that this was the same proportion of the population who voted for Austria's leading party, the Social Democrats, their point is undercut by the fact that it was only a relatively few Austrians who honor Nazi heroes in public ceremonies on the anniversary of Kristalnacht or who have participated in nasty little rituals like the recent unfurling of a Nazi flag in Hitler's hometown of Braunau. No, there is no place for a Fritzl in modern Austria and so he will be sent to a psychiatric prison for the rest of his life. But one must wonder, is the outrage because of his crimes, because they were against fellow Austrians or because he thought so small?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 7:41 AM
Freeman on Afghanistan
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He's for an immediate pull-out, apparently. He and Norman Finkelstein:
Now, naturally, it would never for a moment compromise Freeman's objectivity that his self-declared political opinions are wildly at odds with those of the administration he sought to join. Nor is there anything even slightly unseemly about a candidate for such a position publicly stating preferences that would immediately put him at partisan odds with the President. Nor, of course, need we wonder at the fact that Freeman found himself politically at home with a conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 7:01 AM
"Cast Lead" Sounds Different in Hebrew
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It rings of Hanukkah spirit, not of bullets and bombs:
[T]he name given to the operation...greatly affects the way in which it will be perceived. Israelis associate the Hebrew for Cast Lead, as the operation was called, with a line written by poet Haim Nahman Bialik that is part of a Hanukkah song typically sung by cute little children. The fact that the operation began around Hanukkah sharpened that association.
Abroad, however, it was seen differently. In English, not to mention German, Cast Lead has a whole other association. Lead is cast into bullets, bombs and mortar shells. When the world reported on Cast Lead it sounded militaristic, brutal and aggressive; it was associated with death and destruction rather than spinning dreidels. Even before the first shot was fired or the first speech explaining Israel's case was made, the operation had already acquired an image of belligerence.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 24, 2009 4:34 AM
Department of Silver Linings
from Jeffrey Goldberg
America in the Middle East Edition:
The potential silver lining amid these bleak scenarios [regarding Israel and its enemies] is that Clinton, and by extension Obama, would have a George Shultz experience.
Some may remember the fear in the pro-Israel community when Shultz, then an executive at the Bechtel Corporation, was named to his post by President Ronald Reagan in 1982. But by the time he left the State Department in 1989, he was considered one of Israel's great supporters. What seemed to put him in that camp was having been thwarted and lied to repeatedly by Yasir Arafat and other Arab leaders in repeated negotiations.
So there is the hope that as the U.S. engages Syria and Iran in talks, it will become evident that neither is sincere about compromise or equitable alternatives to confrontation.
The fact that the new Obama administration engaged in preliminary talks on the Durban II conference and then pulled out after recognizing that the meeting promises to be a sham and disgrace in its anti-Israel agenda, is a positive and hopeful sign.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 23, 2009 11:55 PM
From China (to Gaza) With Love
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Not even the Israeli blockade of Hamas can stop Chinese goods from getting to Gaza:
"There are about 35 Gazan companies with offices in China," according to an MN International Al-Dahshan representative in Guangzhou, who spoke to IRIN on the phone on condition of anonymity. Goods from Guangzhou take a circuitous route before reaching Gaza, according to the representative: Shipped first to Port Said, a duty-free port in northeastern Egypt, they are then taken to the Egyptian side of Rafah, via Al-Arish, before being smuggled into Gaza by tunnel.
"Each small box costs US$30 to enter Gaza via tunnel and there are about 4,000 boxes per container," said the representative. He reckoned about 400 Chinese companies exported goods to Gaza, including IT products, furniture and clothing. The tunnels remain a vital lifeline for Gazans, supplying the market with goods restricted from entering Gaza through the Israeli-controlled crossings, said the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 23, 2009 2:00 PM
Cossacks Invade the Verizon Center, Film at 11
from Jeffrey Goldberg
We took the kids to the circus last night, for entertainment and pedagogical reasons. I wanted them to see for themselves the elephants, so that they could make their own judgments about whether or not the unnatural behaviors coaxed out of the elephants violate their rights, or if they have rights at all.
I'm not actually such a dreary father, in case you were wondering. In any case, the elephants looked well-fed, at least. And the anti-Ringling Brothers protesters outside the Verizon Center win the award for Least Effective Demonstration, Animal Rights Division. Here's a hint: Don't scream through bullhorns at eight-year-olds. It tends to piss off their parents.
But this is not why I'm writing. I'm writing because last night's program included a performance by a group of men on horses advertised as "Cossacks." This surprised me quite a bit, not least because the owner of Ringling Brothers, Kenneth Feld, is a member of Washington Hebrew Congregation. Here is the description of the "Cossacks" from the program:
For centuries, the warrior horsemen guarding the frontier borders of Eastern Europe employed astounding acts of dexterity, skill and strength to outmaneuver and outwit encroaching predators. Today, daredevil equestrians -- generically referred to as Coassacks -- perform feats of extreme horsemanship that trace their roots to tribes of the same name who inhabited 15th century Russia and Poland.
Encroaching predators, huh? Who you calling an encroaching predator?
Here's a photo of the warrior horsemen of Ringling Brothers. I love the hat. cossacks!004.jpg.jpgcossacks!005.jpg.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 23, 2009 8:21 AM
More Proof that I'm a Top 50 Jew
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From John Mearsheimer, who, like his partner-in-crime Stephen Walt, specializes in making lists of Jews:
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freemans views of the Middle East, he said, are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 23, 2009 8:21 AM
Dahlan: We Never Recognized Israel's Right to Exist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Now he tells us:
Dahlan, who was recently tapped to serve as an adviser to Fatah's leader, P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas, acknowledged that the PLO -- an umbrella organization of Palestinian groups that has been headed by Fatah's leader -- did recognize Israel.
"We acknowledge that the PLO did recognize Israel's right to exist, but we are not bound by it as a resistance faction," he said.
My assumption (hope?) is that Dahlan is currying favor with his constituency, which turned against him for being too cooperative with Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 23, 2009 8:21 AM
Israeli Self-Examination in the Wake of Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Yaacov Lozowick:
War is one of the worst occupations men can engage in - though genocide and some large scale injustices are worse, and their prevention justifies war. There is no such thing as a pretty war. The decision to be in war entails, always, the decision to do things that would be totally unacceptable in any other context. For this reason, the decision must be made with care, including detailed planning, meticulous training, permanent self reflection even under fire, and calm examination of everything afterwords so that mistakes not be repeated. Israel is currently examining itself, in a public, communal discussion. I cannot think of any other society which does this in such a frank and open manner; certainly never any of our enemies, but not any of our friends, either. The decision of our critics to cast this in a very different light tells mostly who they are, not who we are.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 20, 2009 6:14 AM
How Far Has the IDF Fallen?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pretty far, if you believe Ha'aretz's searing expose of the tactics used in the Gaza war. These are reports from the soldiers themselves, mind you:
"You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."
The Times reported that the Israeli government believes it must spend more money on "hasbara," a Hebrew word that falls somewhere between propaganda and information. It is true that the world media, generally speaking, doesn't like Israel very much, and stacks the deck against it, but good hasbara starts with not allowing soldiers to vandalize Palestinian homes and shoot Palestinian women. Public relations isn't a morally relevant category, in any case: The crucial question is, how should a civilized country behave when confronting barbarism? With barbarism? Or with respect for innocent life? Pardon me for saying so, but the Jewish people didn't struggle for national equality, justice and freedom so that some of its sons could behave like Cossacks. Please don't get me wrong: I'm not equating the morality of the IDF to that of Hamas. The goal of Hamas is to murder innocent people; the goal of the IDF is to avoid murdering innocent people. But when the IDF fails to achieve its goal, and ends up inflicting needless destruction and suffering, it sullies not only its own name, but the name of the Jewish state. It risks making a just cause -- Jewish nationhood -- seem unjust, and it ultimately endangers what it is supposed to protect.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 9:23 AM
Imminent Flying Chinese Soldier Threat
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Okay, they own our economy, and their soldiers can fly. There's only one man who can save us.
flying.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 9:23 AM
An Afghan Reconstruction Horror Story
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A story that illuminates the corruption and incompetence of the current Afghan government, from Michael Weiss:
Many honest liberals and reformists, culled from the ranks of an impressive Afghan diaspora, have tried to rebuild a country ravaged by a decade of Islamist totalitarian rule only to discover that, while surface appearances may indeed be more hygienic, "official" corruption and criminality persist at levels intolerable for the future viability of a post-totalitarian regime. The sad case of Dr. Mohammed Atash, the former president of Ariana, Afghanistan's largest commercial airline, should be seen as a cautionary tale for what the U.S. and Europe may face in short order: namely, a failed state built on the ruins of the Taliban and sustained by cynical domestic interests.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 8:52 AM
Peace Through Strippers
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Who says Palestinians and Israelis can't work together to solve problems? A story (via Abu Muqawama) from the Department of Things That Could Have Turned Out Much Worse:
A young Israeli woman who works as a stripper was found intoxicated in Ramallah Friday morning, and returned to Israel with the aid of the Palestinian security sources. She was handed over to the police.
Palestinians called the offices of the Civil Administration Friday morning and reported that an Israeli woman in her twenties was seen at the heart of town. "They said that she didn't quite understand what was going on," said Major Shadi Seif of the Ramallah District Coordination Office. The IDF immediately alerted a police unit to the nearest checkpoint, and within 10 minutes the woman was brought to the place by the Palestinian officers.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 8:52 AM
A Settler Writes...
from Jeffrey Goldberg
To criticize Avigdor Lieberman from the right. And to defend him, as well:
I'm no fan of his (for instance, I think he wants to give away my home. I don't take that personally, but neither does he score any points on a subject rather dear to me). And his accent is worse than mine. But when I listen to him on radio, he sounds intelligent, says what few could really disagree with, and has identified the elephant in the living room (the Israeli Arab dilemma). I do not think he would disagree with your formulation which correlates Israeli Arab rights and responsibilities. I don't know if he applies the same requirements to Israel's haredi community, but I'll wager he'd like to. Coalition politics will certainly prevent this from being an issue in the near future. But if you are among those who wish to see a greater separation between church and state in Israel, Leiberman should be your champion.
I don't agree that he has turned himself into a racist as much as the media has painted him so. Sure, he rants and rails against Arab members of Knesset, but that's the Knesset. Would a racist have a Druze on his list? And why all this attention for the "racist Russian" now, when Netanyahu is about to form a government, when nary a word was heard when he was a senior minister in the Kadima government?
In any case, at least you did not give any space to the eternally on-going investigations against him. Not that I have illusions that he is clean, but he can't be worse than what has already walked through the Knesset doors. At least he seems intelligent, and is not afraid to actually express a point of view. And he might be a better foreign minister that you or I suspect. He might be as good as, let's say, Hillary Clinton?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 7:15 AM
Arafat: Less Authentic Than Hamas, but Just as Radical
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Goldblog reader David Salzman writes:
Joe Kanter raises an important and provocative point. I wish your response had gone further.
The despots running Arab countries (except Jordan and later Egypt) used the Palestinian refugees and the PLO almost entirely as instruments of their own national goals until 1991. Immiserating refugees by refusing to assimilate them hurt these fellow Arabs far more than it pressured Israel. Assad's disequilibrium following the collapse of his (and the PLO's) Soviet sponsor opened a window for the Madrid process to occur, after which the PLO's interests eventually diverged from his. He sought power, influence, and a greater Syria encompassing Palestine and especially Lebanon. The PLO sought opportunities for graft, mythical appeal to the Arab Street, and opportunities to claim glorious victories. Oh, and a Palestinian state too.
Is Hamas akin to the pre-Madrid PLO with Iranian instead of Syrian backing? Hamas is more authentic than the PLO because it is not fundamentally a creation or puppet of Muslim countries. (Hezbollah by contrast has something to lose in Lebanon and grim prospects if it loses Iranian backing by way of Syria.) The irridentists in Hamas and Hezbollah care about sharia, and see non-Muslim control ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD as a religious abomination, even if their present focus is on Jews in Palestine, with Hezbollah further focused on Jews in Argentina and of course on non-Shia in Lebanon. As Tom Friedman points out over and over (and over and over), Hamas is unlikely come to an agreement with Israel until it loves life for its people more than it loves death for the Israelis. Iran's weaponry broadens the opportunities for jihadists to become shahids, but it is hard to see how an absence of Iranian sponsorship would change the essential win-lose character of the Manichean game Hamas seeks to play.
The irridentists in the PLO and PFLP on the other hand care about the Ummah and wish to believe that Israel is a colonial implant, facts be damned. Colonists facing costs larger than benefits will pick up and leave -- if they are rational -- so the PLO sought trappings of legitimacy like the UN General Assembly to affect rationality. But why limit the scope to Israel's June 6, 1967 borders?
Also, I think you are giving Arafat too much credit when you suggest that his truculence was limited to ceding one grain of sand of Jerusalem. Arafat's fulminations about an absence of Jewish history in Jerusalem were in Arabic. More problematically, Arafat refused to compromise on a Palestinian "right of return" to overrun Israel, and everyone but Malley recalling the Sharm and Wye River meetings seems to have concluded that Arafat had never at any time intended to soften on that point. The Jews can stay, but only if their state commits to a path ending in its becoming yet another Arab state.
This by the way is Jimmy Carter's "why can't we all get along in a good Christian way?" recurring delusion. He wants to believe that there is something (the West Bank? An apology?) that the Israelis could give the Palestinians that would make everybody happy. What if there isn't? What if Mr. Barghouti (if he's released from his seven consecutive life terms) and his followers aren't satisfied by recovering the West Bank? Rationality cuts both ways.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 7:15 AM
Shalit, One of Olmert's Signal Failures
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Saturday will mark the 1,000th day of captivity for Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Another catastrophic Ehud Olmert failure. Shalit's parents wait for a miracle and pray.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 19, 2009 7:15 AM
"Only Lieberman Understands Arabic"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
(Via TNR)
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 18, 2009 3:10 PM
Instaputz Corrects Me
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Says he:
I'm not sure what Jeffrey Goldberg is getting at here, in which he tackles the Avigdor Lieberman appointment.
It's a disaster because he's made himself into a racist.
I can't tell if Mr. Goldberg is suggesting that Lieberman isn't a racist, but has carelessly allowed the perception he is a racist to stick -- or, that Lieberman does, in fact, harbor racist thoughts, but can resist ("unmake") them if he so chooses.
I don't believe either to be true; Lieberman doesn't seem to be putting on an act. Either way, perhaps Mr. Goldberg would approve of some judicious sentence-tightening?
It's a disaster because he's made himself into a racist.
I think I was trying to suggest that, IMHO, Lieberman is an opportunist who played the race card rather ostentatiously. Of course, Instaputz is right: Racism is racism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 18, 2009 2:37 PM
When Zal Speaks, Israel Should Listen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Haaretz talks to Zalmay Khalilzad about his time as President Bush's envoy to the U.N.:
"There were moments when I felt that Israel could do a little more. For example I thought that there was so much bad publicity, and I got under pressure when I was trying to explain or defend Israel's action, when Israel refused to give the maps for cluster bomb munitions that were used in Lebanon. I used to say to my Israeli friends, that it makes it very hard for me to sit there and the opponents say. 'kids are dying in Lebanon, and UN says Israel won't give information about it.'
"We need to focus on a strategic thing. It doesn't justify that Hezbollah is getting arms from Syria, smuggling of arms to the south and so on. I've always been very strong in taking them to task, but it makes difficult when you lose a moral argument with the cluster bomb munitions' maps, or the overflights that can be too frequent and very aggressive. If the purpose was intelligence, maybe you could do it from higher altitude.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Nasrallah on the Possibility of Recognizing Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Paging Roger Cohen.
This is a translation of an excerpt of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's recent speech from Qifa Nabki's blog:
Today, and tomorrow, and after one year, and one hundred years, and one thousand years, until the Hour of Judgment, we and our children and our grandchildren and our people... as long as we are Hizbullah, we will not recognize Israel. What is Israel? Israel is a plundering entity, an illegal and illegitimate state, a racist, belligerent, terrorist state. By what standard can a human being, Muslim or Arab, recognize an entity of this kind, and come and say, simply: "Yes, this is Israel," while three quarters of it or more has been given to foreigners brought from all corners of the world, and while the people who are in the right, who are the legitimate ones, the people of the land and the holy places, the Palestinians - Muslims and Christians - have to let go, and leave, and surrender, and submit! Show me that standard! What is the religious standard? What is the moral standard? What is the humanitarian standard? What is the nationalist standard? What standard is it?!
I get the sense that this guy doesn't like Israel. But maybe I'm just filtering Nasrallah's words through the prism of my Jewish paranoia. And speaking of Roger Cohen, James Taranto had this to say (third item) after reading what he called Cohen's "jaw-dropping" dialogue with Rabbi David Wolpe: "If we wish really, really hard, maybe peace will break out. Then again, maybe not. But remember, Roger Cohen wants you to think positive!"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 18, 2009 10:34 AM
CSIS: Israel Could Strike Iran with Missiles
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It would, apparently, avoid all the hassle with overflights and refueling. Another interesting finding from the study: fallout from striking Bushehr would hit the Emirates. From the report:
• Attacking the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor would release contamination in the form of radionuclides into the air.
• Most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.
• Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.
JPost article here. CSIS full report (PDF) here.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Humanitarian of the Year
from Jeffrey Goldberg
No comment necessary. Watch the whole thing:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 10:51 AM
What Makes Hamas Different Than the PLO?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Perceptive Goldblog reader Joe Kanter asks:
By claiming Hamas is not now, nor will ever practically be, a partner for peace, one makes the implied argument that there is something inherently different from Hamas now and the PLO of years past. From my reading of history, I see many similarities in both the rhetoric of Hamas-now and PLO-then, as well as in the arguments made against engaging/trusting Hamas-now and PLO-then. Do you draw some distinction here between the two groups which I'm not seeing? It seems that, while a great deal is left to be desired, the transformation of the PLO from resistance fighters to negotiating partners has, at the very least, proven much of the critics-then wrong.
A good question. Here's a provisional answer; I reserve the right to change my mind, or add thoughts later. It's true that many people look fondly back on the PLO days as a time when the Middle East conflict was mainly about real estate, rather than about Allah's demands, and HaShem's competing demands. I do, too. I remember Akram Haniyeh, then one of Arafat's top aides, telling me in 2001 or so that Israel should make the best deal it could with Fatah, because with Hamas there could be no compromise, and Hamas is most certainly coming.
But Kanter has a somewhat gauzy memory of the "transformation" of the PLO from resistance fighters to negotiating partners. For one thing, the "negotiating partners" failed to negotiate successfully. This was largely Arafat's fault, and Arafat's limitations were a byproduct of his mystical, Islamist side. Arafat was actually quite influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology, and I think this is a key reason why he would not allow himself to become the Muslim leader who acceded to Jewish control of even part of Jerusalem.
Today, the situation is somewhat different. The most important moderate Palestinian player, Salam Fayad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, is an unusual character -- he is the first Palestinian leader, I think, who genuinely worries after the quotidian concerns of his people. He seems especially moderate and pragmatic when compared to the men who run Gaza, of course. I'm not suggesting that the PLO didn't contain elements of pragmatism all along (though I tend to think that even in the pragmatic circles there flourished the never-ending dream of "stages," taking Israel apart slowly, piece by piece).
I would never predict that certain leaders of Hamas couldn't evolve and leave the organization to form new, more pragmatic organizations. And I would not say that there are no differences among Hamas leaders; much of the Gaza leadership is tactically more pragmatic than the Damascus leaders. But I believe that jihadist organizations are jihadist at their core, and that it is theologically impossible for Hamas to change. The PLO was never bound by these strictures. I think the more relevant question might be: Will Israel wind up negotiating with Hamas, as it once negotiated with the PLO? This, of course, is a possibility. By the nature of Hamas, of course, I don't see much success for that route, either.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 7:43 AM
The Lieberman Disaster
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Not this Lieberman, this Lieberman. It's not a disaster for the reasons some people think; I know Avigdor Lieberman a little bit, and he's actually a person interested in a cold compromise with the Palestinians. It's a disaster because he's made himself into a racist. The language he uses to describe Israeli Arabs is despicable, and self-destructive, because the key to Israel's future (well, one key at least) is the total enfranchisement of Israel's Arab minority, not its disenfranchisement. Maybe it's just a dream, but an Arab population that has the same rights, freedoms, opportunities -- and responsibilities (i.e. national service of some sort) as the Jewish population is an Arab population that is too busy and successful to hate. (Yes, I know Israeli Arabs have the same legal rights as Israeli Jews, but what I'm talking more about opportunities here).
Another rather important reason Lieberman's appointment is so reckless: This is the man who is going to be Israel's public face. The appointment is a gift to those who believe that Israel is nothing more than South Africa on the Med. Especially at a time when Israel's international reputation has never been lower, how could this come to pass? The answer, of course, is no secret: Israel's dysfunctional politics are largely to blame. In the American system, a person like Lieberman would be marginalized. In the Israeli system, the Liebermans rise to the inner cabinet. This is also, I must say, Tzipi Livni's fault. She could have joined a unity government and kept her job as foreign minister. But that would have been in the best interests of the State of Israel, rather than the Kadima Party, so her decision is, in retrospect, obvious.
Israel is serious about a great many things, but governance isn't one of them.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 7:09 AM
"Iran is Killing Americans in Iraq"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Knights on some hard truths Roger Cohen can't seem to face:
As the new administration moves forward, it must realize that U.S.-Iranian negotiations will take place while Iran is killing Americans in Iraq and increasing its support for armed Iraqi factions. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration must prepare for the challenge of negotiating under fire.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 6:32 AM
Judea Pearl on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From an Op-Ed in the LA Times:
[T]he vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives -- the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.
Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 17, 2009 6:32 AM
The Fetishizing Arbiters of Jewishness
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The difficulties of halakhah, or Jewish law. One of the lesser-told stories in the Jewish world, of course, is the way in which halakhah is dividing the world's two great Jewish communities: Israel's, and America's. In most corners of American Jewry, halakhah, and halakhic conversion, is simply irrelevant. In Israel it's a fetish:
A Jerusalem rabbinic court ruled that the adopted son of the late, famed Jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim was not Jewish, and had never been Jewish, even though he had undergone an ultra-Orthodox conversion at age 2 and was married under the auspices of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in 2001. Ha'aretz reports that the court made the decision when Yossi Fackenheim and his wife went to the court for a religious divorce. You don't need a divorce, the court told him, because you were never really married under Jewish law, because you are not a Jew, because you do not observe halakhah.
Under halakhah, however, someone who has converted remains Jewish even if he or she ceases to observe halakhah. Therefore, the court was not observing halakhah. Therefore, if one of the judges was actually a convert, he should by his own logic declare himself not Jewish, thereby negating the court's decision and reinstating Fackenheim.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 16, 2009 12:55 PM
Wolpe: Cohen Came, Listened, Learned Nothing
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Rabbi David Wolpe has posted his version of Roger Cohen's visit on The Huffington Post:
The audience tried over and over again to convince Cohen that while he was partly right - the Iranian people were sophisticated, poetry loving, freedom loving people, they were also people many of whom (particularly their leaders) were in the grip of a terrifying ideology. The government sponsors the production of the "protocols of the Elders of Zion" the anti-Semitic forgery that has done more harm than any other. They negotiated five years with the European Union in return five more years to build a nuclear program. The relentless persecution of the Bahai, which came up several times in the evening, shows the face of a regime that claims homosexuals do not exist, that Muslim lives (according to law) are worth more than others, that non-Muslims carry impurities, that women's status is degraded - on and on these Iranian Jews pleaded that Cohen acknowledge that his reading was partial at best, dangerous at worst.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 16, 2009 10:43 AM
Roger Cohen's World
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I don't have the time just yet to unpack Roger Cohen's column on his visit to David Wolpe's synagogue in Los Angeles. For now, I will just post one extraordinary exchange between Wolpe and Cohen (the video is below), in which Cohen shows himself to be something more than naive about the intentions of Hezbollah and Hamas. You will note that, at a key moment, the otherwise fairly polite audience of Iranian-American Jews burst out laughing at Cohen's response to Wolpe's question:
Rabbi David Wolpe: I grant you that this is not a perfect analogy to Iran and Israel, but right would you say that Israel is much more powerful than Hezbollah, much more powerful than Hamas. Let's say tomorrow, it were reversed. Let's say Hezbollah had the firepower of Israel and Israel had the firepower of Hezbollah. Let's say Hamas had the firepower of Israel and Israel had rockets---
Roger Cohen: We can say, we can say--.
DW: Wait, wait, wait, wait---
RC: We can---
DW: Let me finish my question. You don't know what to respond to until I've finished my question. What do you think would happen to Israel were the balance of power reversed? And the reason I'm asking that is because Iran is pursuing means by which they could actually in the end be more powerful than Israel so it's not just hypothetical. If Iran gets several nuclear bombs, they have much more territory and they could be more powerful than Israel. What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah -- which are Iran's proxies -- had that power tomorrow?
RC: I don't know what would happen.
[audience laughter]
DW: I do.
RC: I don't know what would happen and it doesn't matter I don't know what would happen because it's not going to happen tomorrow, or within a year, or two years, or three years. It is somewhere into the future. What is important, I think, is to try and reach an agreement with Iran which prevents them from going to a nuclear bomb. And I think that's possible. What is important is to begin to think differently about the Middle East in ways that could actually advance the cause of peace and the two-state solution rather than dreaming up scenarios from hell, rather than dreaming up the ultimate nightmare, rather than dwelling on nuclear Armageddon. Let's try and build something better in the Middle East
Roger Cohen doesn't know what would happen if the situation were reversed and Hamas and Hezbollah had military superiority over Israel. The mind reels.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Camel Technology Breakthrough
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The U.A.E. fixes a human rights problem:
DUBAI -- Three years after robots replaced human jockeys, camel racing has lost none of its allure in the UAE and has become more accessible for expatriates and tourists, authorities said yesterday as the Dubai racing season wound up.
"It is safer and more comfortable," Rashid al Swadi, the deputy manager of the Dubai Camel Racing Club, said minutes after the final race. "This has always been a popular sport. We upgraded the traditions of our fathers and grandfathers."
The UAE and other Gulf countries were previously criticised because of the use of children as camel jockeys. The practice is now banned in the UAE.
This and other changes are making the sport more accessible to non-Emiratis, according to Dr Ulrich Wernery, the scientific director of the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai, who has been following camel racing for decades. "It was a very good impetus," he said.
"Racing is slowly becoming more and more popular, especially with tourists. Before visitors were not allowed in with cameras. There were checkpoints and police everywhere and it was very tense. Now you can go everywhere you want."
.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 15, 2009 11:28 AM
Abu Muqawama on Hezbollah
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do mean what they say. It's not rhetoric, it's deeply-held, non-negotiable belief:
Maybe it's about time we start taking some Islamist groups seriously and at their word. When Hamas or Hizballah says there is no circumstance under which they would recognize Israel or accept a two-state solution, maybe we should, you know, believe them.
1. Maybe we shouldn't think about how we are going to pursue our own interests without first seeing whether or not we have partners willing to meet us halfway. Hizballah can put the most enlightened spokesperson in front of the organization -- Ibrahim Mousawi, Hussein Rahal, whoever -- but if it looks as if there is no middle ground on which we can meet, there is really nothing we can talk about.
What if the Obama Administration said, "Hey, Hizballah, if we guarantee Israel will not attack you, will you lay down your arms?" I'm guessing the response would be something along the lines of "a) let us check with Tehran first and b) well, we've been telling our Shia supporters that these crazy Sunnis in Lebanon are a threat as well, so that's really not an option. Plus, they think our hard-won seat at the table in Beirut would go away if we disarmed. So, no."
The bottom line is, we the United States made things easy on Islamist groups from 2001-2009. With hard-liners in Washington, they could always deflect blame onto the United States and our inflexible policies. Now, I suspect, they will have to adjust to the new realities in Washington -- or risk isolating many of the supporters they have gathered in recent years.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 13, 2009 9:45 AM
No Doggie Bags: The Corby Kummer Story
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Corby's been very busy this week, on television and on his fancy new Fresh Feeds site on the Atlantic. Here he is on the new reality TV show, "The Chopping Block":
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 2:54 PM
Unbelievable
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A self-defeating announcement from NPR, via Romenesko:
Memo from NPR's director of morning programming
From: Ellen McDonnell
To: ME list; Davar Ardalan; Jenni Bergal
Sent: Thu Mar 12 15:48:24 2009
Subject: saving money
As of April 1 NPR is cancelling all newspaper subscriptions. We are making some arrangments to get the Wall Street Journal either on line or hard copy. You have until tomorrow to appeal this if there is a solid reason why you should be exempt. This is a cost saving measure company wide.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 2:54 PM
Rothkopf: Freeman's Great, Walt Cashes in on Anti-Semitism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Rothkopf, one of Charles Freeman's most ardent supporters, has this to say about another Freeman supporter, the cynical Stephen Walt:
Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose "views" were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear.
Read the whole thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 10:10 AM
Patrick Leahy, Friend of Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Alert reader K.R. points me to Scott McConnell at The American Conservative, who writes:
Patrick Leahy, long serving Vermont Senator and chairman of the Judiciary committee, compared the plight of the Palestinians to that of his Irish ancestors in the 19th century. This is huge in American politics; everyone loves the Irish (or at least pretends to)... How long before Jeffrey Goldberg and John Podhoretz claim that Leahy is a rabid anti-Semite?
This is a thuggish new tactic of the anti-Israel lobby, to accuse Jews it doesn't like of committing libel in the future. If McConnell had bothered to ask me, I would have told him that I find Leahy more-or-less reasonable on the Middle East. His last speech, I thought, over-romanticized Hamas, and short-shrifted the Hamas propensity for self-destructiveness, but overall, Leahy has been simultaneously a supporter of Israel and a critic of some its excesses. Here he is in January on the Gaza War:
Hamas' unilateral decision to break the ceasefire was deplorable. It is clear that rather than work for peace, Hamas used the ceasefire to amass more powerful and longer range weapons. Its actions should be universally condemned, and they will achieve nothing positive for the cause of the Palestinian people. Those who have collaborated in supplying weapons that are being used to terrorize and harm innocent civilians in Israel are complicit in the suffering and destruction that has occurred on both sides.
For its part, Israel used the ceasefire to pressure Hamas through a blockade that, in the absence of a long-term strategy, has caused extreme hardship for the Palestinian people collectively in Gaza but done nothing to change Hamas' militant policies. The blockade was not coupled with an effective strategy to address the underlying causes of the conflict.
I don't see much to complain about it in his analysis. I was just in Israel last week; the rockets are still falling, so I think it's hard to argue that the Gaza war was an overwhelming success from Israel's perspective. I think Bibi Netanyahu, when he comes to Washington, should spend some time listening to reasonable critics like Leahy, as well as to some of Israel's less critical supporters. And I think Scott McConnell shouldn't libel people with whom he disagrees. But I'm afraid we're more apt to see Netanyahu and Leahy sit down than we are to see Scott McConnell drop his thuggish tactics.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 10:10 AM
Washington Post: Freeman is a Conspiracy Theorist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Washington Post editorial today on Chas is a must-read:
What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 10:10 AM
Lane on Freeman: A Conventional Thinker
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Sez Chuck:
Freeman's strong suit is supposed to be original, contrarian thinking on foreign affairs. Actually, it's more like a competing brand of conventional wisdom. On China, Freeman goes a bit further than others in his disdain for American human rights pressure on Beijing and in his indifference toward the regime's opponents. But, overall, his sympathetic view of that country's leadership is hardly unorthodox, much less brave. Right or wrong, Freeman's thinking is widely shared among influential U.S. businessmen, diplomats, scholars and think tanks. A more paranoid person than I might even refer to these folks as the "China Lobby." Stripped of its more controversial rhetoric, though, Freeman's "analysis" of China is a rehash of a very familiar apologia.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 12, 2009 10:10 AM
At Least One Newspaper Is Still Hiring
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's The New York Times, and unfortunately it has hired my friend and colleague Ross Douthat as a columnist. Unfortunate for me, and unfortunate for The Atlantic. But we'll soldier on.
Mazel Tov, as they say in New York.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 11, 2009 4:43 PM
Five Observations on the Freeman Withdrawal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm just back from the M.E., and learned belatedly that Charles Freeman has withdrawn from the position of chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Five quick observations:
1. His withdrawal letter, first reported by Laura Rozen, states: "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."
I believe -- because David Rothkopf tells me to believe -- that Charles Freeman possesses many fine qualities, though I'd have to say that self-awareness isn't one of them. The majority of Freeman's critics (me included) reported on statements he has made in various speeches, and provided links to the full texts. Freeman and some of his supporters, on the other hand, have accused his critics of being treasonous dual-loyalists. Their argument seems to be: Opposition to Charles Freeman equals opposition to the best interests of the United States of America. I know some people find it hard to believe, but many Americans, Jewish and otherwise, believe that support for Israel is in America's best interest. Some are like me, and believe that some tough love on the question of settlements would also be in order.
2. What was bothersome about Freeman was not his criticism of various Israeli policies. What bothered me most was his accusation that 9/11 was brought about mainly by American support for Israel, an accusation that seemed designed to deflect attention from Saudi Arabia, whose king is a patron of Freeman's think tank (Freeman once said, "I believe King Abdullah is very rapidly becoming Abdullah the Great.") I would love to see Freeman publicly debate Martin Kramer on this point. I'm sure Andrew and I could convince The Atlantic to sponsor.
3. It is widely believed on the blogosphere that the campaign against Freeman was coordinated by AIPAC or by Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC official no charged with espionage. I've been away, so maybe I've missed a couple of Elders of Zion meetings, but no one coordinated this "campaign" with me. In fact, I haven't spoken to Steve Rosen since he screamed at me for writing this profile of him in 2005.
4. One of the more interesting pieces on the controversy comes from Michael Weiss, who noted that many liberals who would ordinarily stand in opposition to the cynical "realism" of Charles Freeman were nevertheless lining up with him:
Leftists who praise Freeman on the single issue of Israel-Palestine, ostensibly out of a concern for justice and human rights, say it's beside the point to confront his endless euphemisms and evasions on other human rights abuses. An unintended consequence of this maneuver is that these same leftists appear even more obsessed with the Jewish state than do the "neocons" they purport to monitor. They also look especially stupid in this instance because they're effectively arguing that what goes on in the West Bank is more crucial to U.S. national security than what goes on in the one country which produced fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. How's that for realism?
5. Charles Freeman is a lively writer. I think Foreign Policy should give him Stephen Walt's spot. Walt is, among other things, Foreign Policy's dreariest writer. This would also make David Rothkopf happy.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 11, 2009 12:12 PM
Cohen on Hamas and Hezbollah
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The ineffable Roger Cohen:
The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it's wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel's disappearance -- although it has offered a decades-long truce -- but then it's also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state.
Perhaps Cohen would be served by reading their charter a little more closely. He also insists the U.S. "should initiate diplomatic contacts with the political wing of Hezbollah."
Abu Muqawama disagrees:
First off, who is this "political wing?" Does he mean Hizballah parliamentarians? If that's who he is talking about, then fine, I understand. The seven-man Shura Council, though, has operational control over both what Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh calls the "Political and Administrative Apparatus" as well as the "Military and Security Apparatus." So while there is a clear division of labor between Hizballah's activities in the government and its military activities, the command is more or less unified. (I have no idea how Hamas is set up, so someone feel free to jump in here.)
Second, why on Earth would Hizballah want to talk to us? What would they want from us?
Third, it would be one thing if the only thing Hizballah has ever said about armed resistance was said in the Open Letter of 1985, but Hizballah leaders have repeatedly and consistently defined the organization as an armed resistance movement first and foremost. What's more, this armed resistance is no longer tied into concrete territorial demands that we could conceivably help out with, such as the Shebaa Farms. So that complicates things, both for us in dealing with them and also for them as they try to figure out what the future of their party holds.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 9, 2009 2:15 PM
Andrew, Freeman, Me, Treason, and Dual Loyalty
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew asks: "Is Jeffrey accusing Freeman of dual loyalty and treason now? If so, a little clarification is in order. Over to you, Goldblog."
Oy, with the drama. No Goldblog isn't accusing Freeman of "dual loyalty." I leave accusations of "dual loyalty" to others (and you know who you are!) What I'm suggesting is that Freeman suffers from clientitis, which is a disease sometimes seen in former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia (among other places). "Clientits" is a common Washington ailment, and it manifests itself in different ways. In the case of diplomats, it causes them to over-identify with the viewpoints of the countries in which they serve. Many people in Washington suffer from variants of clientitis: How many lobbyists, and earmarking congressmen, conflate the needs of a particular industry with the best interests of the U.S.? Answer: A lot. Does this make them treasonous? Of course not.
Do I think there are some people who believe that American self-interest and Israeli self-interest are the same? Yes. Do I believe there are some people who believe that American self-interest and Saudi self-interest are the same? Yes. Are these people treasonous? No, of course not, and not only because Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't at war with the U.S.
In any case, Andrew has posted a long and thoughtful response to my last post, but I'm traveling now (in the Middle East!) and I'm not having great luck with the Internets at the moment, so a fuller response might have to wait until I get back.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 9, 2009 5:22 AM
Human Rights Watch Hijacked by Neocons
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Matt Welch points out that Human Rights Watch must have been seized by the neocon cabal. What else could explain its opposition to Charles Freeman?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 9, 2009 5:22 AM
Rosner on Salam Fayyad's Departure
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Fayyad's departure is not good for peace. And it limits Obama's options. Rosner explains:
[W]hile the Palestinian partner is becoming less promising and more complicated to deal with, it seems that the administration is pulling out of the bag the only available trick: pressuring Israel on the settlement issue.
...
This pressure from the Obama team was to be expected but, with the resignation of Fayad, its futility will be even more evident than usual. Those who expect the freezing of settlement activities to make peace more probable should prepare for disappointment. Since peace is not in the cards as a short-term cause, Obama may want settlement activities halted in hopes of not derailing future agreements. That would be long-term future -- when a new Fayad is found.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 8, 2009 2:24 PM
Andrew, Chas, and Me
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew says of Charles Freeman's famous speech on the Middle East: "I do not see evidence of 'hostility to Israel' in it. I see criticism of Israel -- plenty of it. But hostility?"
When Israel does something wrong, pointing out the sin is criticism; here are two examples, from Andrew, and me. When Israel is accused of something it did not do, then it's hostility. Such is the case with Freeman's accusation that Israel brought about the attacks of 9/11. It didn't.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 7, 2009 12:18 PM
Freeman on Israel and 9/11
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew says that I base my concerns about Charles Freeman on this speech, but doesn't provide the portions of the speech that seem most problematic to me. Here is one of those passages from this 2006 speech:
We have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel's approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home.
Freeman blames Israel, and American support for Israel, for provoking 9/11. This is a very serious charge, and it is an untrue charge. Most al-Qaeda experts seem to agree that the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia was the main motivating grievance, though there were many putative causes. "You could take Israel out of the equation and Al Qaeda would still want to attack us," Lawrence Wright, the author of The Looming Tower, once told me. "Israel is a tremendously powerful recruiting tool, but there are people who are drawn to Al Qaeda for many different motivations. For Zawahiri, the main goal was Egypt. For bin Laden, the main goal was to expel American troops from Saudi Arabia." Richard Clarke told me, "If you look at Al Qaeda's own writing and their public statements, Israel was not a major theme. What they say is pretty clear. They want to eliminate the presence of the 'far enemy'--us--from the Islamic world, because the far enemy props up the 'near enemy,' the moderate Arab states. If they increase the pain on us, they believe that they can topple the Arab regimes. If Israel didn't exist, they'd be doing the same thing."
And one other Middle East expert -- Charles Freeman -- said in 1998: "Mr. bin Laden's principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point."
So the question is, what caused Charles Freeman to change his opinion about the causes of al-Qaeda radicalism? Could it be his close ties to Saudi Arabia? This was my original concern about Freeman, that he was too tied to a country that is an obvious target for the collectors and analysts of American intelligence.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 7, 2009 12:18 PM
Freeman's Son Threatens to Punch Critics in Their Faces
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm not sure that this is the most helpful response ever:
My Dad is a royal pain in the butt, but I love him. Why this pack of arfing lapdogs have chosen him as a target is clear: he's been a longtime thorn in the butt of the Israel first-ers. Never mind that he'd be a killer NIC chair for genuine American interests.
My Dad and I are going to continue to argue.
We'll do it, respectfully though.
Wish that could be said about his detractors. They are low-lives. And if you're among them and by chance read this: I still want to punch you in the face. You'd deserve it, you schmucks.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 7, 2009 8:02 AM
Fallows on Freeman: An Antidote to Groupthink?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Fallows writes in support of Charles Freeman:
A president's Secretary of State had to represent the country's policies soberly and predictably around the world. His National Security Advisor had to coordinate and evenhandedly present the views of the various agencies. His White House press secretary had to take great care in expressing the official line to the world's media each day. His Director of National Intelligence had to give him the most sober and responsible precis of what was known and unknown about potential threats.
For any of those roles, a man like Freeman might not be the prudent choice. But as head of the National Intelligence Council, my friend said, he would be exactly right. While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask "What if everybody's wrong?", to force attention to the doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as "groupthink."
I absolutely see Jim's point: Freeman is not making policy, nor representing the President's views in foreign capitals. But on the other hand, I ask myself each time I read something outlandish or offensive Freeman has said, at what point does contrariness bleed into wing-nuttery? Put another way, what would Freeman's defenders say if the President were appointing another generally well-regarded foreign policy mandarin for this position who had only one flaw: A deeply emotional and irrational attachment to, say, the Jewish settlers, or to Serbian nationalism, or to some other unhelpful cause? I don't lump Jim in this category, because I think he's a fair person (and we agree on so much else), but I get the sense that some of Freeman's defenders want to see him in government not because he's a professional contrarian but precisely because he's viscerally anti-Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 6, 2009 11:11 AM
Hezbollah's Insane Roger Cohen Graphic
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Roger Cohen's second column on Iran's Jews has been reprinted on Hezbollah's Al Manar website. (Mazal Tov). And it's accompanied by what might be the craziest graphic ever:
manar_cohen.jpgYes, that's Roger Cohen on the left, next to a photoshopped image of the entrance to Auschwitz framing an "Iran Loves Jews" poster, next to photos of Ayatollah Khatami and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meeting men I believe to be members of the ridiculous Neturei Karta anti-Zionist cult.
Al-Manar has long been providing interesting satellite and web-based content. I visited Al Manar in 2002, and wrote about it in The New Yorker:
Al Manar regularly airs raw footage of violence in the occupied territories, and it will break into its programming with what one Al Manar official called "patriotic music videos" to announce Palestinian attacks and applaud the killing of Israelis. When I visited the station, the videos were being produced in a basement editing room by a young man named Firas Mansour. Al Manar has modern equipment, and the day I was there Mansour, who was in charge of mixing the videos, was working on a Windows-based editing suite. Mansour is in his late twenties, and he was dressed in hip-hop style. His hair was gelled, and he wore a gold chain, a heavy silver bracelet, and a goatee. He spoke colloquial American English. I asked him where he learned it. "Boston," he said.
Mansour showed me some recent footage from the West Bank, of Israeli soldiers firing on Palestinians. Accompanying the video was a Hezbollah fighting song. "What I'm doing is synchronizing the gunshots to form the downbeat of the song," he told me. "This is my technique. I thought of it." He had come up with a title: "I'm going to call it 'Death to Israel.' " Mansour said that he can produce two or three videos on a good day. "What I do is, first, I try to feel the music. Then I find the pictures to go along with it." He pulled up another video, this one almost ready to air. "Try and see if you could figure out the theme of this one," he said.
The video began with Israeli soldiers firing on Palestinians. Then the screen filled with pictures of Palestinians carrying the wounded to ambulances, followed by an angry funeral scene. Suddenly, the scene shifted to Israelis under fire. An Israeli soldier was on the ground, rocking back and forth, next to a burning jeep; this was followed by scenes of Jewish funerals, with coffins draped in the Israeli flag being lowered into graves.
Mansour pressed a button, and the images disappeared from the screen. "The idea is that even if the Jews are killing us we can still kill them. That we derive our power from blood. It's saying, 'Get ready to blow yourselves up, because this is the only way to liberate Palestine.' '' The video, he said, would be shown after the next attack in Israel. He said he was thinking of calling it "We Will Kill All the Jews." I suggested that these videos would encourage the recruitment of suicide bombers among the Palestinians. "Exactly," he replied.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 6, 2009 11:11 AM
Krauthammer: Israel to Attack Iran
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From NRO, via Andrew:
The only thing that would stop the Iranians, conceivably, would be a complete embargo, including refined petroleum, meaning gasoline, which would shut down its economy.
A, that may not even deter them, and, secondly, the Russians and others, and even the Europeans are not going to go alone, which means that in the end, it will be Israel acting here--6 million Jews in Israel are not going to allow a country that is threatening genocide to acquire a genocidal weapon.
We have to prepare ourselves for an Israeli attack by the end of this year....
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 6, 2009 11:11 AM
Hamas: No Solution Is the Best Solution
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Young on why Western and Arab engagement with Hamas is counterproductive:
Sometimes, no solution is better than a bad one. Hamas is undeniably a difficult interlocutor to avoid on Palestinian issues. The movement has effective veto power over most major Palestinian decisions. However, negotiating with Hamas would only better allow it to change the subject away from what it wants most to avoid: a settlement with Israel along the post-Oslo lines defined during the 1990s. If deadlock is assured on the Palestinian track in the coming year, then it's best to avoid talking to Hamas, allowing the Palestinians themselves, perhaps in the next elections, to cut the movement down to size first. And if they don't do so, then they should prepare to see their national aspirations postponed indefinitely.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 3:05 PM
Italy Pulls Out of Durban II
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Ha'aretz:
Frattini's comments on Durban II, made on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Brussels, were reported by Italian news agencies. Ministry Spokesman Maurizio Massari confirmed Frattini's statements and said Rome would not participate in the conference unless the document was changed.
"There are expressions of anti-Semitism," Massari said by telephone. "Until the document is modified we will not have a part in it." The United States has imposed similar conditions. Israel and Canada have already announced a boycott.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 3:05 PM
I Prefer Muslim Salt, Personally
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Chris Bodenner points me to a guy who doesn't exactly get it:
Retired barber Joe Godlewski says that when television chefs recommended kosher salt in recipes, he wondered, "What the heck's the matter with Christian salt?"
By next week, his trademarked Blessed Christians Salt will be available from seasonings manufacturer Ingredients Corporation of America. It's sea salt that's been blessed by an Episcopal priest.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 1:10 PM
Lede of the Year Contest
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I just spoke to Jack Shafer, who is nominating this Nick Kristof graf as lede of the year:
When the International Criminal Court issued its arrest warrant for Sudan's president on Wednesday, an 8-year-old boy named Bakit Musa would have clapped -- if only he still had hands.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 8:23 AM
Good for Roger Cohen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Two days ago, I posted on this blog an invitation from Rabbi David Wolpe, of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, to Roger Cohen of the New York Times, to come visit the temple and talk to its congregants, half of whom are Iranian-American. Many of these congregants have stories about life as Jews in Iran that conflict with the quasi-benevolent picture Cohen has drawn in recent days.
Yesterday, Rabbi Wolpe told me that Cohen has accepted the invitation, and will visit the temple on March 12th, to meet with his congregants, listen to their stories, and take their questions. I'm looking forward to his column about the experience.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 5:32 AM
Livni's Maneuver
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Smart commentary from Yossi Klein Halevi:
Livni claims she has rejected Netanyahu's overtures because he won't commit to a two-state solution. But she knows that that disagreement is theoretical, because there is no chance anytime soon of creating a viable Palestinian state: As long as Hamas dominates Palestinian politics, it will impose a veto on any agreement. Nor has Livni managed to negotiate an agreement with Fatah. Livni, after all, served as foreign minister in the outgoing Kadima-Labor government of Ehud Olmert, which had three years to deliver peace with the Palestinians. In fact, Olmert tried to deliver two peace agreements--with the Syrians as well as the Palestinians. Instead, he became the first prime minister to fight two wars in one term--and not because he didn't try to bring peace.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 5, 2009 3:19 AM
How Big is Wal-Mart?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Forty-five million dollars in sales every hour. Counting the cash from places like this. This recession is great news for Bentonville.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 4, 2009 8:17 PM
The Lingerie-Seller of Damascus
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The AFP reports this developing undergarment story:
"Islam orders the woman to keep herself pretty for her husband, that's well-known," Mohammad Habash, head of the Damascus Center for Islamic Studies, said.
He said there is nothing at all contradictory in a veiled Muslim woman buying sexy underwear. "A woman can buy whatever she desires, even a dancer's outfit for when she wants to give pleasure to her husband," Habash added. "This is not only her right, it's an obligation."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 4, 2009 7:50 AM
The Israel Policy Forum's Professional Slander Expert
from Jeffrey Goldberg
M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a group usually worthy of respect (and one that just asked me to plug its new and improved website), writes, in reference to Jon Chait's elegant takedown of Stephen Walt:
Chait calls Walt out for failing to note that many of the "usual suspects" Walt cites didn't only write about Freeman's views of Israel. Some wrote about his views of...China. Chait has to be joking. None of the bloggers in question had any interest in Freeman's views on China until Steve Rosen (and some of his colleagues) decided to stir up the opposition to Freeman because of his alleged lack of fidelity to the occupation. In fact, I hear that the offending China quotes were only discovered in the context of a Google Nexis/Lexis search to find incriminating material to block Freeman's appointment because of his Middle East views. China was not even an afterthought.
That should be obvious unless one believes that Rosen, Goldfarb, Goldberg, Peretz, Goldberg again and Scheonfeld suddenly developed a deep and simultaneous concern about human rights in China. The only issue that gang has in common is defending the occupation and opposing the peace process.
Yes, I'm well-known for opposing the peace process. This is what M.J. Rosenberg wrote about my views before the evacuation of settlements from Gaza:
Sharon is taking on the most dangerous segment of the Israeli population. In the May 31 issue of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg -- an American Jewish reporter who served in the Israeli army -- describes the extreme settlement movement as a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state. Goldberg, a regular in the New York Times Magazine and elsewhere, has often been criticized for his supposed pro-Israel bias, and that makes his take on the settlers particularly significant.
Which one is it, M.J.? Am I for the settlements or am I against the settlements? Have I switched my views on settlements and on the occupation? If I have, please let me know. I'm not aware of such a shift. M.J., you should at least read what you yourself have written about other people before manufacturing charges against them.
What Rosenberg can't seem to comprehend is that a person can be opposed to the occupation, and be opposed to the viciously anti-Israel "realism" of the Walts and Mearsheimers at the same time. I admire the work of the Israel Policy Forum very much, and so I'm continually surprised that its director of policy analysis has placed himself in the camp of Walt and Mearsheimer and Charles Freeman.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 3, 2009 10:40 PM
I'm Not So Sure This is Good for the Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Lindsay Lohan is joining the tribe, apparently. She can sit with Madonna at Kol Nidre.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 3, 2009 10:18 AM
An Invitation for Roger Cohen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Wolpe, the rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, wrote the other day to suggest that if Roger Cohen really wants to understand the Iranian-Jewish experience, he should come and talk to some of Sinai Temple's congegants. Half the synagogue's members are Iranian-American, and many of them are refugees from the 1979 Iranian revolution (There were 100,000 Jews in Iran before the revolution; 25,000 now).
Rabbi Wolpe said he would be happy to host Cohen at the synagogue, and that his members would be eager to talk to him about their experiences in Iran. So, Roger, over to you. You can contact Rabbi Wolpe through the Sinai Temple website, or through me. I've been to Sinai Temple before; it's filled with very nice and sincere people. I hope you take Rabbi Wolpe up on the offer.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 3, 2009 7:20 AM
Thanks Very Much, Jared Polis
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I never heard of him before this story appeared on Romenesko, but apparently Polis is a freshman congressman from Colorado who thinks that the death of The Rocky Mountain News is a good thing:
"I have to say, that when we say, 'Who killed The Rocky Mountain News,' we're all part of it, for better or worse, and I argue it's mostly for the better," Polis said at the Netroots Nation in Your Neighborhood event in Westminster, according to a recording posted online. The group supports progressive politics. "The media is dead, and long live the new media, which is all of us," said Polis, a Boulder Democrat.
Uchh. I don't know too many Democrats who think that the death of a newspaper is a positive development for society. And by the way, "All of us" are the new media? I'd like to read the investigations of government corruption produced by "all of us." I imagine there are many journalists -- and advocates of government accountability -- wishing for the death of Polis's congressional career right about now.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 3, 2009 7:20 AM
Schneier on Perverse Security Incentives
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Interesting article from Wired. It's all about cash and CYA, apparently:
Incentives explain much that is perplexing about security trade-offs. Why does King County, Washington, require one form of ID to get a concealed-carry permit, but two forms of ID to pay for the permit by check? Making a mistake on a gun permit is an abstract problem, but a bad check actually costs some department money.
In the decades before 9/11, why did the airlines fight every security measure except the photo-ID check? Increased security annoys their customers, but the photo-ID check solved a security problem of a different kind: the resale of nonrefundable tickets. So the airlines were on board for that one.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 2, 2009 9:40 AM
Charles Freeman: Tiananmen Massacre Was Justified
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jon Chait did a fine job dismantling the realist-run-amok Charles Freeman in the Washington Post yesterday, and highlights his most egregious belief, that the Communist regime in Beijing was within its rights to order the wholesale slaughter of students in Tiananmen Square. These are Freeman's words:
"[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .
"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 2, 2009 9:40 AM
Not All Reporters in Iran Get the Roger Cohen Treatment
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From today's Times:
TEHRAN -- Iran has arrested an Iranian-American reporter who worked for National Public Radio and other news organizations out of Iran, her father told N.P.R. on Sunday.
The father, Reza Saberi, said that his daughter, Roxana Saberi, 31, who has worked as a freelancer in Iran for six years, was arrested Jan. 31 by the authorities after buying a bottle of wine. He said she called Feb. 10 and told him that she was in custody but that she could be released soon.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 2, 2009 6:31 AM
Roger Cohen's Credulity, Cont'd
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In his column today, an obviously defensive Roger Cohen caricatures my criticism of his previous column, the one in which he argued that Iran's remaining Jews are doing just fine, thank you very much, and the way you can tell this is that non-Jewish Iranians are generally pleasant to Jews they meet on the street, particularly those who denounce Israel as "criminal." This is what he wrote:
Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran -- its sophistication and culture -- than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I'm a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran.
In my post on that column, I wrote that:
Warmth, civility, hospitality and friendliness are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies I've visited. I have been in many places -- in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq and Iran -- where people absolutely hate Israel, absolutely hate "International Jewry," and hate the Talmud, or what they think is in the Talmud. But people in these places have been almost uniformly kind to me as a visiting Jewish reporter (and they almost always know, right from the outset, that I'm Jewish, because it's not something I ever hide).
Cohen obviously refuses to grapple with my point: That the personal doesn't necessarily correspond to the political. The Iranian government supports terrorists who kill Jews, in Israel and in other countries as well (the Argentina massacre, for instance). The Iranian people are very kind and hospitable to Jews on a personal level. These two things are true. Cohen seems to think that the latter observation negates the first observation.
Cohen states self-righteously that he has a bias for facts over words. Here are some facts.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 2, 2009 6:31 AM
Israel, Crying Wolf
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Zvi Barel, in Ha'aretz:
Israel cannot keep up for much longer the role of managing the global coalition against Iran. Its term is running out, not least because, in the wake of the Gaza war, it has lost its status as a country under threat. It may seem that the two fronts are unconnected, but it's hard not to notice how less qualified Israel is to cry wolf as it prevents pasta trucks from entering the Gaza Strip.
Unfortunately, this erosion is spreading. You can't be perceived as a bully on one front and a righteous nation on the other. It's not that the Iranian threat has weakened, it's that the shine of its potential victim has dimmed.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Mar 2, 2009 6:31 AM
Quote of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
"I hope a lot of people do go to the cemetery -- which, by the way, is conveniently located at 155th and Broadway on the subway."
-- Mayor Koch, on planning his own funeral
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 27, 2009 12:39 PM
Judea Pearl on Durban II and Jimmy Carter
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father, should, by rights, be a featured speaker this April in Geneva, at the United Nations' follow-up meeting to the famous World Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance - who can't love that name? - that was held in Durban in September of 2001. After all, Pearl's family was directly victimized by prejudice - Danny Pearl was murdered because he was a Jew.
Judea told me he would be happy to speak at the conference, though he believes that it will once again focus almost exclusively on the sins of one country, and one country alone. How could Israel not become the target of the conference, when Iran and Libya are key planners of the meeting?
The Obama Administration, which is boycotting the conference (Ben Smith has the scoop), along with Canada and Israel and perhaps some Western European countries, should suggest to the United Nations that Judea address the General Assembly on the subject of hate. What better way to highlight the issue of racism than by listening to its victims? I spoke to Judea about Durban and about his recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which criticized, among others, Jimmy Carter, for accepting as legitimate the demands of terrorists. Here is an edited version of our conversation.
Jeffrey Goldberg: What is your specific problem with Jimmy Carter?
Judea Pearl: Jimmy Carter believes that terrorism will stop when the Palestinians get what they say they want. I believe that terrorism should be taboo regardless of the grievance, and he doesn't see it like that. He sees it as a legitimate way of pressuring someone. But everybody has a grievance. There are just some things that you don't do. There is good and there is evil. The men who killed my son had a grievance, everybody has a grievance. Once you focus on the grievance, rather than the terrorist act itself, the terrorist has won.
JG: The Durban II draft calls for official international protections for religion against criticism. You've suggested that this is motivated by some Muslim nations that want to shift the focus away from Islamist terrorism.
JD: What gets me is the idea that speaking against terrorism gets you labeled Islamophobic.
JG: How do you think the U.S. should try to influence the outcome of the Durban II conference?
JD: They should try to discredit it because of its essential ridiculousness. It's a focused hatefest. It's a hatefest against one entity, the Jewish national movement. Iran and Libya are organizers, after all. I think the whole negotiating text is meant to exclude the kind of hatred that took Danny's life. The hatred was directed at the U.S., Israel, and the Jewish people. Durban protects this kind of hatred. Durban wants to criminalize any criticism of groups that say they are acting on behalf of Islam. Religions do not have a monopoly on human sensitivity. There are other symbols, other aspects of people's lives that deserve respect, such as the belief in Jewish national quality, the belief that Jews are entitled to sovereignty in the country where they were born. There should be sensitivity to the issue of burning the Israeli flag, which contains a national and religious symbol. I feel pained when people burn the Israeli flag, the same way a Muslim feels abused when the Koran is mistreated.
JG: Do you think we've reached some sort of point of no return in the questioning of Israel's legitimacy?
JD: There is latent anti-Semitic pressure in the world and Gaza took the lid off. That's one way to look at it. Group hysteria is catching. Gaza gives people the chance to feel morally superior. I mean, look at the Libyan government. Are they saying they're morally superior to Israel? For the Libyan people it's very important that there's one speck, one human area, where you're worth something - you're morally superior to the Jews. It's a confirmation of worthiness. The average Libyan is not having a very good time most days. So it's good to have a scapegoat. This is what Durban is about.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 27, 2009 9:27 AM
Freeman's Blind Spot on the Saudi Question
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A few years ago, Chas Freeman, the apparent Obama pick to run the National Intelligence Council, visited the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and had this interesting exchange with its director, Robert Satloff (we're coming in in the middle of the exchange; for the full dialogue, see here):
Freeman: And what of America's lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine themselves, we should examine ourselves.
Satloff: I find it difficult to accept that the people who were on the receiving end of the September 11 attacks should begin by focusing on what they did to deserve it.
Freeman: My point is that cause and effect work both ways. They exist in both directions, whatever the moral consequences might be.
In this dialogue, Freeman also stated that "I accept that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden almost certainly perpetrated the September 11 attacks," but never mind this off-putting hesitancy; what's particularly interesting is his desire to see an exploration of 9/11 cause and effect. Let's posit as true that al Qaeda acted against America out of specific grievances (I think it's also true that al Qaeda acted out of Muslim supremacist ideology, but let's put that aside as well). What was the principal political grievance of al Qaeda before 9/11? The stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government, in order to protect the kingdom from Saddam Hussein.
Most experts agree that this was the triggering event. There were many others, of course -- Bin Laden's generalized grievances against the Saudi royal family, and at number three or four, the Israel-Palestine crisis. But it was the joint American-Saudi decision to place American troops on holy Muslim soil that sent bin Laden around the bend. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and a recipient, as head of the Middle East Policy Council, of funds from the Saudi royal family, should know that Saudi Arabia, the native land of most of the 9/11 hijackers, also provided the raison d'etre for al Qaeda, and our entangling alliance with Saudi Arabia made us a target of al Qaeda rage. Perhaps in his new job as the government's analyst-in-chief, he'll say that.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 6:54 PM
Jewish Leaders Overreact to Hillary's Demands
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to this report, Jewish leaders (which seems to mean mainly Mort Zuckerman) are upset with Hillary Clinton for demanding that Israel speed up the flow of aid to Gaza. Do I have to point out that this doesn't make her George Galloway? I understand Israel's hesitations here -- it has a kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, in Gaza -- but a comprehensive easing of tensions might make Shalit's release more, and not less, likely. (This doesn't mean anything more than technical negotiations with Hamas, by the way). And I have not a single doubt that Hillary Clinton is working assiduously to free Shalit, and working assiduously to marginalize Hamas in other ways, in order to buttress the moderate government of Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad on the West Bank.
So, chill until further notice, please.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 2:05 PM
Holocaust-Denying Bishop: "Sorry. To The Church, I Mean."
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Richard Williamson has apparently apologized, but it's still not clear if he believes that the Holocaust actually happened:
In a statement published by the Zenit news agency on Thursday, Bishop Williamson said: "I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."
He added: "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize."
His statement did not address the content of his remarks, in which he had said that no more than 300,000 people died in the Holocaust and none in gas chambers. In recent weeks, he has said in interviews that he needs more time to study documentation about the Holocaust.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 10:36 AM
What It's Really Like at The Atlantic
from Jeffrey Goldberg
People often ask me, "Jeff, what is it like being at a magazine that has so many geniuses working in the same place at the same time? Is it unbelievably awesome?"
It's like this:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 6:34 AM
On the Analytical Abilities of Chas Freeman
from Jeffrey Goldberg
When the great David Rothkopf comes to Chas Freeman's defense, I pay attention. Writing on his Foreign Policy blog, Rothkopf argues that Freeman, whose organization, the Middle East Policy Council, has taken Saudi money, and who has sometimes been rather aggressively critical of Israel, is precisely the sort of person who should be analyzing intelligence for the President:
The head of the NIC is, in some respect, the analyst-in-chief of the U.S. government. He or she must have a great mind, must reject cant, must have a nose for political agendas (and the willingness to filter them out... including first and foremost his own biases), and must be genuinely intellectually daring, willing to explore unpopular or unlikely ideas to consider their implications... Few people would be better for these tasks than Chas Freeman. Part of the reason he is so controversial is that he has zero fear of speaking what he perceives to be truth to power. You can't cow him and you can't find someone with a more relentlessly questioning worldview.
I take David's views very seriously, but in rereading one of Freeman's more vituperatively anti-Israel speeches last night, I became stuck on this line: "Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace."
Is this an example of Freeman's analytical abilities, or his polemical gifts? Let me grant that he might have been doing a bit of sucking up to his audience when he made this assertion, but even so, where's the analysis? I argue constantly that Israel shares the Palestinian talent for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but really, has Israel never shown any talent for peace? Even Benny Morris and the new historians would argue that this is, at best, inconsistently the case. Israel, after all, ceded the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace; it made a durable peace with the Hashemites; it pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, only to be rewarded by Hezbollah rocket fire and ground attacks; it went to Camp David that same year and offered what President Clinton considered to be a credible set of concessions to the Palestinians, only to have Yasser Arafat reject them without making a counter-offer; and in 2005, one of Israel's great warriors, Ariel Sharon, unilaterally conceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Did he do that in the interest of furthering war with the Palestinians?
Quite often it's been the case that both sides in the conflict have shown no talent for making peace; an "analyst-in-chief" would acknowledge that complex truth. Chas Freeman doesn't.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 6:34 AM
The War on Terror, Cont'd
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Leon Panetta clears things up:
The phrase "war on terror," a hallmark of President George W. Bush's White House, is rarely used in the Obama administration, but Panetta that "there's no question this is a war."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 26, 2009 6:34 AM
Roger Cohen's Very Happy Visit with Iran's Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Others have picked over Roger Cohen's recent column on Iran's Jews, so I won't try to make the obvious points. But one line struck me as particularly credulous:
Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran -- its sophistication and culture -- than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I'm a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran.
Warmth, civility, hospitality and friendliness are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies I've visited. I have been in many places -- in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq and Iran -- where people absolutely hate Israel, absolutely hate "International Jewry," and hate the Talmud, or what they think is in the Talmud. But people in these places have been almost uniformly kind to me as a visiting Jewish reporter (and they almost always know, right from the outset, that I'm Jewish, because it's not something I ever hide). The people with whom I visit -- and I count the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah in this group -- are raised by their families to be kind to guests. It's very lovely and civilized -- Israelis could learn a thing or two about politeness from Muslims -- but it's irrelevant to their politics, or to their beliefs about what should happen to the Jewish state and its supporters.
I was once with a mullah in Pakistan who told me that Allah would soon fulfill his promise and destroy the Jews, but who invited me to stay in his guest room rather than make a dangerous night drive back to my hotel. I took him up on his offer, and slept soundly. It wouldn't be fair of me to call this sort of hospitality superficial, because it grows from a real spirit of personal generosity, but I've learned the hard way that the personal isn't always the political.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 25, 2009 6:07 PM
Where in the World Does Dennis Ross Work?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dennis Ross is the newly-appointed special adviser to the secretary of state for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. Which means he works in what countries? Who knows? Maybe the State Dept briefer can explain:
QUESTION: Can you give us - well, what is the State Department's definition geographically of Southwest Asia? What countries does that include?
MR. WOOD: Matt, I didn't --
QUESTION: No, you guys named an envoy for Southwest Asia. I presume that you know what countries that includes.
MR. WOOD: Yes. Of course, we know. I just - I don't have the list to run off - you know, right off the top of my head here. But obviously, that's going to encompass - that region encompasses Iran. It will - you know, it'll deal with --
Because why would you bringing the list of countries included in Dennis Ross's new brief to the press conference about Dennis Ross's new brief?
QUESTION: Does it include Iraq?
MR. WOOD: Indeed, it does.... .
QUESTION: And so, does it include parts of the Middle East?
MR. WOOD: Yes.
QUESTION: It does? Does it include Syria, and it includes Israel and it includes Jordan?
MR. WOOD: Well, he'll be looking at the entire region that will include, you know -
QUESTION: Where does that stop? I mean, you know, you have NEA which, you know, runs all the way to Morocco. So does it include -
MR. WOOD: Well, he's going to be in touch with a number of officials who work on issues throughout this region.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 25, 2009 3:10 PM
On Reading the Hamas Charter Carefully
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Paul Berman on the complexities of managing Hamas:
There is an obligation to live, which means that Israel has not just the right but the obligation to defend herself. Judging the proportionality of the Israeli actions runs into a complication, though - something of a logical bind.
It is now and then noted in the press that Hamas, in its charter, calls for the elimination of Israel - though, actually, the charter goes further yet, which is almost never noted. Article Seven of the charter, citing one of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, makes clear that Hamas acknowledges a religious duty to kill the Jews. It's all pretty explicit. Which Jews in particular must be killed, in order to bring about, as the charter puts it, the "Last Hour?" Article Seven merely stipulates "the Jews" - which leaves open the possibility, I would think, of killing all of the Jews, or at least (judging from other sections of the charter) the Jews who inhabit any place that is now or used to be Islamic. In any case, the Jews of Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 25, 2009 9:06 AM
Diet Tips from Al Sharpton
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I was on the shuttle from New York this morning when who shows up next to me but Reverend Al (it's been a good week for shuttle-spotting: Placido Domingo! Dan Bartlett! Mark Leibovich! A guy who looked almost exactly like Joe Torre!). Sharpton, who I think was coming down to D.C. to yell at President Obama about something, was looking as thin and dapper as the last time I saw him two years ago.
"What's your diet secret?" I asked him. After all, stripping weight away is somewhat easy, compared to keeping it off. Sharpton put his arm around my shoulder and said, "I'll tell you the secret. You ready for the secret?" He lowered his voice. "Never, ever eat anything after 6 p.m. Never."
It's at least as good as any other advice I've ever heard.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 24, 2009 11:07 AM
Branding Israel, One Supermodel at a Time
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Aluff Benn on an Israeli Foreign Ministry project (which included Israeli models posing in bikinis for Maxim magazine) to brand Israel as more Western, and less foreign:
Israelis tend to see their country as part of the West, and compare it to the United States and Britain. The problem is that the West is not too thrilled by the comparison and regards Israel as an oddity, a country using excessive force in permanent conflict with its neighbors. In Europe, and to a growing extent in the U.S., the use of military power is seen as primitive, something that belongs to the previous century, something that decent people don't do. When the Europeans apply force in Afghanistan or Kosovo, they are not proud of it like Israeli leaders who get excited about the bombing of Gaza.
Israel's public-relations machine has tried for many years to market Israel as a villa in the jungle, a Western frontier outpost against extremist Islam. We are hit by rockets in Sderot and bomb Gaza in order to save Paris and London. Israeli leaders complain that the West is unconcerned by the danger posed by Islam, and instead of dealing with it they criticize Israel for defending itself. But the media and public opinion in the West ignore this message and insist that Israel is at least as violent as its enemies.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 24, 2009 11:07 AM
More on Chas Freeman
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Ben Smith at Politico:
Freeman, a polyglot foreign policy veteran -- he was Richard Nixon's translator in China in 1972 -- is being backed by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, with whom he's close, for the job; Blair, I'm told, extended the offer. He's seen as ideal for the post, which is structured to offer an outside, skeptical view on U.S. intelligence, for his broad knowledge and experience in Africa, Europe, and Latin America as well as the Middle East, and for inclinations that cut against those of many others on Obama's foreign policy team. In particular, he's been a critic of what he's described at Israel's lack of a talent for peace, and of the role of the "Israel Lobby" in the U.S.
Those stands have, not unpredictably, provoked a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment -- which, as Anthony Zinni learned, can't be seen as final until it's public -- from the pro-Israel side.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 2:37 PM
Nasrallah in Pajamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This music video, which was popular in Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War, gives us the softer side of Nasrallah:
Popout
yallah ya nasrallah song
The approximate translation of the song is below.
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 1:43 PM
Totten on the Next Israel-Hezbollah War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's quiet now. But Michael, fresh off his punch-up with a bunch of Syrian Nazis, asks how long will it last?
The capital, Beirut, is in better shape than it has been in more than three decades. It's like an Arabic version of the French Riviera once again. That's one side of the country. There is another. More than once since the Syrian military was evicted in 2005, the Paris of the Middle East became the Baghdad of the Levant.
It is going to happen again. No Lebanese people I know think history has tired of molesting their country. Predicting the timing of Lebanon's chronic outbursts of violence is impossible, but it's not hard to see that another conflict is coming sooner or later.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 12:15 PM
On Islam and Beheading
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Slate has an interesting piece on beheadings, in light of that most unfortunate incident in Buffalo:
Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn-Ishaq, describes how the prophet approved the beheadings of between 600 and 900 men from the Jewish Quyraza tribe following the Battle of the Trench. Decapitation of a dead enemy on the battlefield was the "primary form of symbolic aggression among Ottoman soldiers," according to this history of the Ottoman Empire. However, Christian Crusaders were known to do likewise--Fulcher of Chartres chronicles how, in 1099, 10,000 Jews and Arabs were beheaded in the Temple of Solomon during the capture of Jerusalem.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 8:51 AM
Bill Moyers: Genetically-Encoded to Hunt Gays?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pete Wehner on the unfortunate behavior of Bill Moyers:
Moyers is among the most sanctimonious individuals on television (quite a feat, given the competition). He presents himself as a champion of good government, an intrepid voice for integrity and honesty, ever on the lookout for people who would degrade our public discourse or act in a dishonorable manner. That's why this revelation -- Moyers seeking information on the sexual preferences of White House staff members -- is particularly notable. And I suspect his excuse, that his "memory is unclear after so many years," probably wouldn't persuade Moyers himself, if the person in question were, say, a conservative.
These haven't been such great weeks for Moyers, who was last heard suggesting that Jews are genetically-encoded for violence.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 8:51 AM
Holocaust Art and the Statute of Limitations
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Since Sir Norman Rosenthal, a British curator and son of German Jews, called for a statute of limitations on Holocaust art claims -- insisting "history is history and that you can't turn the clock back, or make things good again through art" -- there's been an ongoing (and often high-decibel) conversation in the art world about issue. The Guardian's art critic, Jonathan Jones, wrote last month that "nothing in today's art world is more absurd and insidiously destructive" then returning stolen art to the heirs of Holocaust victims. "At best," he explained, "restitution so long after the crime is meaningless."
Obviously, not everyone agrees. Responding to Rosenthal's article and addressing the larger debate, Robin Cembalest clearly explains the stakes:
In ostensibly placing the integrity of public collections above all other considerations, these critics are ignoring a host of inconvenient truths about art stolen during the Holocaust. Beyond the fact that the looting of cultural assets was part of the larger Nazi policy of exterminating an entire people, and beyond the issue of whether it is just to pretend that museums legitimately represent the public good when they illegitimately claim to be the owners of the objects they exhibit, the fact remains that restitution research is very much a work in process.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 23, 2009 6:40 AM
Saudi Advocate to Run the National Intelligence Council?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Laura Rozen gets the scoop that Chas Freeman, the president of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council, is in line to become chairman of President Obama's National Intelligence Council. Freeman is well-known for his hostility toward Israel, but what's more substantively troubling about this report is the obvious inappropriateness of hiring a well-known advocate for the interests of Middle Eastern autocracies to produce national intelligence estimates for the Obama Administration. It would be inappropriate to appoint an official of AIPAC to run the National Intelligence Council (though it must be said that AIPAC doesn't receive any funding from the Israeli government) and it seems inappropriate to give the job to a Saudi sympathizer as well.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 22, 2009 6:46 PM
On Jews and The American Conservative Magazine
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Schraub has a nuanced view of Glenn Greenwald's decision to write for The American Conservative:
I cannot think of a conversation that has this extreme a ratio of heat to light. I think most American Jews have a definitively negative view of The American Conservative, because Buchanan-style conservatism has always been extremely unpopular with American Jews and most Jews do consider him to be flatly anti-Semitic. Greenwald's writing in that magazine was, at the very least, probably a tactical mistake regardless of the content, if the goal is to persuade the Jewish community writ large that the dovish positions that Greenwald holds are a safe location for them. But I don't think he himself is anti-Semitic or that there are any grounds to imply otherwise.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 10:15 AM
Glenn Greenwald is Hysterical
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Not funny-hysterical, just hysterical. I think he feels badly about writing for The American Conservative, maybe because he knows that writing for a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan and animated by Buchanan's hostility to Jews and to Israel is a self-marginalizing act for any Jewish person trying to convince other Jews to leave Team AIPAC and support J Street. I don't read Greenwald very much -- only when Andrew links to him -- but his characterization of my politics means that he's either dishonest or ignorant. If he hasn't read what I've written about, say, the settlements, or about AIPAC, then he's not qualified to comment on my politics. If he has read these articles, then he knows that I'm not a revanchist Zionist, but falsely accuses me of being one anyway. What a putz.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 8:20 AM
Humor Deficit Alert, Part 174
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I just received this email, quoting back to me a recent post of mine:
"but I just want everyone to know that Khaled Meshaal is coming to my daughter's Bat Mitzvah."
ur kidding, right? (i hope...)
Yes, I was kidding. Meshaal can't make it. But we're giving Hassan Nasrallah an aliya. It's the least we could do for him, since he's coming all the way from his bunker.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 8:20 AM
Best TSA-Bait Luggage Ever
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's likely that even the TSA would notice these suitcases.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 8:20 AM
Man, That Chris Hedges is Excitable
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Via Romenesko:
"Our way of life is over," Hedges began in a monotone. "Our profligate consumption is finished. Our empire is imploding. Our children will never have the standard of living we had, and poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 6:44 AM
Peres: No More Unilateral Disengagements
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Israeli President Shimon Peres issues a mea culpa on the disengagement from Gaza:
"What will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the wrongs we did in leaving Gaza," Peres said in a question and answer session with a group of American Jewish leaders. "It should have been done otherwise. I was for leaving Gaza. I feel myself as one of the persons mistaken."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 6:02 AM
Durban II To Adjudicate the Holocaust?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I always believed that one-third of the world's Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Apparently, though, this is still an open question to the planners of the Durban II anti-racism conference:
As for what this Review Conference is supposed to achieve, some clues are provided in the latest draft of the so-called Outcome Document. Israel's "racial policies" are a major theme, as is "the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories," meaning Israel itself. Under debate, however, is whether to include a line that the Holocaust "resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people." Presumably Iran objects.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 6:02 AM
In a Place Where There Are No Men...
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Apropos my recent post about David Gregory, some rabbinical thoughts from David Wolpe:
How much better do we behave when someone is watching? Our morals, like our clothes, seem designed for display.
In The House of Mirth, Edith Wharton writes of one of her characters: "It would have been impossible for Mrs. Peniston to be heroic on a desert island." Knowing others are looking spurs us to goodness, as the motorist who spots a camera at the corner brakes at the yellow light. Technology might help here: Perhaps a camera in every cellphone will lead to a viral outbreak of ethical behavior?
In the Mishna, Hillel declares, "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man." This is usually taken to mean that when other people are acting in an indifferent or cowardly fashion, one should stand up and be a mature, courageous human being. But it could also mean that one should act as a mensch -- a decent person -- when there are no others around, in a place where there literally are no men. God may be always watching but many of us care less for God's good opinion than for that of our neighbors. So we may have to fall back on the old standby -- strength of character, the kind of rock solid soul that would lead one to be heroic, even alone, on a desert island.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 6:02 AM
Full-Body Pat-Downs Vs. Body Scanning, Cont'd
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader writes:
So let me get this straight...you object to TSA's Full-Body scanning because you claim they will see you naked. You suggest that people demand to be patted down, but then you claim that technique is flawed. So if TSA conducted real pat downs that Law Enforcement is accustomed to would you then suggest that flyers demand to use the Full-Body scanner because they are less invasive than pat downs? I'm just asking...
The answer is yes. If blue-shirted TSA agents began poking around my lower-half with real enthusiasm, I would demand the full-body scan. Or I would seek out this better alternative.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 20, 2009 5:12 AM
"You Have a Nice Body, Miss"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From reader Natalia Yegorova:
I read with interest your missive on TSA full-body scans, and wanted to share an experience I had flying from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Portland, Oregon a month or so ago. After going through the security check, the Canadian version of the TSA decided to subject me to a pat down. A female officer of East Indian descent was doing a pat down, and as she was feeling me up, she commented, "You have a nice body, miss." I did not know whether I should be appalled by the un-PC nature of her comment, discount it as a lack of cultural training, or be flattered. Anyway, my point is that a pat down may not be as invasive as TSA seeing you naked, but there is definitely a human factor associated with it which can make it for even a less comfortable and more intimate experience that leaves you feeling pretty unsettled.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 19, 2009 1:22 PM
The Very Spiritual David Gregory Has a New Blog
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My Torah study partner David Gregory has a new blog, in which he gets very spiritual, though not as spiritual as he can get in person, which is very, very spiritual. He's actually helped me quite a bit, in part by giving me language to help me relate to the deepest currents of Jewish spirituality. Also, he puts me on his show once in a while, which is helpful. But not deeply. The challenge in Washington -- the challenge anywhere, really -- is to remember, in the rush of each frenetic day, what actually counts, what actually makes a person a mensch. David is very good at remembering, and reminding me to remember. Here he is on the importance of knowing what it means to be alive:
When we chose life - a meaningful, purpose-filled life, we unlock our potential to help others and to help ourselves slow down enough to say "Aha!" this is what it means to be alive. I have that feeling when I put my kids to bed and they ask me to say the Shema (a core prayer in Judaism). That moment draws us closer and they find comfort in the words just as they drift off to sleep. As a father, at that moment my heart is totally open to them. In the presence of their innocence, I have made space for the spiritual.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 19, 2009 8:05 AM
A Stimulus Plan for Middle East Peace?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's time for a multi-billion dollar stimulus plan for peace, Lenore G. Martin writes on the new and improved Israel Policy Forum website:
By all accounts, Israeli settlements block the implementation of a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. The stimulus package should consist of a multi-billion dollar international fund with a first priority of reversing the growth of Israeli settlements and financing the resettlement of Israelis from the West Bank essentially within the 1967 borders. The next application of the fund will be to house Palestinians in the vacant Israeli settlements. The ultimate goal of the stimulus package will be the creation of an economically viable Palestinian state.
If only the settlements were the sole impediment to peace, as Martin states, then this might work. But we would still have that little matter of the Palestinian civil war to worry about. And one other thing -- I've never been sure why we should pay for the removal of settlers. As Dov Zakheim, the former Defense Department official, Orthodox Jew, and non-neo-con conservative, famously said when asked whether the U.S. should help pay for the relocation of the settlers: "We should pay for their mishegoss?"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 19, 2009 7:52 AM
The Gaza War, A Month After
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Tallying the successes of the Gaza incursion:
The skeptics say the current state of affairs is identical to the situation that existed before the war: Hamas firing rockets and Israel reacting with extreme restraint. So, they say, everything is back to square one. Defense Minister Ehud Barak says nothing could be further from the truth.
It might have been a military victory -- if the goal was to convince Hamas that it is not Hezbollah, then this goal has been achieved -- but Israelis never seem overly cognizant of the way their actions are interpreted abroad. Some of these interpretations, of course, are rooted in anti-Semitism, and there's nothing much you can do about them. Some of these interpretations, however, are not anti-Semitic, and should be reckoned with. As time goes by, I wonder how much it would have hurt for Israel to first have gone to the UN Security Council to make its complaint against Hamas. It would have lost, obviously -- this is the UN we're talking about -- but it was a box Israel could have at least checked.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 18, 2009 12:33 PM
Nizar Rayyan: Courtly, Humorous, and a Little Bit Evil
from Jeffrey Goldberg
James Bennet writes of his encounters with Rayyan, one of my all-time favorite Hamas theologians and advocates of murder-suicide: "Rayyan said that he missed the son who had died attacking the settlement (he was 16), but that he planned to push another son to conduct an attack of his own. 'It's our home,' he said. 'It's more dear to me than my kids.' He was then looking to add a fourth wife--'I love women,' he told me with a smile--with a goal of eventually having 50 children."
James brought his lovely, and pregnant, wife with him to Gaza, and the following hilarity ensued:
When I mentioned that my wife had come with me to Gaza, where I was reporting for The New York Times, he insisted I call her down from our room. She was then almost eight months pregnant with our first child. To demonstrate how cosmopolitan he was, he made a point of shaking her hand, though in theory, Islam prohibits a man from touching a woman to whom he isn't related.
It's not that I'm competitive with James, but I just want everyone to know that Khaled Meshaal is coming to my daughter's Bat Mitzvah.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 18, 2009 8:56 AM
Just Say No to TSA Full-Body Scanning
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The TSA now wants to see you naked. There's a way out of this -- demand a pat-down. It's less creepy, and less invasive. Far less invasive, in fact, because TSA officers have no idea how to conduct actual pat-downs. The frisking they do now is entirely symbolic. As I've pointed out in the past, frisking is only useful if it's invasive, which is to say, clever terrorists -- and we know that the TSA, at least under the rule of Kip Hawley, wasn't actually hunting for clever terrorists -- hide weapons in their anuses (just as prisoners do), and behind the scrotum. Small items, such as razor blades, can be hidden in the mouth, or between toes. Female terrorists have even more options. I'm not, by the way, encouraging terrorists to hide knives in their nether regions. I'm just pointing out that, as ever, TSA has left a giant loophole open for anyone clever enough to find it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 18, 2009 8:56 AM
The Futures Market, M.E. Division
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ian Bremmer, guru of the political futures market, takes a gamble on what the future of Israel will look like. Not so good, in short:
Once Hezbollah can hit Tel Aviv with a rocket equipped with a relatively sophisticated guidance system from anywhere inside Lebanon, life will be much tougher for Israelis.
...
[A]s Tel Aviv becomes directly vulnerable, Israel's extremely mobile and globalized population -- and its strong activist diaspora -- will become a weakness, because they will be the most vulnerable to attack and the first to leave.
...
At that point, there's a risk of a sharp shift to the right in Israeli politics, much sharper and further to the right than the one we've seen in recent months. Under this circumstance, we'd likely see the most democratic government in the region in much more direct conflict with Israeli Arabs. We'd also see a spike in violence in Gaza, the West Bank, and within Israel's borders.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 17, 2009 6:33 AM
Least Surprising News of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Israel might be assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, according to one report:
[Israel] is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.
The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 17, 2009 12:27 AM
Okay, So Yogurt Might Be a TSA-Banned Gel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Astute reader Thomas Riehle points out that yogurt, technically, speaking, is a gelatinous substance, so it would be, in larger quantities, a banned substance, though he agrees with me that it is "idiotic" for the federal government to confiscate yogurt from air travelers.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 16, 2009 3:52 PM
Where the Left and Right Always Seem to Agree
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Joseph Epstein's excellent essay in The Wall Street Journal about I.J. Singer's The Brothers Ashkenazi (them that is in the know -- and that includes most of us Forward veterans -- know that I.J. was a better writer than his brother I.B.) contains this penetrating observation: "Politics taught I.J. the bitter lesson that, however much the extreme left and the extreme right might disagree, the one common ground upon which they met comfortably was anti-Semitism." This is an evergreen phenomenon, unfortunately. We see the brown-red coalition aligned against Israel in Europe, of course, and, in less dramatic, but still disturbing fashion, we The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's paleo-con magazine, featuring the writings of doctrinaire leftists on Buchanan's least-favorite country, the one he recently compared to Nazi Germany. The Buchananites have even recruited Jews to do their Israel-bashing for them. This particular development falls in the category of shocking yet not exactly surprising.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 16, 2009 9:46 AM
The TSA's War on Yogurt
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I was on line to show my ID (not actually necessary to get on a plane, by the way) at Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport the other day when the woman in front of me pulled out a small container of strawberry yogurt and asked the blue-shirted TSA representative (I miss those maroon sweater-vests), "Can I bring this on the plane?" The TSA agent inspected the yogurt container carefully, and then reported the sad news: "You can't. It's a gel."
A gel? Yogurt is yogurt. People don't eat gels. The woman didn't fight, however. She handed over the contraband yogurt, and the TSA scored another victory against reason.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 16, 2009 6:44 AM
Did the Right Actually Win the Israeli Election?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I thought it did, but Bradley Burston points out that Avigdor Lieberman embraces many of the positions favored by the Tel Aviv left, though he does it without the feel-good rhetoric:
Lieberman, the hands-down success story of the election, has repeatedly outraged the far-right by suggesting in the past that some heavily Arab-populated East Jerusalem neighborhoods and refugee camps be ceded to an eventual independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. He has consistently alienated the ultra-Orthodox - an essential building block of any right-wing dream coalition - by demanding civil-marriage and modified Jewish conversion legislation favored by Lieberman's ultra-secular constituency.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 13, 2009 1:37 PM
Milbank Eviscerates Plouffe, Film at Eleven
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of my favorite writers (and I don't even know him!), Dana Milbank, both eviscerates and defenestrates -- which isn't easy -- the cash-hungry, press-fearing David Plouffe for closing his speech -- at the National Press Club -- to the press:
This sort of mess has become a trademark of the former Obama campaign manager. Plouffe still keeps his Obama ties -- over the weekend he sent out an e-mail in his name to millions from barackobama.com titled "Urgent message from President Obama" -- yet he is also profiting from them. He is reported to have received as much as $2 million for his forthcoming book, "The Audacity to Win," and he can't give his material away in public speeches.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 13, 2009 9:43 AM
Fresh-Squeezed Zionism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This might be my favorite photo ever:
fail owned pwned pictures
From failblog
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 13, 2009 9:43 AM
The End of American Air Superiority?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of the world's great reporters, Mark Bowden, who, like many of the world's great reporters, works at The Atlantic, has a fascinating piece about the F-22 in our latest issue, which should be read on paper, ideally:
American air superiority has been so complete for so long that we take it for granted. For more than half a century, we've made only rare use of the aerial-combat skills of a man like Cesar Rodriguez, who retired two years ago with more air-to-air kills than any other active-duty fighter pilot. But our technological edge is eroding--Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15, the backbone of American air power since the Carter era. Now we have a choice. We can stock the Air Force with the expensive, cutting-edge F‑22--maintaining our technological superiority at great expense to our Treasury. Or we can go back to a time when the cost of air supremacy was paid in the blood of men like Rodriguez.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 12, 2009 8:46 AM
Fat Soldiers = Victory in Iraq?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
USA Today reports that obesity among American soldiers has doubled since the start of the Iraq War, and argues that the weight gain represents "yet another example of stress and strains of continuing combat deployments." But maybe it also means that American soldiers have run out of insurgents to chase and now having nothing else to do but watch old Lethal Weapon movies and eat potato chips. Just a thought.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 10, 2009 10:10 PM
A Stunning Israeli Election
from Jeffrey Goldberg
As I noted, I'm pretty far from Israel (geographically, that is), but my cell phone works in the western desert, and I've been talking to friends in Tel Aviv. A number of quick observations:
1. The stunner, for me at least: The Labor Party is dead. More than that, the peace camp is dead, or comatose, at least. According to exit poll numbers I heard, Haifa and Tel Aviv went for Livni (who is no leftist, except in comparison to Netanyahu and Lieberman); the south went for the hard right. The rockets voted, in other words.
2. Washington should prepare itself for the possibility of Avigdor Lieberman as Israel's foreign minister. This is almost-pure speculation on my part, but seems not unlikely. Netanyahu, assuming he can form a government, won't give the defense portfolio to Lieberman's party -- which leaves the foreign ministry. This isn't as bad as it sounds, since Israel doesn't have a foreign policy, just a defense policy. It's also not as bad as it sounds because Lieberman is preoccupied with Israel's Arab citizens, and not the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, he seeks territorial compromise in order to rid Israel of responsiblity for these Arabs. The man does not like Arabs, in case you haven't heard. His rise brings up an obvious question for Democrats: Which Lieberman do they like less?
3. The Arab world doesn't have enough democracy; Israel has too much. Israel's is an insane system, which gives every lunatic fringe party disproportionate say in the running of the country, and therefore encourages radicalism. Lieberman is incorrigible, but if he had to exist within the framework of a center-right party, he'd be marginally less offensive.
4. Did I mention that the Labor Party, which built the Jewish state, is dead? Its only hope for relevancy is a merger with Kadima. This would have the added benefit of being good for Israel, and for people who desire negotiations with the Palestinians. Which is why it probably won't happen.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 10, 2009 7:20 PM
Time Magazine's Middle East Coverage
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I don't understand Time Magazine's coverage of the Middle East anymore: Its reporters issue stunning, simple-minded pronouncements about the peace process, but don't seem to know who served as Israel's prime minister during the Six-Day War.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 10, 2009 3:54 PM
Exit Polls: Livni in the Lead
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ha'aretz: exit polling shows Livni's Kadima beating out Netanyahu's Likud by a few seats.
Despite the poll results, it is not certain that Livni will be able to muster the 61-seat coalition needed to form a government. The elections were called when she failed to achieve this goal following the resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert late last year.
If the exit polls are correct, the right-wing bloc, led by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, will comprise 63-64 seats, while the center-left bloc, headed by Livni, will take 56-57 seats. This means that a win in the polls does not necessarily mean that the next government will have a center-left bent.
Posted by Joshua Miller
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 10, 2009 12:09 AM
The Israeli Elections
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Well, it's not the best choice in Israeli history, is it? I don't have all that much to add right now, in part because I'm 7,416 miles away from Tel Aviv, in a very different sort of desert, with only limited access to the interwebs. I think it's clear that Lieberman is simply the German word for Le Pen, and that Livni is Hebrew for "ineffectual." I'm still assuming that Netanyahu squeaks this one out, and, God willing, forms a coalition with Kadima and Labor, and not our cut-rate Putin (although it would be uncharitable for me not to note that Lieberman doesn't have the messianic attachment to the West Bank that some of his fellow settlers in Nokdim have, which has to count for something.). As for Netanyahu, I've never felt the hostility to him that my fellows travelers on the Zionist left feel for him, in part because I remind myself constantly that it's the hard-ass right-wingers who will deliver peace. Barak couldn't do it, though he obviously is capable of delivering war.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 10, 2009 12:09 AM
The Danger of Too Much Exercise
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It can make you anti-Semitic. Especially if you work for the Foreign Office:
A high-ranking diplomat at the Foreign Office has been arrested after allegations that he launched a foul-mouthed anti-Semitic tirade. Middle East expert Rowan Laxton, 47, was watching TV reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza as he used an exercise bike in a gym.
Stunned staff and gym members allegedly heard him shout: 'Fucking Israelis, fucking Jews'. It is alleged he also said Israeli soldiers should be 'wiped off the face of the earth.'
His rant reportedly continued even after he was approached by other gym users.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 9, 2009 9:40 AM
The Royal Court Theatre's Blood Libel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The playwright Caryl Churchill's new anti-Jewish agitprop play, "Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza," has opened in London. The details are over at Harry's Place. Suffice it to say two things: One, this isn't surprising, given the peculiar attitude of some of the English to the Jews. Two: Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean it's not shocking. The mainstreaming of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes -- for instance, that Jews glory in the shedding of non-Jewish blood -- is upon us.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 9, 2009 8:25 AM
Danish Schools Might Ban Jewish Children
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I missed this horrible story when it appeared last month. Denmark used to be known for the moral courage of its people. Maybe not so much today:
Headmaster Olav Nielsen of Humlehave School in Odense publicly admitted he would refuse Jewish parents' wish to place their child at his school.
The comments were made following an incident last week in which two Israeli citizen's were shot and wounded at a city shopping centre. Police believe the incident was a reaction to the Gaza conflict.
Other headmasters have now come forth to support Nielsen's position, adding that they are putting the child's safety first.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 9, 2009 6:36 AM
The (Avigdor) Lieberman Phenomenon
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to JPost's set of recent polls, Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party is set to take as many as 20 seats in the Knesset: Says Imshin:
Did I say wasn't going to vote for him? Faced with the escalation of the horror warnings in recent days, as Lieberman gains in the polls, I'm finding it harder and harder to resist. And why is he gaining in the polls? Not because he offers simple solutions for simpletons, no, that's actually what left-wing Meretz is doing, but because he is the only voice saying what a lot of people are thinking. Trying to forcibly stifle this voice is not being received very well by the general public, apparently! It's having the opposite effect, showing exactly how we feel about our esteemed media.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 9, 2009 6:36 AM
Old Jews Telling Jokes
from Jeffrey Goldberg
We Jews are sure as shit funny. You've got to give us that:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 6, 2009 7:59 AM
Michael Gerson, True Christian
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Even though, by my capacious standards, he's Jewish. But that's another story. Here he is on the scandal of the Holocaust-denying bishop:
It is very difficult to understand how those who worship a man on a cross could help to drive the bloody nails themselves. But the record is clear: When religion is infected by racism, ideology or extreme nationalism, it can become a carrier of hatred instead of conscience. And when churches are concerned mainly with their institutional self-preservation, they often end up neck-deep in compromise or paralyzed by cowardice.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 6, 2009 7:59 AM
On Blacks and Jews Shooting Back
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi talks about that great Shel Silverstein story Lafcadio, about the lion who fought back, in a fascinating post about the romance of self-defense:
I loved that story when I was kid. Like I later loved the stories of Menelik II at Adowa, or Nat Turner or Robert Charles. These were Negroes Who Shot Back, or in the words of Robert Williams, Negroes With Guns. Like, I later still loved--in very perverse fashion--the story of Joseph Trumpeldor and that great quote--"No matter, It is good to die for our country." Trumpeldor is the Jew Who Shot Back.
Ta-Nehisi writes that he loved Trumpeldor "in very perverse fashion" only because he's distancing himself from a core truth of his being, which is that he's actually Jewish. I, too, loved the Trumpeldor story -- the one-armed Russian army veteran who made a valiant last stand at the Alamo Tel Hai in the Upper Galilee, though the chance that his last words were "it is good to die for our country," or "one's country," or whatever, is pretty slim. Once, in basic training, we we were brought to Tel Hai for a fortifying lesson in heroism, which was completely undermined by my lieutenant, who was one of the few authentically funny Israelis I ever met -- American Jews, funny, Israeli Jews, not so much -- who said: "You know what Trumpeldor's last words were? `My legs! Where the fuck are my legs? Fuck!" This doesn't mean, the lieutenant explained, that Trumpeldor wasn't the most bad-ass Jew in the valley, because he was. I think his point was that it's a good thing not to get shot.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 5, 2009 2:56 PM
When Advice Columnists Attack
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm new to the advice column racket, but it already seems like a tough crowd. And I thought they played rough in the Middle East.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 5, 2009 2:56 PM
This Man is a Saint
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Palestinian doctor and father of eight who lost three daughters to IDF fire during last month's Gaza invasion says in an interview that he plans to move forward, despite his pain.
"I have two options - the path of darkness or the path of light. The path of darkness is like choosing all the complications with diseases and depression, but the path of light is to focus on the future and my children. This strengthened my conviction to continue on the same path and not to give up."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 3, 2009 2:43 PM
With a Face Like That...
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Only a suicide bomber could love this face.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 3, 2009 7:54 AM
On the Advent of Weaponized Monotheism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad claims that the alleged Iranian satellite was launched to spread "monotheism, peace and justice" in the world.
Coming soon: ballistic tzedakah.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 3, 2009 7:54 AM
While You Weren't Looking
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Iraq seems to have turned democratic. From William Shawcross:
Iraq's polity is still fragile. Parliamentary elections later this year will be another test of whether the horrific inter-Islamic violence of recent years is over. The country is still far from united and its infrastructure still needs massive investment. But there are now real grounds to hope that Iraqis are finally on track to creating a far more decent society than they have ever had. This would never have been possible without the US-led overthrow of the psychotic Saddam family.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 2, 2009 10:44 AM
Hezbollah vs. the Palestinian Authority
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Nasrallah's strategy, as understood by a pro-Cedar Revolution Lebanese website:
Together, Iran's and Hezbollah's priority is now to seize control of the Palestinian cause while marginalizing the Palestinian Authority and its regional backers.
...
What we are seeing today is a disturbing trend. Iran is trying to lead a new alignment of Arab states that welcomes a new and more aggressive strategy of confrontation with Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Feb 2, 2009 7:28 AM
Was the Venezuela Synagogue Attack a New Kristallnacht?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I don't think so. But Abe Foxman does. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League had this to say about the defiling of a Caracas synaogue, in which Torahs were desecrated but no one was hurt:
Just days after the international community commemorated the Holocaust in ceremonies of remembrance throughout the world, a synagogue in Caracas was the scene of a modern day Kristallnacht. For five hours, violent anti-Semites profaned and vandalized the most sacred space and objects of Jewish life, leaving behind graffiti that said "Get out," "Death to All," and "Damn Israel, Death." This violent attack occurring on the Jewish Sabbath is reminiscent of the darkest days leading to the Shoah, when Jews were attacked and synagogues and Torahs vandalized and destroyed under the guard of the Nazi regime.
I respect Abe Foxman, but this is a bit much. Jews tend not to like it when people such as Pat Buchanan compare Israel to the Nazis, or when Europeans call Gaza a concentration camp. Israel isn't Germany, and Gaza isn't a concentration camp. And what happened in Venezuela the other day wasn't Kristallnacht. It doesn't take anything away from the horror of the event to say that. Let's save the Nazi analogies for the really big things, no?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 30, 2009 6:09 AM
Peres Drops an Eloquence Bomb on Davos
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He's in pretty good form (he starts at about the 39th minute):
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 29, 2009 10:53 PM
This Seems Like the Best News All Year
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The rain forests, or reasonable facsimiles of the rain forests, are making a comeback:
These new "secondary" forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest -- an iconic environmental cause -- may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 29, 2009 8:18 AM
Dubai in the Toilet
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's not just the economy, it's the beach as well:
A stretch of the exclusive Jumeirah Beach -- a magnet for Western tourists and home to a string of hotels -- has been closed. "It's a cesspool. Our tests show too many E. coli to count. It's like swimming in a toilet," said Keith Mutch, the manager of the Offshore Sailing Club, which has posted warnings and been forced to cancel regattas.The pollution is a blow to Dubai's reputation as an international holiday destination offering almost guaranteed sunshine and clear seas.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 29, 2009 8:18 AM
Go Boycott Yourself
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ha'aretz has some fun at the expense of a California-based anti-Israel academic:
Lloyd wrote that to the best of his knowledge, all supporters of the anti-Israel boycott were also opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Asked if logic wouldn't dictate that he and his colleagues boycott themselves, he responded, "Self-boycott is a difficult concept to realize. But speaking for myself, I would have supported and honored such a boycott had it been proposed by my colleagues overseas."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 28, 2009 4:52 PM
Dude,You Were, Like, in the Shoah?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An unbelievable political ad in an unbelievable country:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 28, 2009 11:07 AM
J Street, Walt and Mearsheimer, and Jewish Martyrdom
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jon Chait, making sense:
The Nation's Eric Alterman recently wrote that, in the United States, "right-wing Jewish organizations and neoconservative pundits dominate nearly all Middle East discussion." This is a pretty radical claim, one I don't agree with--recent cover stories in both Time and Newsweek have reflected the J Street line -- but one for which you could produce at least some evidence. The sum total of the evidence he did produce was three blog posts appearing in, respectively, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, and Commentary. Alterman, perhaps using hyperbole to compensate for the lack of evidence, called the authors "Thought Police." You may recall that the term "Thought Police" was coined by George Orwell's "1984" to describe a breed of futuristic secret police that would exceed even the draconian methods employed by Stalin and Hitler. Apparently Alterman believes equivalent powers are now wielded by a handful of Zionist bloggers. I'm trying to imagine what Alterman would say if fascism really does come to America. Perhaps he'll think to himself, while hanging from his thumbs in some dungeon, "Well, this is pretty bad, but not as bad as when I was criticized by Commentary online."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 28, 2009 7:44 AM
Mad Men on the Ambivalence of Zion
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Not long ago, per Ta-Nehisi's advice, I started watching the first season of "Mad Men," and it's unbelievably smart, and then, in the episode entitled "Babylon," came the Goldblog bonus prize: The most intelligent discussion of Zionism I've ever seen on cable, basic or premium. The exchange is between Don Draper and Rachel Menken, the Jewish department store heiress. Here's some of it:
Rachel Menken: I'll say one thing about Israelis: don't cross them.
Donald Draper: Well those people at the meeting were definitely Zionists.
RM: Zion just means Israel. It's a very old name. I'm sorry, I'm not an expert on this and something feels strange about being treated like one... I don't know what I can say. I'm American. I'm really not very Jewish. If my mother hadn't died having me, I could have been Marilyn instead of Rachel and no one would know the difference.
DD: What is the difference?
RM: Look, Jews have lived in exile for a long time. First in Babylon and then all over the world -- Shanghai, Brooklyn -- and we've manage to make a go of it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we thrive at doing business with people who hate us.
DD: I don't hate you.
RM: [with sarcasm] No, individuals are wonderful.
DD: That's not what I meant.
RM: I don't know. A country for 'those people,' as you call us, well, it seems very important.
DD: Then why aren't you there?
RM: My life is here. My grandfather came from Russia, now I have a store on 5th Avenue. I'll visit, but I don't have to live there. Just has to be. For me, it's more of an idea than a place.
DD: Utopia?
RM: Maybe. They taught us at Barnard about that word -- utopia. The Greeks had two meanings for it: eutopos meaning 'the good place' and outopos, meaning 'the place that cannot be.'
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 4:16 PM
Chertoff: Terrorism is Polio, and TSA is the Vaccine
from Jeffrey Goldberg
We're all getting polio, in other words.
Joel Johnson has a telling interview with Chertoff:
So, you know, it's a little bit like getting vaccinated against a dangerous illness. You know, we all took polio vaccine when we were kids. Maybe you may not be old enough. (Laughter.) I can't tell you that if I hadn't taken the vaccine, I would have gotten polio. But I can tell you that it is a sensible thing to do. And that's kind of how I view TSA.
Johnson adds:
Secretary Chertoff used this same analogy in his interview with Threat Level in August. It implies that terrorism can be cured through prevention, which is obviously not possible.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Hisham Melhem On His Big Scoop, and Big Changes Coming
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My brother Hisham Melhem of al-Arabiya television scored an important interview with Barack Obama yesterday, so I called him to say Mazel Tov and to ask him if he thinks the interview signals a shift in rhetoric or a shift in substance. Here's what he had to say:
Jeffrey Goldberg: What have you been hearing so far about the interview?
Hisham Melhem: I think many people in the Muslim world, ordinary people, were, judging by our website, sensed a different tone, that Obama was trying to reach out to them.
JG: George W. Bush called Islam a "religion of peace" in a mosque right after 9/11, though.
HM: What George Bush did initially was great. He went to a mosque, he listened to Brent Scowcroft, but later on, with his inability to make distinctions between groups like al-Qaeda on the one hand and Hamas and Hezbollah on the other, with many other things, the tone changed. Let's be clear: A president named Barack Hussein Obama sees the world differently from a president named George W. Bush, in part because of his biography, in part because of intellect. He senses that maybe America is less Western-centric than it used to be. The world is no longer Europe and North America.
JG: Did you sense any important shift in the way he thinks about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?
HM: He talked about Israelis making sacrifices and that Israelis and Palestinians endure pain the same way. I'm not willing to say there is a shift in substance, but there is a shift in approach on the tone vis-à-vis Palestinian suffering. He showed that he understands the need for dignity and a place to call their own. And there will be a different approach, in the sense that sending George Mitchell is an important thing. He has talked both about Palestinian violence and Israeli settlement.
JG: But come back to substance: He's not abandoning Israel, he's maintaining a hard line on Pakistan --
HM: Look, in the long run, he is telling the Muslim world that it's going to have a difficult time demonizing him. He's saying, "I'm willing to disagree with the people of the Muslim world respectfully." He was miffed and angry by Zawahiri and Bin Laden, the way they speak of him. And he jumped on it and dealt with it. There's a subtle shift here on how he looks at the war on al-Qaeda and the groups that collaborate with it. He doesn't put Hamas and Hezbollah in the same category as al-Qaeda. Is there going to be disappointment later? We're bound to have disappointments, but the main message is that a new wind is blowing. He's closing down Guantanamo, sending Mitchell, pulling out of Iraq, and maybe I'm dreaming but I hope he would show Palestinians and Israelis tough love, both of them. Do you want to tell me that Bin Laden and all these nuts are not going to be nervous about him?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 1:10 PM
I Think Michael Goldfarb Might Just Be a Little Crazy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From an interview with the former McCain campaign hatchet-man:
"It's unbelievable the way the media has covered this and the way has been played -- which is partly from the bullshit inside the campaign. When you have The New Yorker write a story about how Sarah Palin was selected... well, that was like Jane Goodall going in and writing about fucking apes mating in the jungle--they don't know what's going on. They're writing from another planet. I like Sarah Palin, I think she was a very attractive candidate, but I think she made a lot of mistakes. But so did Biden."
First, Jane Goodall did groundbreaking work on ape-fucking. She was also the first scientist to observe chimpanzees using tools, which changed the way humans understand their primate cousins. So if The New Yorker is to Sarah Palin what Jane Goodall is to ape-fucking, then The New Yorker obviously did a fine job covering the campaign.
Second, is this guy nuts, or what?
UPDATE, 6:46 P.M. -- According to Patrick Appel, Goldfarb may be echoing, consciously or subconsciously, Michelle Malkin, who told David Remnick once that she would be disinclined to sit for a New Yorker profile: "I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New Yorker's readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, I'll do it for my kids."
This doesn't change the fact that he seems nuts.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 1:10 PM
The Cliche Expert Visits Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is v. funny. Read the whole thing:
Q: So you've been south. What did you see there?
A: Collateral damage.
Q: Collateral to what?
A: To Israel's right to defend itself.
Q: And what else?
A: To courageous Palestinian resistance against Zionist imperialism.
Q: What targets were hit?
A: Homes, schools, hospitals, military installations, and firing positions.
Q: How do you tell one from the other?
A: If you are Palestinian, you don't bother.
Q: And if you are Israeli?
A: You shoot anyway.
Q: Could you be more specific? If you are a Hamas guerilla fighter, what is a legitimate military target?
A: Every outpost of Zionist imperialism.
Q: And what is an illegitimate civilian target?
A: Come again?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Can We Get the Sequencing Right, Please?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This story is typical. The Wall Street Journal teases a wire report about the bomb attack that killed an Israeli soldier today this way: "Gaza Violence Threatens Ceasefire." The AP story carried by the Journal reports: "The Israeli military said one soldier was killed and three were wounded in a bomb attack Tuesday morning on the Gaza-Israel border, while Hamas said one of its members had been wounded in an Israeli airstrike."
It takes a while to find out that the bomb attack on the Israeli soldiers came first. Just sayin'.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 9:26 AM
The Four Questions: Martin Indyk on the Failure of Peacemaking
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Martin Indyk's new book, Innocent Abroad, about the failures of American peacemaking in the Middle East, is an incisive, honest (sometimes caustically so), and -- I know this might sound strange when talking about a 528-page book about a peace process that ultimately went nowhere -- compulsively readable tour of the recent, and tragic, past. I asked Martin four questions (actually six, but I like calling this feature the Four Questions) about his book, and his work. Here is our exchange:
Jeffrey Goldberg: When I was listening to Barack Obama talk about the events of the past month, particularly when he spoke of Hamas, it almost sounded as if he were giving us George Bush's understanding of the Middle East. Do you see significant change coming down the road?
Martin Indyk: I too was struck by how close Obama stuck to requirements enunciated by Bush: the need for a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem; Israel's need for security and its right to defend itself; Hamas's need to recognize Israel, forswear violence, and accept previous agreements; and the need to support the Palestinian Authority (particularly as the primary vehicle for channeling aid to Gazans in the wake of the latest conflict). But Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East peace envoy and his immediate dispatch of this heavy-hitter to the region, together with his promise of sustained, persistent American diplomatic engagement, highlight his differences with Bush who preferred to sit back and leave the parties to their own devices. This return to energetic peacemaking diplomacy of the kind the United States undertook in the 1990s actually makes Barack Obama sound more like Bill Clinton than George Bush. The peace process is back!
JG: Name the single thing American negotiators could do differently that might produce a better outcome than the one you experienced.
MI: If you confine me to one thing, I would say they have to hold both sides to their commitments: the Palestinians have to stop the violence and terrorism and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism; and Israel has to stop the settlement activity (including natural growth) and dismantle the unauthorized settlement outposts. These are not moral equivalents but they are equivalent in the damage they have done to the hope of peace and the viability of a two-state solution. Nothing did more to undermine Clinton's peacemaking efforts so it was no coincidence that at the end of the Clinton Administration George Mitchell made the same recommendations in his report on the origins of the intifada. Those recommendations were incorporated in the Road Map which the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority accepted and committed to implement.
JG: Could the Jews in the settlements east of the security barrier be removed by force without sparking civil war?
MI: I don't believe that force would be necessary if the evacuation is presented to the Israeli public as part of a package that would include the following elements: financial compensation equal to that provided to the Gaza settlers; resettlement in the blocs that would be incorporated into Israel by agreement with the Palestinians; an end to the territorial claims of the Palestinians; security arrangements that ensure that all violence and terrorism against Israelis ceases; international guarantees of freedom of access for Israelis to Jewish holy places in Judea and Samaria; and peace with all the Arab states.
JG: Would the Palestinians respond to a reversal of the settlement project by marginalizing Hamas?
MI: Hamas enjoys popular support in the West Bank as well as Gaza because it has been seen to be more effective and less corrupt than Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Under its current leadership Fatah is incapable of reforming itself and as long as that is the case Hamas will enjoy an advantage. However, the Palestinian Authority under non- Fatah PM Salam Fayyad is showing that it can establish order and promote economic development in the West Bank. This has improved its credibility and is one reason that Hamas decided to break the ceasefire in Gaza (because they felt they were losing ground politically). In the wake of the Gaza war, a real West Bank settlements freeze and the dismantlement of unauthorized outposts would do more than anything else to enhance the PA's credibility because it would show in a tangible way that moderation pays where violence only brings devastating destruction.
JG: You say George W. Bush is at fault for ignoring the conflict until well into his second term. But he inherited an intifada, a Sharon government and the controversy over the Karine-A, a boat full of weapons dispatched by Iran to help Yasser Arafat. What was he supposed to do, given these unhappy realities?
MI: I was Bush's ambassador in Israel for his first six months in office, which coincided with Sharon's. What he should have done was intervene to stop the violence and terrorism of the intifada. Remember the intifada had only been raging for three months when he entered the White House (it continued for five years on his watch). Sharon was willing to deal with Arafat - he sent his son Omri to meet with him as a manifestation of that, telling me that Arafat would understand the gesture of sending him his first born son. He was willing to freeze all settlement activity for six months if the violence stopped. When Hamas bombed the Dolphinarium discotheque in Tel Aviv in June, 2001, killing 19 Israeli teenagers, which signaled the advent of suicide bombing, Sharon did not retaliate. In the face of ever-increasing Palestinian terrorism, Sharon actually waited for 15 months before he sent the Israeli army into the West Bank to reoccupy Palestinian cities and towns. He was waiting all that time for Bush to intervene and pressure Arafat to stop the terrorism. But Bush was determined to remain detached, explaining to me at the time that "there was no Nobel peace prize to be had here."
JG: Does the road to peace run through Jerusalem, or Tehran?
MI: I don't believe Tehran can veto peace if Israel and the Arabs are committed to making it. But Iran certainly has the ability to subvert the process of peacemaking through support for its violent opponents - Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Iran would have real problems maintaining that support if the Syrians, who provide the conduit, were to make peace with Israel. That is why it is so important to advance on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks simultaneously while making clear to Iran that if it wants to become a supporter of peace it is welcome, but if it wants to oppose peace it will be isolating itself. During the Clinton years we chose to isolate Iran; this time around Iran should be the one that has to make that choice.
JG:Which is the more durable Middle East problem: The Arab-Israeli dispute, or the Sunni-Shia dispute?
MI: History has already rendered that judgment in favor of the Sunni-Shia dispute which has been waged for hundreds of years and shows no signs of abatement. If one takes the long view of history, the Arab-Israeli conflict has actually progressed toward resolution, notwithstanding the regular interruptions caused by the eruption of wars and intifadas. The proof of that lies in the steady progression of Arab states which have made peace with Israel, starting with Egypt in the 1980s, Jordan in the 1990s, and the offer of peace from the 23 Arab states of the Arab League in the first decade of the 21st century. Slowly, incredibly painfully, and accompanied by violence, heartbreaking setbacks and misery, Arabs and Israelis are coming to terms with each other. But when you look at the progress that has been made over the last three decades it has only been produced by the active diplomatic intervention of the United States, working with courageous leaders like Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, King Hussein, and Yitzhak Rabin - leaders who were willing to say "enough of bloodshed!" and break the mold of conflict. Such leaders do not appear to be present today on either side. But it's the nature of the Middle East that something always turns up, and it's not always bad.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 27, 2009 7:04 AM
Israel's Secret Weapon
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Antelope.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 2:12 PM
Egypt Endorses Netanyahu for Prime Minister
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to this report, Egypt is warning Hamas to cut a ceasefire deal with the Olmert government now, because it will find it far more difficult to deal with Bibi Netanyahu, who is the leading candidate for prime minister in the upcoming election. If I were a Bibi adviser, I'd take this gift and run with it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 12:30 PM
Best Name for Participant in a Sex Scandal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Beau Breedlove. You couldn't make it up. And by the way, what's with Portland?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 12:30 PM
Seth Lipsky, the Right Man at the Right Time
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ben Smith endorses Seth Lipsky for Bill Kristol's slot. So do I. He could be the new Safire. Seth has the most interesting mind in journalism. He's conservative, of course, but mostly what he is is unpredictable, and the page could use some unpredictability. Plus, he wears fedoras. The Times could definitely use someone who wears a fedora. My colleague at The Atlantic, Ross Douthat, is also said to be a contender for the conservative set-aside slot, but I'm not endorsing him mainly because I want him around here.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 9:10 AM
NYT: It Turns Out Wal-Mart is Actually Okay
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Times tells us that Wal-Mart is now made up of employee-loving tree-huggers.
I suppose the reporters haven't been to the crappiest Wal-Mart in America. And they don't grok the insidiousness of its PR machine.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 9:10 AM
Bad News for Sheikh Hassan Mearsheimer
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Despite the best efforts of the al-Manar commentator Sheikh Mearsheimer, Americans still support Israel, according to a new CNN poll:
Sixty percent of Americans in the nationwide survey said they were sympathetic toward the Israelis, compared with 17 percent who supported the Palestinians, CNN reported today on its Web site. A recent European poll showed that 23 percent of French people said the Palestinian Hamas group was primarily responsible for the war while 18 percent mainly blamed Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 6:36 AM
Settler Rabbi to Soldiers: Fight Like Samson
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Writings by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a leading light of the settlement movement, were distributed to soldiers fighting in Gaza. In one such pamphlet, he wrote:
The following questions are posed in one publication: "Is it possible to compare today's Palestinians to the Philistines of the past? And if so, is it possible to apply lessons today from the military tactics of Samson and David?" Rabbi Aviner is again quoted as saying: "A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives and had invaded from a foreign land ... They invaded the Land of Israel, a land that did not belong to them and claimed political ownership over our country ... Today the problem is the same."
One small objection: Samson's campaign didn't end very well for Samson. One larger objection: Why are settler rabbis instructing the IDF? The settlers, as I've noted before, are the avant-garde of binationalism, which is to say, the destruction of Israel, so why are they being allowed to influence the way soldiers think?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 26, 2009 6:36 AM
Pat Buchanan: Israel = Nazi Germany
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The tricky thing about the superannuated Jew-baiter Pat Buchanan is that he usually takes his vitriol right up to the line, but not over, if for no other reason than to preserve his relationship with MSNBC. Sometimes, though, he slips, as he did in this blog post. It has to be read to be believed.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 23, 2009 10:59 AM
The Atlantic, Home to Top Liberals
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Congratulations to Fallows and Sullivan for being named to the Liberal Top 25 by, of all things, Forbes. This is not quite as prestigious as being named a Top 50 Jew. But given the Forbes list, it's sort of the same thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 23, 2009 10:59 AM
Sheikh Hassan Mearsheimer's Latest Thoughts
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Al-Manar, the Hezbollah website and television station, reprints Mearsheimer's latest anti-Israel screed, this one more unhinged than usual. Al-Manar warns readers that the "views expressed are the author's alone." I suppose the warning is necessary because Hezbollah finds Mearsheimer's views too stupid to fully endorse. The argument of the piece is that the perfidious Zionists still seek a "Greater Israel." Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes studying the beliefs of Rabin, Sharon, Olmert, Livni and Barak knows that this is bunk, but why would Mearsheimer care about facts? He has proven his distaste for reality already.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 23, 2009 7:53 AM
Happy News in the Atlantic Family
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Bennet, the brother of James Bennet, our editor, was sworn in yesterday as Colorado's junior senator, replacing Ken Salazar. Lest James now think that he is, as they say, all that, I would remind him that my brother Orrin also serves in the United States Senate.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 22, 2009 1:10 PM
Time Magazine Finds Middle East Peace Very Simple
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Leon Wieseltier makes note of a particularly absurd statement in the Time Magazine cover story on the future of Israel:
"Nowhere in Time's piece, or in any of the other pieces in any of the other journals that express all the proper anxieties about what the Israeli army can and cannot accomplish in Gaza, is a more effective way of putting an end to Hamas's aggressions proposed. And nowhere in this piece is there any indignation about Hamas, about its vision or its violence. It appears that Hamas is so outrageous that it no longer provokes outrage. Its madness is accepted factually, in a sexy spirit of realism. The piece concludes with this: "Israel eventually will have to pull back to the 1967 borders and dismantle many of the settlements on the Palestinian side, no matter how loudly its ultra-religious parties protest. Only then will the Palestinians and the other Arab states agree to a durable peace. It's as simple as that."
A great sage once taught: He who claims to know the answer to the Middle East dispute doesn't even know the question.
I'm a two-stater, and have been so for some time, but I have never believed with anything approaching certainty that the creation of a Palestinian state would bring about an end to Muslim demands for all of Palestine. The wise men of Time Magazine should acquaint themselves with Faisal Husseini's parting words: "We may lose or win [tactically] but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth." Or they should read Yasser Arafat's speech in South Africa shortly after Oslo, or, for that matter, with what Marwan Barghouti told me about the next phase of the conflict.
For reasons of demography, security and morality, Israel should negotiate its way out of the West Bank. But would this mark the end of the conflict? Only a fool says yes.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 22, 2009 1:10 PM
How Many Palestinians Died in Gaza?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The dispute begins. These arguments are as inevitable as the tides, and given urgency by past incidents in which Palestinian death tolls have been inflated (see: Jenin) and incidents in which the deaths attributed to Israel were not, in fact, caused by Israel (see: Fallows).
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 22, 2009 7:10 AM
David Grossman on the Gaza War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Grossman, the subject of my Atlantic cover story on the future of Israel (along with the almost-gone and already unlamented Ehud Olmert) calls for open engagement with all Palestinians:
We must speak to the Palestinians: That is the most important conclusion from the most recent round of bloodshed. We must speak also to those who do not recognize our right to exist here. Instead of ignoring Hamas at this time, we would do better to take advantage of the new reality that has been created by beginning a dialogue with them immediately, one that would allow us to reach an accord with the whole of the Palestinian people. We must speak to them and begin to acknowledge that reality is not one hermetic story that we, and the Palestinians, too, have been telling ourselves for generations. Reality is not just the story we are locked into, a story made up, in no small measure, of fantasies, wishful thinking and nightmares.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 21, 2009 6:30 AM
Lincoln and the Pressure he Faced
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Read this Jay Winik op-ed from The Wall Street Journal all the way through. Or should I say, please read this Jay Winik op-ed from The Wall Street Journal all the way through. It's just fascinating. Winik reminds us that the pressure on Lincoln was just extraordinary, more extraordinary than any other president ever experienced:
Early on, Lincoln learned that tumult is inherent in governing. Mr. Obama has already declared that he doesn't want "drama" within his cabinet and staff, but Lincoln's experience suggests that he should expect precisely that. From the outset of his administration, Lincoln's secretary of state, William Seward, a former senator from New York, was assiduously scheming against his president. Where Lincoln saw civil war as inevitable, Seward was freelancing, calling for negotiations with the South and privately telling Confederates that their differences could be peacefully resolved.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 19, 2009 2:26 PM
Security Theater Comes to Inauguration
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Blogging is going to be light (lighter than usual, I should say) because we're bringing the kids inside the hermetically sealed safety zone tonight, and sleeping over in someone's office in order to avoid the Metro crush tomorrow morning. I sure as hell hope it's a good parade.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 19, 2009 2:26 PM
The Horror of War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Here is a link to my friend Dina Kraft's article on the Gaza doctor -- a colleague of many Israelis -- who lost three daughters when a tank shell hit his house. Message to the e-mailers on my right: Yes, you're correct, I sympathize with this man, and yes, I'm aware he's not a Zionist. And to the e-mailers on the left: I know you find it hard to believe, but many Jews don't actually like to watch Palestinians being slaughtered.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 19, 2009 11:17 AM
Least Surprising News of the War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Fatah might have helped Israel kill Siad Siam, the unpleasant fellow who was in charge of persecuting Fatah men in Gaza, according to Khaled Abu Toameh. Let's put it this way: It's a perfectly plausible thing for Hamas to believe.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 19, 2009 11:17 AM
Security Theater Debuts on ABC, Where it Belongs
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jeffrey Rosen on taking security theater to a whole new level: Welcome to ABC's understanding of the Department of Homeland Security:
The strongest case against the Department of Homeland Security is that it's not really about homeland security at all. Rather than catch terrorists, DHS officers at the border spend most of their time arresting people for drug and immigration offenses instead. So it's not exactly surprising--even though it's surely unintentional--that ABC's new primetime show, "Homeland Security USA," confirms the false promise of DHS.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Ed Zwick on Passivity, Jewish Power, and Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ed Zwick's new film, Defiance, about the Bielski partisans of World War II, is everything Schindler's List is not. For one thing, it's about Jews. Schindler's List was a story of Christian redemption; the Jews were simply there to be acted upon. In Defiance, which tells the true story of a group of Jewish partisans who sheltered hundreds of men, women and children in the Byelorussian woods, Jews take charge of history. Defiance is in some ways a corrective to the conventional understanding of Jewish behavior in the Holocaust. For some critics, too much of a corrective: A.O. Scott writes that "in setting out to overturn historical stereotypes of Jewish passivity, Mr. Zwick... ends up affirming them." I wasn't struck the same way by Defiance: the Bielski partisans weren't the only Jews to fight back against their murderers -- Jewish resistance in World War II is still a story insufficiently told. And I wasn't left with the impression that Zwick believes survival was within reach for most Jews who perished.
But why am I defending Zwick? Let him do it his own self. We spoke by phone recently, and we talked about Jewish muscle and Jewish passivity, Europe and Zionism, and whether Defiance is Hebrew for Glory. Here is an edited transcript of our talk:
Jeffrey Goldberg: You're opening in Europe. We've heard a lot of talk in Europe comparing what Israel does in the Occupied Territories to what the Nazis did to the Jews. Are you worried about the way the movie will be understood in Europe right now?
Edward Zwick: You know, the argument comparing what the Jews are doing and what the Nazis did is just such a preposterous exaggeration, because one when one uses the word genocide, you have to ask: If Israel were interested in genocide than they have more than the means necessary to accomplish such a thing, and given that, in context, they're using a certain amount of restraint. Yes, I know the word "restraint" is hard to talk about, given what's happening in Gaza, but it is a type of restraint. What I'm responding to is equivalence. Words are important. Genocide is a word thrown around too easily. This is happening now in Poland and Lithuania. There's an attempt to make an equivalence between alleged war crimes of the Bielskis and the Holocaust.
JG: Do you see any equivalence between Israel and Hamas?
EZ: What I see is that there is a double standard, that on one side you have an organization dedicated to creating the maximum amount of destruction and horror, and doing it in a way that is deliberately bloody-minded and terrorizing. On the other hand you have an extremely powerful state with all the means at its disposal to create a horrifying result, and yet trying, despite the resulting horrible casualties, nonetheless seeming to use extraordinary restraint. It's really an interesting contradiction.
JG: Let's talk about Jewish self-defense. In Schindler's List, the Jews are the sheep and Schindler is the shepherd. Here, they're fighters.
EZ: I think this has been a long odyssey. In the context of this, I've read a lot about Orde Wingate, or the Jewish battalions in World War I, but I think it might have been Leon Wieseltier who led me back to read the Book of Judges or the Book of Joshua to see just how much of a warrior culture this always was. The notion of self-defense is implicit in the David and Goliath story, in the Maccabee story, in the Bar Kochba story. It was all there. I would say that Schindler's List, as powerful as it was, seemed to have continued with a particular iconography of victimization and passivity. That was the iconography with which I had grown up and to which I had grown accustomed.
JG: Was Defiance meant as a corrective?
EZ: I have to say I took some exception to that A.O. Scott review. His reading seems to say that the kind of heroism that I'm describing was missing from the Jewish response to the Holocaust, and that I'm saying that if only everyone acted like the Bielskis, the Jews would have survived. This is a canard. The Jews were massacred, if you will, by the Germans not because they didn't resist but because they couldn't resist. The French army, the Polish army, were defeated, and they were actual armies. Amid the siege, there were pockets of resistance, and it is worth telling about, whether it is in London, or Denmark or Belgium or wherever. But twenty million people died in the Gulag, two million in the Cambodian genocide. Genocide is something humans are very good at. To escape it is a tribute to honor and luck, and to help other people escape it is an honor. But the fact that you don't escape it is not a negative verdict on your honor.
JG: It was, for some early Zionists, a critique of European Jewry, that they were passive.
EZ: I just don't see it. It's like Milk. Milk doesn't imply that all gay men who stayed in the closet were cowards. Defiance is just one movie that seeks to add necessary complexity to the portrait of what happened, because the portrait has been monolithic.
JG: Do you think you should have portrayed the inevitable massacre of most Jews more vividly?
EZ: One makes a choice. My choice was to be very subjective. We never see the Germans. They're seen from afar. There is never this omniscient scene when the commander says, 'We'll root them out of the forests.' I let the Germans exist as a specter. They're shadows in the snow. The closest I come to this sort of scene is where they're with the Judenrat and talking about the fact that if anyone leaves the ghetto, there will be reprisals. All of the arguments in that scene are thing we've heard about and read about, which is to say, if we wait, time is on our side, these people are people who have endured pogroms over the years. That's the closest I felt I could come to providing a realistic context for these people's experience. And I tried to give the Judenrat a strong argument for waiting.
JG: Let's talk about Jewish toughness and its currency.
EZ: History does seem to have its uses. There are reasons why certain stories become known at certain moments and others not, that happen to do with the contextual moment in which they are learned. And I suspect that there are several reasons why this story wasn't better known in popular culture. One of which had to do with survivors, and there's always some survivor's guilt. Another is that they did things that were probably pretty horrible. I tried to show some of that, the execution of a German. This may also be something that has to do with Israel. The role of Israel in the political imagination at this point.
JG: Is this a Zionist movie? I mean, any movie about Jewish self-defense can be interpreted that way.
EZ: This is a movie about its moment. Any movie that aspires to be more than that is going to be in big trouble. This is about these four men and what they did. It would be a misreading of my intentions to say that this is celebrating a kind of reactionary position. That's not it. What I believed is that this is about the strength of the victims. These are people who are imagining that they are going to die at any minute in that forest and so what is triumphant to me about this movie is that they kept alive something that was uniquely theirs as a culture.
JG: The film does have a kind of Zionist arc, but maybe it's not a Zionist movie. After all, the Bielskis end up in Brooklyn after the war.
EZ: One bit of history: At least one of the brothers, if not two, went to Israel first and fought in the War of Independence before they came to Brooklyn.
JG: Do you hope or imagine that just as young African-American watching Glory felt pride, that Jewish people watching this will leave feeling pride about what happened in the forest?
EZ: The most interesting calls I've had thus far have been from people I know who are talking about watching the movie with their children. It's not just about their children's responses, it's their desire to show it to them. Whether or not a movie digs into the culture is an interesting question. Glory, when it came out, did not find its way into the African-American community right away. It did not capture the imagination of that community for one or two years. My hope for this is that it would be added to the literature. I remember when I was making Glory, I had a visit from the Congressional Black Caucus and they wanted to talk about my intentions. And they said, all we care about is that these people not be portrayed as a monolith. With the Holocaust, there's a danger of having this overwhelming set of images that resulted unintentionally in that kind of monolithic understanding. So, yes, I would hope that this movie becomes something that Jews would look at and come away with some additional understanding of their experience.
JG: Pride?
EZ: Definitely pride. There is pride to be taken in all the different aspects of people's response to the Holocaust. There was bravery. You read about people in the worst of circumstances who found courage in a thousand different ways. But this is a more explicit way, represented in this film, and not to have included that in our understanding, I think, is an omission, a significant omission, and this goes back to my response to the New York Times review.
JG: So, are you one who has discovered lessons of the Holocaust?
EZ: I don't consider myself capable of that. I can look at one corner of the Byelorussian woods and see what it means to me. It certainly means to me that people with nothing, anticipating dying at any moment, nonetheless built schools and found love, marriages that lasted sixty years and that they lived fully and maintained their humanity in an extraordinary way. Someone wanted to deny them their humanity and they refused to have their humanity denied.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Well, This Certainly Seems Like News
from Jeffrey Goldberg
General Hayden says Iran nears a decision on whether to build a nuclear warhead.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Department of Extremist Propaganda, Hamas Division
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Some of my readers apparently believe that I'm hyping the more pungently anti-Semitic aspects of Hezbollah and Hamas philosophy. So as a public service, I thought I would periodically post excerpts from their writings, in order to let people judge for themselves. Here is a paragraph from Article 28 of the Hamas charter:
The Zionist invasion is a cruel invasion, which has no scruples whatsoever; it uses every vicious and vile method to achieve its goals. In its infiltration and espionage operations, it greatly relies on secret organizations which grew out of it, such as the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, the Lions and other such espionage groups. All these organizations, covert or overt, work for the interests of Zionism and under its direction, and their aim is to break societies, undermine values, destroy people's honor, create moral degeneration and annihilate Islam. [Zionism] is behind all types of trafficking in drugs and alcohol, so as to make it easier for it to take control and expand.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 16, 2009 5:35 AM
Another Hamas Leader Succumbs
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Hamas ain't Hezbollah, that's for sure. Said Siam is the latest Hamas leader to be made dead by Israel. I've never thought assassinations work for any lengthy period of time -- if they did, the assassinations of Sheikh Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi should have hurt Hamas, and they didn't -- but Siam's death does suggest that Hamas doesn't have the discipline of a group like Hezbollah, and that it is vulnerable to Israeli pressure in ways that Hezbollah isn't. I'm reasonably sure, when this conflict is over, that we'll learn that Fatah helped Israel with the targetting of both Siam and Nizar Rayyan. Both men were associated with the most virulently anti-Fatah faction of Hamas.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 9:24 AM
Gerecht: It's Possible to Moderate Jihadists By Force
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In my Times op-ed yesterday, I wrote that:
There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief.
Reuel Gerecht writes in to tell me that I'm completely wrong:
Actually, Islamic history teaches just the opposite. If you start with the Kharijites and move forward (and I can happily give you a list running from the Azariqa, the worst of the Khawarij, who very much resemble the most radical of the Sunnis today, to the 7ners, to the Qizilbash--my all-time favorites, to the Mahdists, to the Iranian death-wish believers of the Iran-Iraq war), it is military defeat that produces the fatigue and the spiritual deflation that leads to acquiescence (and, sometimes, reflection). I prefer "acquiescence" to "moderation". The latter arrives, but the English implies a certain thoughtfulness that shouldn't be underscored. Unless you throttle the ifratiyyun--the militants--on the battlefield, they will come back at you.
Now, whether the Israelis--and the Americans behind them--have the stomach and patience for this, is a different question. But decisive military defeat is history's great "moderator". (Just ask the Germans.) Unfortunately, as you have often said, the Middle East is a tough neighborhood, and Islam isn't a faith that has produced many men who are widely esteemed for their abiding love of peace and brotherhood with non-Muslims. (A Muslim Jeffrey Goldberg, a former prison guard of Jews who tries to understand the "other" with sincere curiosity and not a small amount of affection, seems surreal.) Israel's present fundamentalist enemies will surely be the most tenacious foes the Jewish State has ever had. Barring a '67-like trauma for fundamentalists (you want the Hamas and Hizbollah leadership to feel like Nasir), its hard to see this turning round. Perhaps the Palestinians will turn on Hamas. (If they do so, it will in great part be because Israel's tanks, planes, and foot-soldiers made a convincing argument.) The only way we are likely to know is next time at the urns. It's very hard imagining Fatah downing Hamas in a fight.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 8:58 AM
Adolf Hitler Has a New Home
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Adolf Hitler, Jr., that is.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 8:58 AM
Wait, Democrats Invented Rendition?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Eli Lake has the scoop on Panetta:
President-elect Barack Obama's choice for CIA director, Leon Panetta, served as White House chief of staff during the time the Clinton administration accelerated a practice of kidnapping terrorist suspects and sending them to countries with records of torturing prisoners, human rights organizations and former U.S. officials say.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 7:14 AM
Jane Mayer on Being Immortalized by the Pro-Torture "24"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I happened to see the beginning of "24" on Sunday night -- I stopped watching it a while ago, after Los Angeles was nuked for the third time -- and there, grilling Jack Bauer, was a self-righteous and squirrelly senator named Blaine Mayer. Get it? Blaine Mayer?
Anyway, I e-mailed my friend and ex-colleague Jane Mayer, who sliced and diced "24" a couple of years ago in The New Yorker, and asked what it felt like to be immortalized on television's leading pro-torture show. She wrote back:
"Well, there's kind of a balancing sensation. The elevation to the U.S. Senate is a nice start to the year, but the sex change is a bit disappointing, since if I have to be male, I was hoping for a younger, more fit body, and a better head of hair. It does however fulfill one of my greatest fantasies, which is that I have long had subpoena envy."
I asked her if she thought Joel Surnow was behind this:
"I don't think Surnow is really the instigator here, since he's largely moved on to other brilliant work, such as the unending search for a successful right-wing humor show. Howard Gordon is the main creative force at "24" now. He's said he invented "Blaine Mayer" to "amuse" himself. He's a Princeton grad, and conflicted "moderate" Democrat, who seems in real life to be a very likeable guy, but one who is having trouble rationalizing the truth that his professional and economic successes are derived from mainlining political poison into America's bloodstream. If he was honest about the debate over torture, he'd cast the critics of Jack Bauer as the heroes of the show, and they would be the stand-up military men, the proud FBI agents, and the lawyers inside and outside the government who have risked their careers to say that as a country, we're better than this. They're the real protectors of America."
"I notice by the way that the ratings for the season opener tanked. The show lost a third of its audience. The zeitgeist has changed. At the moment, fear has migrated to the economic sphere. If they move quickly, maybe they can start waterboarding Hank Paulson."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 7:14 AM
Not So Much Sympathy for Hamas on the West Bank
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Avi Issacharoff reports that a demonstration in Ramallah was canceled for lack of protesters. This doesn't mean, of course, that Fatah is necessarily growing in popularity in the West Bank. It means that Palestinians, like many Israelis, are fed up with their politicians.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 7:14 AM
The Challenge for Fatah
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Isabel Kershner's article today in the Times outlines the difficulties Fatah faces in running the West Bank, much less Gaza. There's only a small chance Fatah will help bring about a viable Palestinian state. But it's the only Palestinian party that even wants to try.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 5:55 AM
The Delusions of Ehud Olmert
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ari Shavit offers a diagnosis:
After two weeks in which he conducted the campaign against Hamas in a responsible, restrained manner, an arrogant, smug braggart burst out of him. After two weeks in which he seemed to have internalized the lessons of the Second Lebanon War, the licentious leader of that failed war took over. But the problem isn't only in the prime minister's boastful statements, but in his arrogant approach. An approach saying that this is a wonderful war. An approach whispering that this wonderful war can go on longer and longer, an approach leading Olmert to seriously consider expanding the war, taking over the Philadelphi route and conquering Rafah.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 15, 2009 5:55 AM
Ariel Sharon Predicts the Future
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From his 1989 autobiography Warrior:
Gaza, at this point, is our southern security belt. What will we do once we withdraw from Gaza and find, as we inevitably will, that Arafat or his successors have stepped in and that squads of terrorists are again operating from there into Israel, murdering and destroying? What will we do when the Katyusha fire starts hitting Sderot, four miles from the Gaza district, and Ashkelon, nine miles from Gaza, and Kiryat Gat, fourteen miles from Gaza. A Katyusha is nothing more than a metal tube seven feet long, easily transportable, virtually undetectable. The simplest of them has a fifteen-mile range, the more sophisticated can reach twenty-five miles. Will the television pictures showing us shelling Gaza in return be more palatable than those that showed us in front of Beirut, or less upsetting than those of Israeli troops battling West Bank rioters? Or what shall we do if the U.N. or multinational forces are positioned around Gaza and there is still terrorism? Shall we hit the Italians, or the British, or the Americans?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 14, 2009 10:07 AM
Megan McArdle Still Works at the Atlantic
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This will come as a surprise to many of you, after her post yesterday on the Israel lobby in which she stated: "It will not do my career much good to say it, but here goes. America has an influential Israel lobby in large part because of ethnic affinity."
The Atlantic's owner, the well-known Zionist extremist David Bradley, has yet to punish Megan, but he undoubtedly will. Interestingly, he has yet to take action against me, for criticizing AIPAC in a New York Times op-ed last year. I don't know how to explain this. Maybe it's because it's not, in fact, an act of journalistic martyrdom to criticize the Israel lobby. Maybe it actually advances your career. It certainly worked for Stephen Walt.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 14, 2009 10:07 AM
Why Israel Can't Make Peace With Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is the subject of my New York Times op-ed today. Which you should read. Please.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 14, 2009 8:33 AM
The Damage Done
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Bob Woodward reports today that a senior Bush Administration official has concluded that a Saudi national, the so-called 20th hijacker, was tortured at Guantanamo. Once, a few years ago, an Egyptian friend wrote to me despondent over the fact that America practiced torture. "You have to be better than us. That is how you'll win," he said. Torturing people is a way to convince Arabs living under authoritarian regimes that we're no better than their own corrupt rulers. God willing, it will soon stop.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 14, 2009 8:33 AM
America as an Honest Broker
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pete Wehner doesn't like this piece, about America's role in Middle East peacemaking, by Will Marshall and Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute, but it doesn't bother me much: I think, as Obama has said, that an American president should help Israel make the hard decisions it needs to make in order to stay a Jewish democracy. One way of doing this is not putting up with illegal settlement activity anymore.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 13, 2009 8:46 AM
Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
At least nine hundred people, maybe half of them civilians, have been killed in Gaza so far, the overwhelming majority presumably killed by Israel (some people, more than we probably know right now, have been killed by Hamas, mainly Fatah activists in revenge killings). This number, nine hundred, is large, and it brought to mind another conflict between a Western army and a Muslim insurgency, the one portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down." Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hours or so of the First Battle of Mogadishu (eighteen American soldiers, of course, were also killed).
I couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian. Eighty percent! Roughly eight hundred people. I asked Bowden if he thought this meant that American forces in Somalia had committed war crimes. Andrew has been leading an interesting discussion about whether or not Israeli actions in Gaza constitute war crimes, and I've been trying to place Israeli actions in a broader context. Bowden agreed to help me by providing his own understanding of civilian deaths in asymmetric warfare. Here's some of what he had to say:
"If you feel the need to go to war against an enemy that is not as powerful as you are, one of the tactics of the weaker party is to hide among civilians, and use the global media to advertise the horror of the onslaught. People on the receiving end of the bombs greatly exaggerate the casualties and get photographers to take the most gruesome of pictures, and at the same time, the people in charge of the stronger power try to minimize the number of casualties. If you live in a democracy, then public opinion really matters, and reports of dead children swells the criticism of the war. If you live in a dictatorship, then you don't care what the people think. Israel is a democracy and it cares about the way the rest of the world feels. It gets hurt by killing civilians, so for moral and practical reasons, they're trying very hard to avoid it."
"I believe that culpability for these casualties is very much with Hamas. Take this leader, Nizar Rayyan, who was killed with many of his children. He knew he was a target. If I knew that I was a target, I sure as hell wouldn't have my children near me. It's a horrible and cynical choice he made. But if your enemy is a sophisticated manipulator of public opinion, then this is one of the many downsides of choosing to go to war. Israel knows that."
"The parallel with Mogadishu is that gunmen in that battle hid behind walls of civilians and were aware of the restraint of the (Army) Rangers. These gunmen literally shot over the heads of civilians, or between their legs. They used women and children for this. It's mind-boggling. Some of the Rangers shot civilians, some of them inadvertently and some of them advertently. They made the choice to shoot at crowds. When a ten-year-old is running at your vehicle with an AK-47, do you shoot the kid? Yes, you shoot the kid. You have to survive. When push comes to shove, faced with the horrible dilemma with a gunman facing you, yes, you shoot. It's not just a choice about your own life. If you don't shoot, you're saying that your mission isn't important, and the lives of your fellow soldiers aren't important."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Can People Die From Ambivalence?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Bradley Burston asks the question.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 4:09 PM
A Bizarre International Fetish
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reader Jack Feder thinks my assessment of Efraim Karsh is harsh:
It does not seem to me that Mr. Karsh is implying that Israel can do no wrong. His whole point, with which I strongly agree is that there is a bizarre international fetish about the alleged immorality of Israel that no other entity on the international stage is subject to. Of course any nation at war makes mistakes. War is indeed hell. But, if forced to make the choice, I would rather be in an Israeli military-created hell where there is far more attention paid to the danger to civilians than in any other conflict I am aware of. Cell phone calls to the enemy to leave houses? Restraint over a 6 year period in which 6000 rockets fell? It is ludicrous that the Israeli far left and the Western Europeans so viciously attack the Israeli effort at self defense and fail to spend any energy on the far worse depredations of other nations. They show a moral shallowness that frankly eliminates their arguments from the realm of serious political or philosophical debate.
That is not to say that questions of strategic or tactical wisdom are similarly the work of the morally deranged. Many in Israel across the spectrum and elsewhere question the strategic or tactical wisdom of the current war or at least the continuation of it. I for one do not. But I understand and share some of the concerns of those that do.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Nasrallah: Israel Still Collapsing
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Al-Manar TV reports that Israel's day of reckoning has once again arrived:
Instead of restoring the image of the "invincible army" that had lost during the Second Lebanon War in July 2006, Israel has proved, now more than ever, that "it is weaker than a spider's web," as Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has always said.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 1:10 PM
Karsh, Totten, Levy and Sullivan on Israeli "War Crimes"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Sounds like a law firm in Queens.
Efraim Karsh explains the Western obsession with Israeli behavior:
The extraordinary international preoccupation with the Palestinians is a corollary of their interaction with Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, a reflected glow of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Had their dispute been with an Arab, Muslim, or any other adversary, it would have attracted a fraction of the interest that it presently does.
On the other hand (the very other hand), Gideon Levy feels the world has been too lenient with Israel. He expects war crimes investigations of Olmert, Barak and Livni:
Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will stand at the forefront of the guilty. Two of them are candidates for prime minister, the third is a candidate for criminal indictment.
It is inconceivable that they not be held to account for the bloodshed. Olmert is the only Israeli prime minister who sent his army to two wars of choice, all during one of the briefest terms in office. The man who made a number of courageous statements about peace late in his tenure has orchestrated no fewer than two wars.
I'm somewhere in the vast middle. Karsh's view discounts the idea that Israel, a sovereign state, is capable of doing wrong. Levy makes Israel a scapegoat. Unlike Andrew, I don't think Israel is committing war crimes. Israel is fighting an enemy that intentionally seeks to kill civilians; in the course of fighting Hamas, Israel does some stupid and brutal things, but, by Andrew's standard, every act of self-defense by a Western nation against Islamist insurgents is a war crime. For the record, I don't think that Israeli tanks can create moderation in Gaza, and I can't quite fathom the idea that Israeli politicians would be so quick to insert ground troops into a territory they previously were quite desperate to leave. But I'm with Michael Totten on these questions:
There is a non-hysterical case to be made against Israel's war in Gaza. The fact that people are being killed in the war is not it. Innocents as well as combatants die in every war. If you have nothing to object to besides that, then you should oppose the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan for the same reason. That war is also being fought "disproportionately." Far more innocent civilians have been killed over there than in Gaza. No doubt the rage among some in the Islamic world at the sight of those innocents killed encourages them to join the fight against us.
And Afghanistan isn't currently shooting rockets at the United States.
Nearly every argument I have read and heard about Israel's war in Gaza applies ten-fold to the war in Afghanistan. Yet many, if not most, of the very same people who deploy those arguments support the war in Afghanistan.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 10:18 AM
How the Jews Are Taking Over Bollywood
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Okay, maybe just one Jew. And maybe that one Jew, who happens to be my goombah David Segal, co-founder, with yours truly, of the Jewish Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, whose name we changed to Jewsrock.org after the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sued us, did not actually take over anything. But he did work as an extra in Mumbai:
You could call Imran a freelance talent scout for the film industry of India, except--as our interview suggests--he's not looking for talent. He's looking for white people. Bollywood requires a few dozen Western extras every day, to add vérité to crowd scenes in ostensibly exotic locales. Imran's job is to find foreigners and chaperon them to Film City, an expansive badlands of rocks and shrubs at the northern edge of this megalopolis, where most of India's movies are made. I got his phone number through a reporter in Delhi, but usually he finds you, trolling local tourist sites.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 10:18 AM
Nixon's Plan for Israel to Invade Syria
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shmuel Rosner has pulled a fascinating snippet of history from the archives. He highlights one telling conversation between the then-Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yitzhak Rabin and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.
Transcript of a Telephone Conversation Between the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger) and the Israeli Ambassador (Rabin), September 21, 7:05 p.m.
K: There is a point of clarification I want to raise with you. What did you tell [diplomat Joe] Sisco this afternoon about the alternate plan we mentioned to you this afternoon, the alternate courses of operations? [namely, attacking Syria.]
R: He raised the question. He said they estimated that Jordan didn't want ground operations in Jordan and he asked about the possibility of carrying out diversionary action in Syria. He asked my opinion. I made it very clear that diversionary operations cannot achieve anything unless the purpose is to eliminate the forces in Jordan.
K: I want to get one thing clear. Did I understand you correctly when we talked this afternoon that if a major operation was carried out in Syria, from a military point of view this was a feasible operation? You and I have to be meticulous in our understandings for this reason. What you tell me I report to the President. When another version is reported, my version must be the correct one. Otherwise there is no sense in my talking to you. I reported my understanding of the conversation this afternoon -- from a purely military point of view you expressed the thought that this might be an effective and probably the effective way of doing it.
R: Exactly.
K: We were told this evening that it was your judgment that from a military point of view it was not feasible [Kissinger refers to the report on the Sisco conversation].
R: This time it is recorded. He [Sisco] talked about diversionary tactics. I went into detail and explained to him. I said to him you don't have diversionary...
K: You don't have to explain any more than that.
R: It is unbelievable.
K: The only essential thing is that any time you deviate, even in the slightest -- which you didn't do... I want to know when I say in a meeting "It is my belief that this is the Israeli point of view," I want to be exactly right.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 12, 2009 7:15 AM
Ariel Sharon on the Complexity of Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My new aide-de-camp, Joshua Miller, reminded me the other day that Ariel Sharon is still alive. Go figure. The man's certainly a fighter, a fact that can be seen in this not entirely-perspicacious profile of him from 2001. Not entirely-perspicacious, because I didn't imagine at the time that Sharon was capable of absorbing the demographic realities that eventually led him to order the withdrawals from Gaza. Joshua, who is very energetic, reread Sharon's autobiography, Warrior, and dug out these interesting and tragic observations:
When I did look at Gaza, with whatever distracted attention I could spare [from the War of Attrition], the complexity of the problem overwhelmed me. There were so many people there, so many ways for the terrorists to hide in those dense groves or melt into the population, so many targets for them to hit. I couldn't begin to get a handle on it.
When Sharon was assigned by Moshe Dayan to rid Gaza of all terrorists, he began by spending two months walking through the refugee camps and the orange groves of Gaza, he wrote.
I'd get up in the morning, pack a lunch and a canteen of water, take my chief of intelligence and chief of operations, and head off to that day's sector. I did it methodically, walking every square yard of each camp and each grove.
Sharon spent seven months in Gaza and, according to him, the operation was hugely successful, leading to the death or capture of just about all of the PLO terrorists in the Strip.
When government members came to examine his work, he told them that the only effective way to control the area was to build settlements.
Standing with the cabinet members on a high hill of dunes, I pointed out exactly what I thought we needed. If in the future we wanted in any way to control this area, we would need to establish a Jewish presence now. Otherwise we would have no motivation to be there during difficult times later on.
But beyond settlements, Sharon also had a plan for Gaza's residents:
Currently the district is packed with towns, refugee camps, and orange groves...but Gaza does not have to be squalid and overcrowded. With a comprehensive program of planning, rehabilitation, and building it could be transformed into a modern urban residential area. ... Remaking Gaza would be a humanitarian achievement of the first order. The consequences such a project would have for peace in the region can hardly be exaggerated.
Below is a story from the Nov. 14, 1978, New York Times, which reports on a key moment in Israel's fateful, and fatal, encounter with Gaza:
sharon_NYT.jpg
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 11, 2009 3:52 PM
What is the Goal of the Israel Incursion?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is the question, and I'm sorry if I've missed something, but have we received a clear answer from the Israeli government? If the goal is to destroy the Hamas government in Gaza, well, this is not something so easily destroyed. I thought Israel learned a lesson from the 1982 Lebanon invasion: You can't inflict political change on your enemies by force. You can defeat your enemies, yes, you can blow up their rocket launchers and destroy their smuggling tunnels, but you can't make them into something they're not. Israeli Military Intelligence seems to understand this better than Prime Minister Olmert, according to Ha'aretz.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 11, 2009 3:52 PM
The Values of Journalism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shmuel Rosner highlights an interesting observation from the former editor of Ha'aretz, Hanoch Marmari, who once said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "has created a real crisis of values for journalism. I believe I can compress the enormous volume of coverage and comment into four cardinal sins: obsessiveness, prejudice, condescension and ignorance."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 11, 2009 3:46 AM
Israeli War Crimes?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew suggests that Israel should be worried when it finds itself being accused of committing war crimes in the Wall Street Journal, and he links to an op-ed there by one George Bisharat, as proof. George Bisharat is a Palestinian-American professor of law in San Francisco who is an advocate of what is known euphemistically as the "one-state solution," which is to say, the elimination of Israel. So Bisharat's op-ed is not quite the momentous event it seems to be at first blush.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 10, 2009 11:49 PM
Somalia-by-the-Sea?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Press accounts suggest that Israel is on the verge of escalating its operations in Gaza. This means a penetration of Gaza City and other densely-populated areas. It's not immediately clear to me what Israel will gain from such an escalation. Obviously, if the army were to invade the cities, it is because it believes that it can strike a decisive, even fatal, blow to Hamas, and there are reports out there that Hamas is already collapsing. But the question for Israeli planners is this: Do you seriously believe that Fatah, the main constituent of the weak Palestinian Authority, can simply be inserted into Gaza, and run it effectively? The people of Gaza would turn on them so ferociously that the internecine struggles between Fatah and Hamas of the past two years would look like, well, a cakewalk.
If Ehud Barak had as his goal cutting off north Gaza from the rocket supplies in southern Gaza, then he may have achieved this already. If the goal was to blow up smuggling tunnels, and kill Nizar Rayyan, then those goals have been achieved. But what is the goal now? You can't kill Hamas entirely; it's Iranian-supported, yes, but it is a homegrown, populist movement. If Fatah tries to remove Hamas from the hearts of its supporters, it will fail miserably. Then what? Somalia-by-the-Sea?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Good News from Palestine
from Jeffrey Goldberg
No, really. The good news comes in the form of a bell that isn't ringing: The West Bank is more-or-less quiet. In the first two uprisings, the violence spread quickly from one half of the future state of Palestine to the other. Today, this isn't happening. I asked Walter Isaacson, who is the chairman of the U.S.-Palestinian Partnership, why he thought this was so. Walter, who by day runs the Aspen Institute, points to the work of the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who is growing the West Bank economy at a remarkable rate.
"There has been double-digit growth in the economy, and people have a stake in the future because of what Salam Fayyad and others have done to improve conditions there," Walter said. "And Israelis have responded by encouraging economic development. I think that people in the West Bank have a clear sense of what peace would bring them, and that's a prosperous state. If you just let all these engineers in the Palestinian territories and in Israel form joint start-ups, you'll see a vision of the future. Success is not achieved just with secret talks about politics but by laying a groundwork for prosperity."
What was true before the Gaza incursion remains true now: The best hope for a two-state solution is a vibrant West Bank that could serve as a role model for the people of Gaza.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Glenn Greenwald on Reporting in Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An unusual conversation took place the other day on the Hugh Hewitt show: Hugh and his guest, Glenn Greenwald, got to talking about reporting from Gaza, and, among other things, my name was invoked as an example of a Jewish journalist who reported from Gaza and lived to tell the tale:
Hugh Hewitt: You think you could file for Salon from Gaza and go about your work for say six, eight, ten weeks? I don't. I think they'd kill you.
Glenn Greenwald: It depends. I mean, it's probably, you're probably right that especially now, Western journalists, Jewish journalists, would not be welcome in Gaza for reasons that aren't that difficult to understand. But there have been plenty of Western journalists and Jewish journalists. I mean, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic's spent lots and lots of time in Gaza safely.
HH: Written a good book about it, too.
GG: Yeah, exactly. So I think my view of the Palestinians and the Gazans is not all that dissimilar to my view of most societies that are involved in really ugly, long term, entrenched warfare, which is most of the people in this society overwhelmingly are decent people who want peace and to raise their children in a safe and prosperous environment, and there are extremists within this society who are dangerous and violent, and who are bad and need to be marginalized.
This undoubtedly marks the first time Hugh Hewitt has ever praised a book chosen by The Progressive as a favorite book of the year, but that's not the point: I want to address a couple of mistaken suppositions in the conversation. The first is Hugh's, the idea that Glenn Greenwald would get killed for reporting in Gaza. (The assumption built in to this, of course, is that bloggers like Greenwald report from the field.) I don't think he would be killed for reporting in Gaza. It's a dangerous place, yes, and reporters have been kidnapped from time to time. I was kidnapped in Gaza, though not by Hamas, and the editor of this fine magazine, when he was reporting from Gaza for the Times, was once almost kidnapped in Gaza, and only broke free of his would-be captors because of his kung fu fighting skills.
If Greenwald told the whole truth -- say, he reported the fact that Hamas places rocket launchers in schoolyards and mosques -- he might get his ass kicked out of Gaza, but Hamas wouldn't hurt him. It's a more sophisticated organization than that. So Greenwald is also wrong to assume that Hamas would take its anger out on Jewish reporters. This is not to say that Hamas isn't an anti-Semitic organization. It is. But it sees Jewish reporters, just as it sees other reporters, as capable of delivering its message to the West.
On Greenwald's larger point, I would say that I have to agree (surprise). Gaza is in the grip of a suicide cult, but most of the people I know in Gaza want their children to live, not to die.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Another Great Idea From a Settler Leader
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The last time I interviewed the superannuated settler fire-breather Elyakim HaEtzni, he was wearing sweatpants up to his belly-button, and mismatched slippers. But he's ready to fight Hamas to the last Israeli, and ready to have other Israelis live forever in conditions of chaos: The goal of the war, he writes, is for Israel "to smash Hamas, and to neutralize its motivation to fire rockets at us - but not to liquidate them completely; Hamas should rather remain, together with Fatah, as two Palestinian terrorist gangs that will prevent each other from becoming a state!"
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 9, 2009 7:30 AM
Joe the Plumber, As Qualified As Many Mideast Reporters
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pajamas TV is sending Joe Wurzelbacher, A/K/A '"Joe the Plumber," to Israel to cover the conflict in Gaza. Eric Trager sees the pitfalls:
It seems as though Joe will only contribute to the very problem that so many in the blogosphere have harped on for so long-namely, that Middle East reporters frequently arrive in the region with no frame of reference and/or obscene biases. Indeed, will Joe be any more capable than the average MSM correspondent of reading an Israeli newspaper; or interpreting a mosque sermon on Palestinian television; or assessing the strategic significance of a given Israeli operation or Hamas rocket-attack? It seems highly improbable, to say the least.
A couple of years ago, during the previous iteration of the Iran-Israel war, I was standing on the Lebanese border with a group of American reporters. Overhead, Israeli Apaches were firing rockets at Hezbollah positions. One of the reporters looked up and asked, "Is that an airplane or a helicopter?" Man, that was embarrassing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 2:03 PM
The Jewish State vs. Weekly Newsmagazines
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Time magazine asks the question, "Can Israel Survive Gaza?" It's a little bit of an overwrought piece, but interesting (I'm also known for overwrought pieces about Israel). But it got me thinking: Which one will last longer: Israel, or Time magazine? I'm betting on Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 2:03 PM
Hamas Continues to Execute Fatah Men
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to Amira Hass, who can be trusted on this because she cordially detests Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 2:03 PM
The Moral Responsibilities of Israeli Soldiers
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dear Soldier,
Here's the thing. You've got to help the children. You're not Hamas. You're better than Hamas. So act it. I once asked Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, the late, unlamented Hamas leader, if he would help an injured Jewish child if he came across one lying on the street. He said no. And he was a pediatrician by training!
You're not Rantisi. So when you operate, operate with the children in mind. It's a burden Hamas has placed on you -- it's no joy to fight an enemy who hides behind his children. But that's what you're facing. And when you come across scenes like the one described in this Washington Post story, help the children. Yes, I'm sure the Red Cross makes things up from time to time -- they don't like you and never have -- and I'm sure some of the Palestinian self-reporting isn't accurate, but, really -- horrible things still happen, and it's your responsiblity to protect innocent people, not make their lives even more miserable. I would refer you to this Jewish prayer for the children of Gaza. Understand its message!
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 2:03 PM
Obama on What a President Must Do to Help Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is from my May interview with President-Elect Obama on the subject of the Middle East. I hope this means that Obama will sit down with the next Israeli prime minister and talk about the self-destructiveness of settlements, in addition to talking about the destructiveness of Hamas:
Obama: I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 6:44 AM
I Think This is What's Known as Self-Marginalizing Behavior
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 6:44 AM
A Good Idea For Israel, Which It Probably Won't Take
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I saw Sally Quinn, an adjunct member of my Torah study group, last night, and she had a smart idea: Why not erect a massive tent hospital in Sderot, staff it with Israeli army doctors, and treat the Palestinian wounded there? Israel is taking in some of the Palestinian wounded, but not enough of them. And Israel, as those of you who have been there know, has a lot of doctors. Sally's idea would be, at the same time, the right thing to do and a public relations coup. I told her I'm more cynical than she is -- that these sorts of sensible ideas don't get done, for whatever reason, but it would be nice to be proven wrong by the government of Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 8, 2009 6:44 AM
What Does al-Qaeda Gain in Gaza?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A lot, according to Marc Lynch, a/k/a Abu Aardvark, who moved his blog to the Foreign Policy website:
Israel's assault on Gaza has really created an almost unbelievable no-lose situation for al-Qaeda. If Hamas "wins", then al-Qaeda gets to share in the benefits of the political losses incurred by its Western and Arab enemies (Zawahiri mentions Mubarak and the Saudis in this tape, but not the Jordanians) and can try to take advantage of the political upheavals which could follow. If Hamas "loses", al-Qaeda still wins. It will shed no tears at seeing one of its bitterest and most dangerous rivals take a beating at Israel's hands or losing control of a government that they have consistently decried as illegitimate and misguided.
Michael Weiss at Jewcy takes on Abu Aardvark, and wins on points, I think:
What Lynch doesn't acknowledge -- at least not in this post -- is that Al Qaeda's flagging popularity is due in large part to its military and political defeat in Iraq, where it (foolishly) decided to create a cynosure of Islamist terror and test out the prospects of a neo-caliphate. If it should try to do this again, and in the one place it can ill afford to have Muslims grow more disillusioned with its activities, might we expect the realist school to indulge us with the following headline: "and the winner is... America!"?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 7, 2009 6:03 PM
A Jewish Prayer for the Children of Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is a typical Bradley Burston effort, beautifully-written and deeply moral. He'll get some criticism from the right for this, but he should take it is a compliment. He's a Jew in full. Here's the link, and here's an excerpt:
Lord who is the creator of all children, hear our prayer this accursed day. God whom we call Blessed, turn your face to these, the children of Gaza, that they may know your blessings, and your shelter, that they may know light and warmth, where there is now only blackness and smoke, and a cold which cuts and clenches the skin.
Almighty who makes exceptions, which we call miracles, make an exception of the children of Gaza. Shield them from us and from their own. Spare them. Heal them. Let them stand in safety. Deliver them from hunger and horror and fury and grief. Deliver them from us, and from their own.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 7, 2009 1:17 PM
In Addition to Gaza, the Jews Control Hollywood
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jack Shafer pointed me to this very funny Joel Stein column. The key point:
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.
I believe this is the subject of the next book by Walt and Mearsheimer.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 7, 2009 10:50 AM
David Rothkopf Takes Stephen Walt to School
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ouch. That new Foreign Policy website is craaazy. Everyone over here at The Atlantic gets along, Alhamdullilah. Not so over at Foreign Policy. Of course, they've hired the egregious Stephen Walt as a blogger, so it was only a matter of time before one of their commonsense bloggers, in this case the perspicacious David Rothkopf, took him down. An excerpt:
Walt continues his, how shall I put it, crusade?, jihad?...against this nefarious lobby and U.S. support for Israel on this website. He has sketched out a thought experiment in which he posits what might happen were it a few orthodox Jews fighting for their freedom in Gaza rather than the Palestinians. He has quoted George Orwell to make the point that he feels we are overlooking Israeli abuses against the Palestinians. He has suggested that the media is making Israel's case for it. (Please let me know where I can tune in to that. Mostly I get the opposite. Sometimes I think, the BBC ought to rename itself Death-to-Israel TV. I am often glad my college French is not good enough to watch the nightly news from Paris.)
In short, he has become as biased a pleader of special interests as he accuses the Israel Lobby of being. And as such he has become a member of the anti-Israel Lobby, a group that is every bit as vocal and at the moment seems to be even more empowered than the its counterpart. Members include Jimmy Carter and his former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, celebrity activists like Richard Gere, and many members of the media. Like the members of the Israel Lobby, they found their case on some very reasonable assertions. The Palestinians should have a state of their own and their plight is dismal. It is also a terrible tragedy that so many are the innocent victims of the conflict between Israel and, at the moment, Hamas.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 7, 2009 7:02 AM
Misinformation about the 2005 Gaza Withdrawal
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I love Daniel Levy -- we're brothers in Zionism, after all -- but sometimes he drives me nuts. Andrew links without comment to Daniel's recent post informing the world that Ariel Sharon was not seeking peace when he withdrew from Gaza in 2005:
One frequently hears the claim that Israel left Gaza in 2005 in order to build peace but all it received was terror. I appreciate the Gaza evacuation of 2005 and how difficult it was and I in no way condone the launching of rockets against civilian targets from Gaza but the unilateral nature of the Gaza withdrawal was a mistake (and I said it at the time) and I don't appreciate this rewriting of history. Israel at the time did not evacuate Gaza as part of the peace process.
Well, yes, of course. Ariel Sharon did not evacuate Gaza to serve the Oslo peace process. But he evacuated Gaza all the same. His motivation is not as interesting to me as the colossal reality. Yes, it was wrong to do unilaterally -- I agree with Daniel on that -- but he did it! And Daniel knows as well as I do that Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, hoped to do the same thing across much of the West Bank. But what stopped him? Palestinian rockets from Gaza, a special gift from Hamas. Palestinians interested in a two-state solution would have viewed the withdrawal in 2005 as a first, important step toward independence. They would have used the billions in aid money that flowed to Gaza to build schools and hospitals and roads and farms on the abandoned land of the Jewish settlements. But they turned those ruined settlements into rocket launching pads. Sharon was wrong to pull out of Gaza without extracting concessions from the Palestinians, and he should have done it in the framework of a negotiation, but that doesn't change the fact that he gave the Palestinians of Gaza what they said they wanted.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 7, 2009 7:02 AM
Another Voice of Reason
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the overflowing inbox:
Mr. Goldberg-
Had Israel's supporters not spent decades propping Israel up as some kind of Moral Utopia, this wouldn't be happening.
IOW, Israel and its partisans have no one to blame but themselves for becoming just another wehrmacht death-machine.
regards,
Jamie Dyer
Charlottesville, Va.
That's right -- the Gaza incursion and the Holocaust are the same thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM
The World's Pornographic Interest in Jewish Moral Failure
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Okay, yesterday I was depressed. Today, I'm just pissed off. It's absolutely astonishing to me how interested the world is in Israel's failings. This is the source of a bitter but hilarious observation I once heard a Kurdish leader make: He was complaining to me that his people were cursed, and I asked him what he meant: Cursed by geography, cursed by their proximity to Kurd-hating Arabs, what? He said the Kurds were cursed because they didn't have Jewish enemies. Only with Jewish enemies would the world pay attention to their plight.
For the record: I defend Israel's right to defend itself, but I fear that Gaza will quickly become a quagmire. I fear for the lives of Israelis, obviously, but I also fear for the lives of Palestinian civilians -- I have friends there, in harm's way -- in part because the Israeli army (and I say this from personal experience) can be a big, rough bulldozer of an army, and in part (large part) because Hamas terrorists unblinkingly and ostentatiously use their own civilians as human shields. I've seen this up-close, and it's repulsive. One story the media isn't telling, because it's impossible to get this story in these circumstances (especially because Israel stupidly won't allow foreign reporters into Gaza) is how much resentment the Hamas policy of using Palestinians as human shields causes among Gaza civilians. Early reports indicate that Hamas mortar teams were firing from the UN School. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
One more thing, speaking of pornography -- we've all seen endless pictures of dead Palestinian children now. It's a terrible, ghastly, horrible thing, the deaths of children, and for the parents it doesn't matter if they were killed by accident or by mistake. But ask yourselves this: Why are these pictures so omnipresent? I'll tell you why, again from firsthand, and repeated, experience: Hamas (and the Aksa Brigades, and Islamic Jihad, the whole bunch) prevents the burial, or even preparation of the bodies for burial, until the bodies are used as props in the Palestinian Passion Play. Once, in Khan Younis, I actually saw gunmen unwrap a shrouded body, carry it a hundred yards and position it atop a pile of rubble -- and then wait a half-hour until photographers showed. It was one of the more horrible things I've seen in my life. And it's typical of Hamas. If reporters would probe deeper, they'd learn the awful truth of Hamas. But Palestinian moral failings are not of great interest to many people.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM
That Michael Scheuer Sure is One Crazy Jew-Hater
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to a very interesting story by National Journal writer Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., Michael Scheuer, the man the CIA counted on to catch Osama Bin-Laden, had this to say about Israel:
Israel is not only an unnecessary and self-made liability for the United States, it is an untreated and spreading cancer on our domestic politics, foreign policy, and national security.
In my experience, the only people who refer to Jews, or to the Jewish state, as a "cancer" are the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Comparing Jews to diseases or pathogens went out of style in about 1945, in fact. Nice going there, Mike.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM
Memo to Stephen Walt: Don't Argue with Douthat; You'll Lose
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ross takes apart Stephen "The Jews Cause All Wars" Walt, so I don't have to.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM
A Warning to Jewish Parents Everywhere From Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas leader, issued a warning this week to Jewish parents: Your children, he said, are targets:
"They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine," Mahmoud Zahar said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location. "They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
Put aside Zahar's chutzpah -- Hamas has been happily killing Jewish children for years. What's important is that he is making an explicit plea to jihadists everywhere to take matters into their own hands and kill Jews. Any Jewish school or synagogue or JCC anywhere in the world that doesn't take this seriously is beyond negligent. This is not a time for panic, just preparation.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 5, 2009 2:33 PM
Why I'm Not Blogging More About Gaza
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew Sullivan just asked me (live, not on e-mail; bloggers at the Atlantic actually talk to each other) why I haven't been posting more on Gaza. The simple answer is that I'm busy reporting, and I hope to head to the Middle East soon, to personally broker a cease-fire, or at least get some writing done, and see some friends.
The more complicated answer was provided by Marc Ambinder, who analyzed my personal situation correctly: Gaza has overdetermined me into paralysis. His point: I actually feel too close to this problem, a problem that symbolizes all problems. It's true: I have friends in Gaza about whom I worry a great deal; I've seen many people killed in Gaza; I've served in the Israeli Army in Gaza; I've been kidnapped in Gaza; I've reported for years from Gaza; I hope my former army doesn't kill the wrong people in Gaza; I hope Israeli soldiers all leave Gaza alive; I know they'll be back in Gaza; I think this operation will work; and I have no actual hope that it will work for very long, because nothing works for very long in the Middle East. Gaza is where dreams of reconciliation go to die. Gaza is where the dream of Palestinian statehood goes to die; Gaza is where the Zionist dream might yet die. Or, more to the point, might be murdered. I'm not a J Street moral-equivalence sort of guy. Yes, Israel makes constant mistakes, which I note rather frequently, but this conflict reminds me once again that Israel is up against an implacable force, namely, an interpretation of Islam that disallows the idea of Jewish national equality.
My paralysis isn't an analytical paralysis. It's the paralysis that comes from thinking that maybe there's no way out. Not out of Gaza, out of the whole thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 5, 2009 11:29 AM
J Street Pushes Back
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The lobbying group calls foul after Rabbi Eric Yoffie's criticism:
Our position on the crisis reflects our support for Israel, our hope for its security and our sympathy with the ongoing suffering of the people on both sides in this conflict. It is hard for us to understand how the leading reform rabbi in North America could call our effort to articulate a nuanced view on these difficult issues "morally deficient." If our views are "naïve" and "morally deficient", then so are the views of scores of Israeli journalists, security analysts, distinguished authors, and retired IDF officers who have posed the same questions about the Gaza attack as we have.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 5, 2009 9:56 AM
J Street Blows It
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According the chief rabbi of American Reform Judaism, the (liberal) Eric Yoffie, J Street, the left-wing alternative to AIPAC, is showing signs of moral deficiency and appalling naivete. The lobbying group, he writes in the Forward, "could find no moral difference between the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who have launched more than 5,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians in the past three years, and the long-delayed response of Israel, which finally lost patience and responded to the pleas of its battered citizens in the south."
"Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong," (J Street) said, and it suggested that there was no reason and no way to judge between them: "While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them."
These words are deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve. A cease-fire instituted by Hamas would be welcome, and Israel would be quick to respond. A cease-fire imposed on Israel would allow Hamas to escape the consequences of its actions yet again and would lead in short order to the renewal of its campaign of terror. Hamas, it should be noted, is not a government; it is a terrorist gang. And as long as the thugs of Hamas can act with impunity, no Israeli government of the right or the left will agree to a two-state solution or any other kind of peace. Doves take note: To be a dove of influence, you must be a realist, firm in your principles but shorn of all illusions.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 2, 2009 12:01 PM
Nizar Rayyan of Hamas on God's Hatred of Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Nizzar Rayyan, the Hamas leader who was killed, along with two of his wives and several of his children, in an Israeli bombing raid earlier this week, was one of the more bellicose Hamas leaders I have known. I saw him last in Gaza two years ago, at a mosque in the Jabalya Refugee Camp, where I spent quite a lot of time (my book Prisoners explains why).
He was one of the more Islamically-learned Hamas leaders I've met (Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was learned as well, I think, but he was very hard to understand; Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was the least pleasant of all the Hamas leaders I've known, was not very learned at all). In particular, Rayyan was interested in the hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, with a special interest in hadith that painted Jews in a negative light. Rayyan and I discussed the writing of Ibn Taymiyya, the Muslim scholar who lived seven hundred years ago, and who is the intellectual forefather of Sunni radicalism today (it was Ibn Taymiyya who elevated jihad to a kind-of sixth pillar of Islam). Like Ibn Taymiyya, Rayyan was preoccupied with Muslim apostasy. He never quite said so, but I could sense that he thought of Abu Mazen and the other leaders of the Palestinian Authority as traitors not only to the cause of Palestine, but to Islam itself. "You cannot be loyal to Allah and to the CIA at the same time," he said of his P.A. enemies.
There are things I didn't know about Rayyan, such as that he had four wives - a fact that tells you something about the culture of Hamas - but I knew that he was sincere in his devotion to the cause of Israel's annhilation. The question I wrestle with constantly is whether Hamas is truly, theologically implacable. That is to say, whether the organization can remain true to its understanding of Islamic law and God's word and yet enter into a long-term non-aggression treaty with Israel. I tend to think not, though I've noticed over the years a certain plasticity of belief among some Hamas ideologues. Also, this is the Middle East, so anything is possible.
There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel." There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. "Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."
I asked him if he believed, as some Hamas theologians do (and certainly as many Hezbollah leaders do) that Jews are the "sons of pigs and apes." He gave me an interesting answer that reflects a myopic reading of the Koran. "Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce. So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people."
What are our crimes? I asked Rayyan. "You are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah," he said. "Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Jan 2, 2009 8:55 AM
Megan is Sick of the Middle East
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So am I, sort of. But every time I try to get out, they pull me back in. From Megan:
I'm of Northern Irish descent, and I grew up in New York City in a mostly Jewish high school, and so as you can imagine, I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 30, 2008 8:24 AM
A Fatah Friend Writes: I'm Supporting the Israeli Air Force
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's a strange world, but there you have it. I've been talking to friends of mine, former Palestinian Authority intelligence officials (ejected from power by the Hamas coup), and they tell me that not only are they rooting for the Israelis to decimate Hamas, but that Fatah has actually been assisting the Israelis with targeting information. One of my friends -- if you want to know why they're my friends, read this book -- told me that one of his comrades was thrown off a high-rise building in Gaza City last year by Hamas, and so he sheds no tears for the Hamas dead. "Let the Israelis kill them," he said. "They've brought only trouble for my people."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 30, 2008 7:10 AM
Amos Oz: Hamas is Responsible
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A.B. Yehoshua agrees.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 29, 2008 1:40 PM
Hamas Misjudged Israel's Seriousness
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to al-Hayat, Hamas believed that Israel wouldn't strike back as it did:
It is also clear that Hamas was surprised by the magnitude of the response, as it did not take the Israeli threats seriously. Despite its decision to resume rocket attacks, it did not take any extraordinary precautions, such as evacuating its security headquarters and equipping hospitals and the civil defense forces. This explains the large number of casualties and the lack of appropriate treatment.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 29, 2008 1:40 PM
The Annoying Middle East
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Rami Khouri on why the world is fed-up with the Middle East:
The worst ramifications of the Middle East's dysfunctions -- terrorism, illegal migration, ethnic strife, corruption, police states, and assorted atrocities perpetuated by both state and private actors -- are only occasional irritants for the rest of the world, not pressing strategic threats. We have marginalized ourselves as serious players on the global political stage, and now assume the role of nagging annoyances and miscreants.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 29, 2008 1:40 PM
Can Israel Break the Will of Hamas?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader asks. The answer: I don't think so. Maybe momentarily. But Hamas will find ways to regain its "honor." Usually, this means exploding buses. The even deeper question: Can Israel force the overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza? I'm not sure why Israel would want to -- it won't be replaced by the Palestinian Authority, but instead by a situation similar to Somalia -- but I think this is impossible, for the moment. The ideal situation, of course, is that the people of Gaza, realizing that Hamas has delivered them hardship, overthrow their government. But Hamas also alleviates the hardship it creates. The group has thoroughly penetrated the social fabric of Gaza. Its schools, orphanages, hospitals and soup kitchens serve the entire population. Hamas is not al-Qaeda. It delivers services, and because it delivers services, the population of Gaza depends on Hamas. I don't see the removal of Hamas as a near-term possibility.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 29, 2008 9:52 AM
The Gaza War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
If someone was sending rockets on my house where my daughters were sleeping at night, I would do everything to stop it, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.
These aren't my words -- they're Barack Obama's. But I attach myself to this sentiment. Obama said this in July, after visiting the southern Israeli town of Sderot. Visits to Sderot will do that for you -- make you see things clearly. For what it's worth, this is how I see what's happening in Gaza: In 2005, the Israeli government acceded to the longstanding Arab demand to withdraw its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip. Almost as soon as the Israeli withdrawal was completed, Hamas and other Islamist factions in Gaza began firing rockets at Israeli civilians living in towns and kibbutzim inside the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Sometimes -- and I've seen this with my own eyes -- Hamas rocketeers fired on Israel from atop the ruins of the abandoned Jewish settlements.
No country in the world could afford to ignore such attacks. And no country would. An elected government, such as Israel's, has a basic, overriding responsibility -- to protect its citizens from the organized violence of their enemies. Of course, it can do this in part by negotiating with its enemies (assuming its enemies recognize Israel's right to life) but its immediate mission must be to stop the violence, which is what Israel is now trying to do. Whether it succeeds or not is an open question (It is Hamas' indifference to Palestinian life, not Jewish life, that makes it a formidable foe, in the manner of Hezbollah) , but Israel must try to use all of the tools of national power to stop attacks on its citizens. Otherwise it is simply not a serious nation, one that does not deserve sovereignty.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 23, 2008 9:47 AM
Bennet Bigfoots Another Blogger
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Another day, another victim.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 23, 2008 9:47 AM
Rahm Emanuel Makes the Day Brighter
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Yes he does:
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 12:14 PM
A Special Note Re: Hummus
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is James Bennet, editor of The Atlantic.
Most readers know that the views expressed on Jeffrey's blog are his own and don't always reflect the views of The Atlantic. Such is the case with regard to Jeffrey's comments on the relative merits of hummus and baba ghanoush. Our institution has partnered with the makers of baba ganoush, as well as tabouleh and fattoush, on a number of projects, and we have a great deal of respect for their excellent work product, including the entire spectrum of Middle Eastern salads and paste-like foods, with the exception of halvah. We at The Atlantic do not take sides in the ongoing dispute between partisans of hummus and partisans of baba ghanoush. These food products are key leaders in the Middle East food products industry, and we look forward to eating them in the future.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 12:14 PM
The Population Bomb That Bombed
from Jeffrey Goldberg
John Holdren, who was a supporter of Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb, which, when I read it at a too-early age, had me convinced for at least ten minutes that we were all going to die, like, now, is Barack Obama's science adviser. I've only encountered Holdren at the Aspen Ideas Festival (he was on a panel I moderated on nuclear proliferation, and he was quite dark -- probably appropriately -- in his outlook) and he seems like a very smart man, but Ross reminds us that Ehrlich's supporters believed some very outlandish things:
There's a pretty good reason that the book is remembered primarily for its mix of hysteria and moral idiocy: When you kick off your argument by predicting that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over," and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now," and then proceed to argue for mass sterilization programs, the quarantine and abandonment of countries too overpopulated to save from total collapse, and various other "triage" methods (honestly, The Population Bomb has to be read to be believed), you pretty much forfeit the right to be praised for your prescience forty years down the line.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 12:14 PM
Is Godfather II Subtly Anti-Semitic?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ron Rosenbaum has a great column up at Slate about Bernie Madoff and Jewish "respectability." Ron asks, whatever happened to the Jewish gangsters of yesteryear? It's a brilliant look at hypocrisy and stereotypes and the end of Jewish country club culture. But then there's this disturbing little throwaway line, about Godfather II:
At least Meyer Lansky--or "Hyman Roth," as they called him in the subtly anti-Semitic Godfather II--"always made money for his partners." Bernie Madoff, if the charges are to be believed, always stole money from his partners. (It should be remembered that while the perp was a Jew, oh so many of his victims were, too.)
Subtly anti-Semitic? It never struck me that way, and I've watched it 142 times. Also, I have a good nose -- so to speak -- for anti-Semitism. So I asked Ron for proof, and this is what he wrote:
Hyman Roth is the age-old stereotype of the Jewish betrayer. The prime Italian gangster values in the saga are sometimes betrayed, but a betrayal recognized as a departure from the norm, the core virtue in the saga - honor and family. The Jewish values: Nothing but money (and maybe TV dinners), the apotheosis of which is Roth's betrayal of Michael, "This is the business we've chosen."
Look at the Jews in the films, the Hollywood horse lover, Moe Green in Vegas, Roth. Any "good" Jewish gangsters we should respect as we supposedly should respect Don Vito and Michael? Even the Sopranos has the at least ambiguous Hesh, but even he stole from his black R&B singers, right? I'm not saying any of the real world crooks necessarily deserve conventional respect or emulation, but on a spectrum that includes Bernie M., who stole from sick kids' charities, I'll take Meyer Lansky.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 12:14 PM
"It Takes a Jew to Live With a Jew"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Part of the fall-out from my conversation with Ta-Nehisi -- one of his commenters writes in to say:
Jeff mentioned self-preservation as a reason for Jews to marry each other, and I for one think it's certainly what leads to a lot of conversions (as is considering the imminent rage of your mother), but I think there's also another aspect of self-preservation that goes along with this that Jeff didn't address. That is, self-preservation of your own identity.
As a Jew, raised by Jews, I have a really well-tuned Jew-dar, not just for identifying Jews I see walking down the street and on TV, but also for identifying those Jewish things, mannerisms (call them neuroses if you must), and idiosyncrasies that make us who we are. While I'm not near marrying anybody regardless of her religious persuasion, I'm pretty sure that there are a ton of these Jewish things that my wife would really need to be a Jew to understand and empathize with.
In other words, it takes a Jew to live with a Jew.
It's difficult to identify specific situations, but I'd be interested to hear if black folks feel the same way at all, and of course if there are other Jews out there.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 12:14 PM
David Plotz and I are Number Five
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In Slate's most-read stories of 2008, for our exchange on the Wire. Which means that we actually got better ratings than the Wire.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 22, 2008 6:11 AM
Yes, We Can
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm not usually one for Chabad videos, but this is pretty great. I wish I had been in Malibu last night for the menorah lighting, and not only because it's 100 below zero in D.C.:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 19, 2008 1:03 PM
The Philo-Semite Twenty-Five
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I know, I promised fifty, but this is hard. The list might very well grow to fifty -- keep your suggestions coming -- but for now, here are twenty-five top philo-Semites. A couple of notes: I did not include Kabbalah goofballs such as Madonna, despite demands from numerous readers. More seriously, I did not include Righteous Gentiles, non-Jews who saved Jews during the Shoah. That is a special category that represents something much greater than simple affinity for, and support of, Jews. Some of you might question the presence of Malcolm Gladwell on the list; he is there because he is the greatest philo-Semite I know personally; because he introduced me to my wife, with whom I have had numerous baby Jews; and because he inspired this list. There are numerous others whose inclusion will provoke criticism, I'm sure. Criticize away!
Here is the preliminary list, presented in no special order.
1) Winston Churchill
2) W.H. Auden
3) Orde Wingate
4) Harry Truman
5) Maurice Blanchot
6) Cyrus the Great
7) Johannes Brahms
8 James Carroll
9) Henry "Scoop" Jackson
10) Dennis Leary
11) Rembrandt van Rijn
12) Paul Johnson
13) Daniel Patrick Moynihan
14) Denis MacShane
15) Vladimir Nabokov
16) George Eliot
17) George Orwell
18) Emile Zola
19) George Washington
20) Sir Walter Scott
21) Thomas Cahill
22) Pete Townshend
23) Mark Twain
24) William Butler Yeats
25) Malcolm Gladwell
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 19, 2008 11:02 AM
Please Give to the Gift of Life Bone Marrow Foundation
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Because Bernie Madoff stole their money. (There's got to be a special place in hell for this man.) But the foundation is still functioning, despite many reports to the contrary, including one here, and it's work is life-saving. You can read more about its good work -- and its current financial crisis -- here.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 19, 2008 11:02 AM
A Defense of George Tenet
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Dwight A. Howes, who thinks Patrick Tyler is full of bushwa:
I have known George Tenet since 1984 when I joined the late Senator Heinz' staff and took over responsibility for what was then the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which Heinz served, from George so that he could focus more fully on his other areas of responsibility -- defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence. I also worked with George at the Senate Intelligence Committee when he was staff director and I was associate counsel and staff designee to then-Senator Cohen. George is a good friend and I have been with him at many social occasions. I've never seen him drink Scotch or any other hard liquor - usually he nurses a Heineken throughout the evening. In the 24 years I have known George, I've had occasion to be with him in some pretty unguarded moments, but I have never, ever heard him make an anti-Semitic remark. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Patrick Tyler's allegations are a complete fabrication.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 19, 2008 11:02 AM
The Affable Anti-Semite
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A classic from the Onion:
PLANO, TX--Henry McCullers, an affable Plano-area anti-Semite, praised the Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media. "This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said. "And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly, they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance, but, hey, that's understandable."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 18, 2008 7:40 AM
On Excommunicating Bernard Madoff
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Bernard Madoff scandal is provoking spasms of angst and introspection in the American Jewish community (not that we don't do angst and introspection normally) and I thought I would ask David Wolpe, one of the greatest American rabbis (as well as Christopher Hitchens' sparring partner), a few questions about this drama and its cultural and theological implications:
Jeffrey Goldberg: Should Bernard Madoff be excommunicated for his sins against his people?
David Wolpe: We do not practice formal excommunication. I would not prevent him from entering a synagogue to pray. We are in the atonement business. However, he should be barred from any honor or recognition. To the extent permitted by his sentence he should do something of service to the community to make small reparations for the incalculable harm he caused. Short of formal excommunication, however, informal 'shunning' has a nice, solid ring to it.
JG: "Shunning," huh? Does that imply that you believe his crimes might be irredeemable? At what point do you give up on a sinner?
DW: Maimonides lists sins -- following the laws of the Mishna -- that cannot be fully forgiven. Common to most is an inability to make restitution (another example is one who coldly assumes "I'll sin, be forgiven, sin, be forgiven" etc.). Madoff cannot conceivably make restitution to the unnumbered he has hurt -- from lost personal savings to people dependent on the bone marrow registry whose holdings he squandered. Perhaps someone of purer soul might be persuaded to find redemption possible for him. I confess I cannot.
JG: Do Jews wring their hands too much? I didn't notice a great deal of Christian angst over Ken Lay.
DW: I wonder if the people in Ken Lay's church wrung their hands. Since Judaism is not a religion, but more like a religious family, bound by strong communal ties, Jews are more likely than Christians to feel pride or shame in the actions of other Jews. You don't get strong bonds without a degree of identification. That is why the foolishness in other people's families doesn't embarrass us.
JG: Should we be embarrassed because we're supposed to be so smart (especially with, you know, money) and yet we got fleeced by Bernie Barnum, or should we be embarrassed because there are evildoers among us? And what does this mean for tribal trust?
DW: We should be grateful that trust still exists. Cunning is an unlovely stereotype; I can't read a balance sheet to save my soul (perhaps not the best metaphor in this instance) and I am hardly alone. It may hurt that trust, which is sad; for years the fact that the diamond business all over the world, among Jews and non-Jews, is conducted with a handshake because Jews set it up that way is a tribute to decency and probity. One man's venality and cruelty can't set the standard.
Vast amounts of money call not only for trust but for a solid sense of genuine value in this world. Rabbi Akiba says in the Talmud that the central commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). May I propose that these days, "Guard your soul carefully" (Deut. 4:9) deserves pride of place.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 18, 2008 6:28 AM
Whither the Philo-Semite 50?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
No, of course not. I'm hoping to post it tomorrow, in honor of Hannukah, or something. It might only have 25 people on it -- a good philo-Semite is hard to find. A good Semite is sometimes hard to find, as well. I understand that Goldblog readers are concerned, including this one, who has spent a lot of time with the story of Sodom:
"The reader came forward and said, "Will You sweep away the philo-Semitic along with the anti-Semitic? What if there should be fifty philo-Semites within the world? Will You then wipe out the contest and not post it for the sake of the philo-Semitic fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to not post the philo-Semitic along with the anti-Semitic, so that philo-Semitic and anti-Semitic fare alike! Far be it from You! Shall not the Goldblog of all things Jewish deal justly?" And the Goldblog answered, "If I find within the world fifty philo-Semitic ones, I will post the whole list for their sake." The reader spoke up, saying, "Here I venture to speak to the Goldblog, I who am but dust and ashes. What if the fifty philo-Semites should lack five?" And He answered, "I will not destroy if I find forty-five there." But he spoke to Him again, and said, "What if forty should be found there?" And He answered, "I will not do it, for the sake of the forty." And he said, "Let not the Goldblog be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be found there?" And He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." And he said, "I venture again to speak to the Goldblog: What if twenty should be found there?" And He answered, "I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty." And he said, "Let not the Goldblog be angry if I speak but this last time: What if ten should be found there?" And He answered, "I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 4:18 PM
Wal-Mart Decorates Cakes for Nazis
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Of course, right? My colleague Tim Lavin warned me that this story might actually cause my blog to explode:
A supermarket is defending itself for refusing to a write out 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on his birthday cake.
Deborah Campbell, 25, of nearby Hunterdon County, N.J., said she phoned in her order last week to the Greenwich ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.
Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the store denied similar requests from the Campbells the last two years, including a request for a swastika.
"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said Tuesday.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said, "Our No. 1 priority in decorating cakes is to serve the customer to the best of our ability."
Also, she said, Wal-Mart is pro-free speech. Which is why it allows its workers to discuss unionization, obviously.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 4:18 PM
Tenet's Denial
from Jeffrey Goldberg
George Tenet, on his website, calls Patrick Tyler's allegations "ludicrous:"
Tyler approached me in June of 2007 with this bogus story.
Initially he told me that his sources told him that I was allegedly
staying at Prince Bandar's home in Riyadh alone when the
supposed incident happened. I informed him that I had never
stayed at Bandar's home alone and on the date in question was
accompanied by two senior U.S. intelligence officials and my full
contingent of security staff.
I arranged for both of the senior officials, Scott Muller (the then-
General Counsel of the CIA) and Rob Richer (the then-Chief of
CIA's Near East Division) contact Tyler. They both informed
Tyler, as I had previously said, that they were with me that
evening and no such incident happened.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 1:15 PM
This is Definitely Only For Ta-Nehisi
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Who could ever forget Cleopatra Schwartz?
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 1:15 PM
If Only Anti-Semites Could Spell!
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is sadly typical of my mail:
jeffrey dont you think jews have too much power and they are part reason for the mess we are in, in the middle east and the rest of the moslem world? Why at least some of you reporters have the curage to STANT for America first!
The grammar is just shocking, isn't it?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 1:15 PM
Foxman to Tenet's Rescue
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is what Abe Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, has to say about Patrick Tyler's allegations:
I have known and worked with George Tenet for more than a decade and find Patrick Tyler's allegations outrageous and unbelievable.
As part of the Clinton and Bush teams working towards facilitating a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, George was an advocate of Israel's right to defend its citizens and its country, and continues to be one today as a private citizen.
As a friend of Israel and the Jewish people, I believe George Tenet, who has vehemently denied the charges and whose track record speaks for itself, not Patrick Tyler and his ugly unsubstantiated charges.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 10:11 AM
Judaism and Financial Honesty
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Wolpe has thoughts on Madoff:
There is a longstanding Jewish tradition that one should not weigh mitzvot (commandments). Since they have their origin in God it is vain for us to determine which is more important. Still, the temptation to do so is irresistible. How can we not understand that murder is more severe than, say, neglecting to pray? So how does the well known practice of eating in a prescribed manner, keeping kosher, measure up to being honest in financial dealing?
Yet it might surprise many Jews to know that, as the Israeli banker and scholar Meir Tamari points out, the Torah has 24 regulations about keeping kosher and over 100 about economic justice. What you put in your mouth says less about your faithfulness than what you take out of your pocket - even more, someone else's pocket.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 17, 2008 7:09 AM
When Orrin Hatch and I Wrote Beautiful Jewish Love Music
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Well, almost. Nine years ago, for an article about Hatch's songwriting career, we spoke about his love for the Jews, and I suggested that he write a Hannukah song, because there are so few good Hannukah songs, and we started working on something. Here's my recollection of the moment:
I had prepared, at Hatch's request, an outline of themes for his Hanukkah song. I would have suggested the title ''Light My Fire,'' but Orrin Hatch plays things straight, so I thought better of it. He read the outline carefully and said, ''I think we can really do something here.''
But then his presidential campaign interrupted, and we never got back on track. So, Sen. Hatch: Call me! I'm ready to get back to work. The need is as strong as ever.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 16, 2008 1:17 PM
Ta-Nehisi on Exotic Women and Intermarriage
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi has been saying some interesting things about relations between black men and women, and I thought I was hearing echoes of arguments from inside the Jewish community. So we had the following conversation (because we're both so into black-Jewish dialogue):
Jeffrey Goldberg: Why do people go outside their groups to look for mates? What drives it?
Ta-Nehisi Coates: I think most men I know, to some extent, have this thing with what's exotic. When I was kid in West Baltimore, we prized the black girls who lived out in Baltimore County - they were white girls before there were any white girls. They were supposed to be more refined and more classy. Once I came to New York, a lot of the dudes here had this thing about Asian girls - they were just the new exotic "other." At the same time, nationalism has become such a powerful, and yet subtle, force in the lives of young black people that that sort of exoticism was kind of frowned on. This was especially true when it came to black men and white women. It wasn't seen simply as you hooking up with someone different, but an almost wholesale rejection of your history, culture, and way of being. Like a rejection of the idea that black people are, as Ice Cube used to say, an endangered species. Marrying black was just an extension of the whole "buy black" thing. The idea was to keep resources in the community.
Frankly, I think that's still a powerful force. I hate to say this, but the interaction with Obama would be a lot different - in many, many, many ways - if his wife were white. At the same time, I don't think it's the way of the future. We will be integrated. Whether we like it or not. Seeing any parallels here? My comparison is based on a basic theory that people under duress - or people who have experienced a history of duress - are altered in certain ways, and that those ways extend across race. Some of it's likely different. But a lot of it, I think, has to be the same. Or not.
JG: Remember Allison Portchnik from "Annie Hall"? You probably weren't even alive when Woody Allen made "Annie Hall" (a.k.a "It Had to be Jew" and "Me and My Goy"), but Alison Portchnik was Alvy Singer's first wife, the one he describes so famously as "New York Jewish, left-wing, liberal intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, socialist summer camps. The father with the Ben Shahn drawings." She responds by saying, "I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype."
Let me tell you, as someone who went to socialist Zionist summer camp in the Catskills, and whose parents would have bought Ben Shahn drawings if they could have afforded them, that, like Alvy Singer, I found girls like these more than insufficiently exotic. In fact, I didn't really date any Jews until I moved to Israel, where Jews are pretty much unavoidable. (We didn't "date," per se, at our socialist Zionist summer camp, though there was a lot of Bolshevik sex.) In double-fact, I didn't really date very many white girls at all, until I met Mrs. Goldblog. (You know the old saying, "Once you go black, you end up marrying a Jewish girl from Providence, Rhode Island.")
The more time I spent in Israel, the more I came to believe that dating "in" was the responsible thing to do, from a future-of-my-people perspective. But weirdly, and maybe you could analyze this for me, Dr. Coates, I didn't get pissed off at Jewish women who dated out, only Jewish men. In retrospect, I guess I felt sorry for the Jewish women who intermarried, because I sensed that they tried, and failed, to convince Jewish men that they weren't, in fact, their mothers, that they were intelligent and sexy and all the rest. Jewish men who go outside, I think - and this is not everyone, obviously - are looking beyond the tribe not because they really think they're going to end up marrying their mothers if they find a Jewish woman, but because they're scared of Jewish women, especially the intense sort my friends and I all seemed to marry. ("Intense" is a compliment, by the way, because intense keeps things interesting.) They're scared that these women will see right through them, among other things.
There are upsides, of course, to marrying out - all those new and exciting genes, for one thing, and the opportunity to bring someone new into the fold. And you allude, of course, to the ultimate promise of real integration. Anyway, it's complicated, and I'm getting the sense you believe, as I do, that blacks and Jews have a lot more in common than lactose intolerance and hard-to-manage hair.
TC: Heh, you just made the textbook black argument against interracial dating. I basically wrote a piece saying exactly this a few years back. I argued that black men should not date out, but that black women should do whatever. My sentiments were much like yours - there really is no doubt, that in most cases, black women are looking out after having at least given the neighborhood a shot. The same couldn't be said of the dudes, however.
Now, I think that long-term relationships are really, really hard, and should not be subject to ideology. It just seems like, in my experience, relationships rise and fall over dumb practical shit. A lot of black folks worry about disappearing. Not disappearing, I think, in the manner that Jews worry. But like, that we'll basically slaughter each other and those of us that are left will go to jail. So when you have the chance to build a stable black family, the idea is you've got to do it.
There's something else - despite liberalism, I do take some undeserved pride in being partnered with a black woman. And to make it even more perverse, I take pride in being partnered with a very dark skin black woman. There is the notion of black writers living kind of apart from their community. Now there are very good reasons for why that would be the case. Still, I never wanted any part of that. I always wanted to be of it. And I thought the most obvious way to be off it, was in who you choose to spend your life with. Limited and passe, but that's me.
JG: You know, nowadays, in liberal Jewish circles, it's considered a little odiferous to mention that you'd rather have people stay in than go out. I can't imagine it's the same in liberal black circles, but is it? Do you get pushback when you talk about the importance of this kind of solidarity?
TC: It depends what circles. In New York, you can't really say that. In Atlanta you can. In D.C. you probably can. In L.A., I bet you can't. The thing is the higher you go up - at least in New York - for whatever reason shit gets more integrated. In Atlanta and D.C., there are worlds filled with high-level people and all of them are black, and interracial marriage is rare. It is just not the case here. Even in Harlem.
JG: It's funny how quickly things turn - a generation ago in the Jewish community, especially in New York, it was just assumed that you'd marry in, and people who didn't do so were looked at as outliers - not Malcolm Gladwell outliers, outliers like "Why'd you do that?" outliers. I remember meeting a couple of kids in school who were the products of intermarriages, and, particularly in my ethnically-charged New York environment, they seemed to be sort of homeless. But now it's rude, in many circles, to even advocate for in-marriage. And by the way, just so you understand, I'm not for in-marriage - if that's what you call it - because I'm prejudiced against everyone but Jews. (Actually, there's a lot of Jews who think I am especially prejudiced against Jews - you should read my mail). This has nothing to do with outsiders; this is only about self-preservation. We've been around for a long time, and my suspicion is that there's a reason for this. I'm not diving into theology here, but I have this feeling that peoples don't survive the way the Jews have survived for nothing. That said, intermarriage has in some ways revitalized the Jewish community - converts, everyone knows, make the best Jews. And the byproducts of intermarriage - well, all I have to say is Scarlet Johannson. (You didn't know, did you?) Black-Jewish marriage, of course, has brought us Joshua Redman, Lisa Bonet, Lenny Kravitz, Slash, and Sophie Okenedo. As Adam Sandler would say, not too shabby. I know a lot of Jews who say that if Jews are going to marry out, they might as well marry African-Americans. I know this sounds strange (it certainly would have sounded crazy to my grandmother) but at least when you marry an African-American, you're getting someone who already understands Passover.
TC: Well yeah, your point about in-marriage is, I think, where there is a similarity. I'm sure there is some degree of prejudice working on black women who suck their teeth at black dudes with white women - but it's more than that. It's the sense, I guess bluntly put, someone has chosen individualism over community. But here's something else - your point about being "scared" of Jewish women also rings true. There is, in the black mind, this stereotype that black dudes can somehow get away with more dealing with white women. I think that sort of mythology comes out of dealings with a certain sector of liberal, "understanding" whites - as opposed to, say, Bay Ridge whites. And now we're getting deep, because I don't even know if that's what black folks think about when they think about the archetypal white person. I'm rambling. The point is that there is this broad sense that, with so much hype about the fall of the black family, you have some sort of responsibility to build a successful black family. And then there's just the whole "be proud of who you are" thing. Man, that works in perverse ways - like whenever I see an Asian couple in New York, I sort of smile to myself. Yes, I know. Dead. Wrong. But I can't help how I feel!
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 16, 2008 10:59 AM
For True Anti-Semites, an Early Christmas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So says Bradley Burston, who writes:
The anti-Semite's new Santa is Bernard Madoff. The answer to every Jew-hater's wish list. The Aryan Nation at its most delusional couldn't have come up with anything to rival this:
The former chairman of Nasdaq turns out, also, to be treasurer of the board of trustees at Yeshiva University and chairman of the university's business school. Rich beyond human comprehension, he handles fortunes for others, buying and selling in a trading empire that skirts investment banks and other possible sources of regulation. He redefines avarice, knowingly and personally bilking charities and retirees in the most classic of con games.
Even better, for those obsessed with the idea that Jews control finance, entertainment and the media, is the idea that Madoff's greed was uncontrollable enough that he targeted fellow Jews, even Holocaust survivors, some of them his own friends, as well as Israeli companies who insured Jews, including Holocaust survivors.
The beauty part, for the anti-Semite: Madoff's machinations, which could have been put to use for the sake of humanity, have directly harmed Jewish welfare and charity institutions.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 16, 2008 10:59 AM
George Tenet, Drunk in Bandar's Pool, Screaming about Jews
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I just picked up Patrick Tyler's forthcoming book, A World of Trouble, about America's tortured relations with the Middle East, and the prologue contains this whopper of a scene, one that is quite devastating, if true: An enraged George Tenet, drunk on scotch, flailing about Prince Bandar's Riyadh pool, screaming about the Bush Administration officials who were just then trying to pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him:
A servant appeared with a bottle. Tenet knocked back some of the scotch. Then some more. They watched with concern. He drained half the bottle in a few minutes.
"They're setting me up. The bastards are setting me up," Tenet said, but "I am not going to take the hit."
And then this:
"According to one witness, he mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and their alignment with the rlght wing of Israel's political establishment, referring to them with exaxperation as, "the Jews."
Tyler reports in a footnote that, when asked, Tenet initially denied staying at Prince Bandar's palace, then denied that he had said anything in the pool. "He disputed the remarks attributed to him and denied that his memory might have been affected by the amount of alcohol he was reported to have consumed on top of a sleeping pill," Tyler reports.
I'll ask around about this and post any responses I get.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 16, 2008 10:59 AM
Hair Gel and iPods: A TSA Comic Strip
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Clarissa Rappoport-Hankins, who has the longest name of anyone at the Atlantic, pointed me to this cutting Wondermark satire:
2006-08-11-220plan.gif
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 16, 2008 10:59 AM
Fond Memories of the First Palestinian Uprising
from Jeffrey Goldberg
As Hamas reaches the end of its "ceasefire," I thought I would post this wonderfully antique quote that I found while rooting around through old boxes of papers.
This is from an interview published in the winter 1989 edition of the IDF Journal with the then-commander of Israeli forces in the West Bank, Maj. Gen. Amram Mitzna. The question was this: "When you consider the various results of the Uprising, what is the most difficult facet to deal with?"
Mitzna's answer is priceless, because it shows how far we've come: "From the point of view of the IDF," Mitzna said, "the most difficult problem today is rocks. I'm referring to the more 'intelligent' rocks thrown by a more selective population, that finds a tree, or house, or quiet corner, and waits. They throw their rocks mostly at civilian Israeli targets, such as buses taking children to school."
The theme of the first uprising was rocks. The theme of the second was suicide bombs. The third? Well, certainly not rocks.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 15, 2008 12:56 PM
Giving Longfellow His Due
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I think the implicit message of this correcting e-mail from Caitlin Hopkins is that the Atlantic, of all magazines, shouldn't mess with Longfellow:
Please note that "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day" a.k.a. "Christmas Bells" was written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in 1864, and not, as you state on your blog, by Johnny Marks.
The poem was set to music by John B. Calkin in 1872 and re-arranged by Johnny Marks in the 1950s. Marks' version is sometimes said to be "based on" Longfellow's poem, but the only difference between the poem and the carol (other than the title) is the omission of two stanzas about the Civil War (though the poem makes a whole lot more sense if you leave those stanzas in).
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 12, 2008 9:14 AM
Robin Toner
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My friend Robin Toner, one of the best reporters in Washington, and also one of the best mothers in Washington, has died. Robin was a genius of reporting, in fact; she almost never got anything wrong, she understood almost everything, and she knew almost everybody. But I know her better as wife to the great Peter Gosselin, and as mother to the adorable and sweet and fiercely intelligent Jake and Nora, twins who are the age of my oldest daughter, with whom they shared their first experience of school, eight years ago. Robin was a superlative mother; she was moved deeply by the experience of parenthood, and it showed, in her devotion and worrying and caring and engagement.
Todd Purdum has done the painful work of writing Robin's obituary, which you can read here. I can't say much more right now. This news is not unexpected, but it still shocks.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 12, 2008 9:14 AM
A Pro-"Happy Holidays" Manifesto
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reader David Grossman (not that David Grossman) writes to say that I'm not thinking about the children:
I completely sympathize with the mother who asked her school to pull "Rudolph". You seem quick to blame it on the parents, but what about the kid? I remember growing up absolutely hating the wide reach of Christmas in our society, feeling left out and forgotten. While it's true that "Rudolph" was writing by a Jewish writer, I highly doubt that anyone involved in the whole kerfuffle is remotely aware of that. I'm not saying we have to force people to eat Chinese food and go to the movies (I've got my options trimmed down to The Wrestler and Gran Torino, by the way), but when we're all in the public sphere, let's not exclude anybody. "Happy Holidays" is a harmless way to include Christians, Jews, Muslims and -- gasp -- atheists.
By the way, for all you non-MOTs out there who might be wondering, all Jewish people eat Chinese food and go to the movies on Christmas eve, or Christmas day, or both. Every single one of us. Those of you with genocidal intent, by the way, should take this into consideration when making your plans.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 11, 2008 2:56 PM
Dishwashers Cause Impotence
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My latest advice column is now up. In it, I help Emily Yoffe, also known as Slate Magazine's Prudence, become better at her job. Here is her letter:
I couldn't help but notice that you've started an advice column, so maybe you can help me. I, too, write an advice column, for a prominent online magazine, and every day I get letters from people desperate for answers to life's grinding problems: husbands addicted to porn; boyfriends who won't brush their teeth; mothers-in-law who refuse to address their daughters-in-law by name; etc. So, Mr. Big Shot Advice Maven, tell me quick what instructions I should give these tormented souls--I've got a column to write. Also, why are men terrified of dishwashers?
Prudence
Washington, D.C.
Dear Prudence,
Men are terrified of dishwashers because dishwashers cause impotence. To answer your other questions: it's not the addiction that's the problem, it's forgetting to clear the computer's search history that causes trouble; your boyfriend is a vegan and doesn't want to harm any of the bacteria in his mouth; and isn't not addressing you by name better than calling you "the tramp who ruined my son's life"? If I can be of further help, please do let me know.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Don't Forget the LeeVees
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Goldblog Reader Jeremy Sacks:
Regarding the "no great Hanukkah songs" post: check out the LeeVee's Hanukkah album, "Hanukkah Rocks." It's terrific. Maybe not Irving Berlin terrific, but funny and spot-on.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 11, 2008 10:12 AM
"Feast of Lights" by They Might be Giants
from Jeffrey Goldberg
This is a good Hannukah song, actually. And the guys who wrote it aren't even Jewish. Thanks to reader MR:
The only thing we have is fights
But there's got to be a change tonight
Please be nice on this Feast of Lights
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 11, 2008 10:12 AM
How to Stay Alive in a Terrorized Hotel, Cont'd
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader sends in these useful tips:
1) Always travel with an international mobile phone. Let people know your status if you can do so without being heard.
2) Listen for car alarms. Often they will go off when there is an explosion or rumbling of heavy equipment.
3) Do not call down to the lobby or hotel operator to ask what is going on if at all possible. Often, CNN will be a better source of info. Once, during an earthquake, I actually called CNN to ask what was going on. The first to call in, they put me on the air (with my permission).
4) Dress in attire that blends in with locals and speak softly.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Jack Shafer on the Christmas Conundrum
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm on the phone with Jack Shafer and he asks an obvious question: Why, if most of the great Christmas songs are written by Jews, do the Jews not have any great Hannukah songs? "Or Purim songs," he added.
Someone help me out here.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 10, 2008 9:49 AM
Shmuel Rosner on Why American Jews Need to Change
from Jeffrey Goldberg
King-of-Jewish-Media Shmuel Rosner has moved his show from Ha'aretz to the Jerusalem Post, and, to celebrate, I thought I would ask him a bunch of earnest questions about the future of his country, and also about hummus:
Jeffrey Goldberg: Is what we're seeing in Hebron a continuation of the same sort of settler struggle, or does it represent something new in the evolution of the movement?
Shmuel Rosner: It is not exactly new, but yet another proof that the settlement movement is crumbling and that the fear some people shared--that the state of Israel will not be able to deal with the possible need to evacuate settlements--has no basis in reality.
What happened in Hebron and is happening now in the West Bank is, of course, very troubling, but it is also somewhat encouraging. The Israeli government had vowed to evacuate a house in Hebron and, once the order was given, it unceremoniously did it within an hour or so. The radical elements threatening to prevent such evacuation proved to be a paper tiger, and the disgusting acts of "revenge" they were perpetrating after the fact are signs of frustration, not strength. Those radicals are not only alienated from Israel's larger society, they are also at odds with the settlement movement itself.
Of course, this does not mean that Jewish radicals are not a cause for concern. As we've learned time and again, events in this region can be easily ignited by acts of alienated fundamentalists. So I think the real question for now--a question to which one can receive more than one answer--is about the real number of people aligning themselves with those fringe elements of the Jewish far-right. Surely, it is more than a bunch of kids. Yet, again, the house in Hebron was not "defended" by thousands, but rather by hundreds. And contrary to what these people presumably believe, the lines they were crossing will not make the state more reluctant to "deal" with them, but rather more determined.
JG: You just moved back to Israel. What's your least favorite aspect of life there? And, what don't you miss about America?
SR: The answer to this question is very simple, but it is also complicated: the smallness of Israel is the least favorite aspect of life here, but of course, it is also one of those things that make Israel the special country that it is. It is what gives Israel its sense of intimacy, what makes Israeli society a close-knit society. It is this thing that makes me feel as if I really know almost every tree and every turn of every road here. As if I know so many people that I can barely cross a street without being interrupted by someone I know from school, or the military, or work, or my kids' school.
But it is also what makes Israel intense in a way that can be suffocating; it is what makes it a country of limited opportunities and a place in which one can't escape, not even for a while, from the all-too-familiar things that one already knows. A couple of years ago, not long after coming to Washington, I was interviewing Charles Krauthammer for the newspaper (I think this interview was published only in the Hebrew edition), and I remember him saying something that is obvious, but was also an eye opener for me, because of the way he framed it. He said that no American can really understand the psyche of people living in a very small country, and he was quoting Milan Kundera's definition of a small nation: "one whose very existence may be put in question at any moment; a small nation can disappear and it knows it."
As for things I do not miss about America--that's easy, but might suprise you: American bureaucracy. Amazingly, I grew up believing that the US is not just the land of opportunity, but also the land of efficiency and good organization. I'm sorry to report that my impression of America is quite different. I found your bureaucracy so impersonal, so inflexible, so unwilling to make life easier for those in need of services, so by-the-book-no-matter-how-dumb-the-book-might-be, that its mind boggling. In this case, maybe it is the smallness of Israel that makes its services--from the government responding to citizens' complaints to the last cashier in the smallest of supermarkets--so much better. It is all the qualities that gave Israelis a bad name--their short-temper, their nosiness, their tendency to cut corners--that makes them better at giving a better service. They might not be as polite--they aren't as polite--but they will actually help you fix what needs fixing. What you get in America is the most polite ineffectiveness one can get. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, press zero and I'll transfer you to the next available agent.
JG: Do American Jews have a role to play in bringing about a just and equitable solution to the Middle East crisis?
SR: Yes, but I'm not sure if this is the role you believe in. I think that what American Jews can do--the best service they can give as to advance Middle East peace--is to support Israel as much as they can. And by support I do not necessarily mean "give money". In fact, giving money is the easiest way for people to support someone when they do not want to be bothered--but I'd like American Jews to be bothered. I want them coming for visits, I want them caring, I want them lobbying. And no--I do not want them to be criticizing Israel in public and trying to pressure Israel on matters of policy and trying to "save Israel from itself" and all that condescending crap. Not because I think Israel doesn't deserve criticism, or doesn't make mistakes, but because there are more than enough people criticizing Israel already and because making policy is for people who will eventually pay the price for it--and because Israel is a "responsible adult". And with all due respect for those thinking that they know better--I think they don't. Not those on the right urging settlers to defy government orders to evacuate from their homes in Hebron (I know some American Jews were involved, and not in a good way, in matters related to recent clashes in the city)--and not those on the left thinking they have the key for Middle East peace (your recent interviewee, Daniel Levy, is such an example).
To all those I'll say: you think you have a solution? Come and convince Israelis. And if you happen to fail, don't go and work behind their backs to advance your cause by making America pressure Israel.
And I know that I'm going to be mocked for my primitive tribalism, and I know that unconditionally supporting Israel might sound like a mission that is hardly ambitious for those Jews in America who believe that their role is fixing the world (Tikkun Olam). But I'm a man of small ambitions, and I think that it is better for American Jews to try and do one thing they actually can do--and not the many things they can't. Supporting Israel is a responsibility you did not ask for--but it's yours nevertheless. And since I also believe that a stronger Israel gives more hope for Middle East peace, this is what I'd prescribe for those eager to advance this specific cause.
JG: Does anyone read Ha'aretz anymore now that you're not there? And could you, as briefly as possible, explain the biggest flaws in the way Israelis practice journalism?
SR: Does anyone still read Ha'aretz? You tell me. I am now more interested in those who read my blog in the Jerusalem Post. As to the second part of your question, Israel, in general, is journalistic haven. The informality of the country makes it much easier for reporters to call high officials at their cell phones over the weekend. It makes it easier for them to get into every event in every corner of the (small) country. Israelis practice journalism with the same qualities and flaws they do everything else. They are resourceful and creative, but in too many cases they are also very aggressive and nuance-averse. That's a real problem for people interested in serious journalism.
JG: If Obama pressured the Israeli government to shut down outposts, would Israel do it?
SR: Israel has made a commitment - not to Obama but rather to Bush - to evacuate illegal outposts. I hope Israel will do exactly that without a need for Obama to apply pressure. It is a shame that such a thing is a matter of discussion between the US and Israel: what's "illegal" should be removed by Israel not because of some outside intervention, but because Israel
should not be tolerating illegal acts.
As for Obama: I do not think he has any special desire to pressure Israel. This will be an invitation to the "we told you so" crowd to restart the campaign against Obama--something that Obama is so clearly trying to avoid. In fact, I'm one of the (very few) people who believe that if Binyamin Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister of Israel next year--a scenario that seems very likely today--there's no reason for him not to get along well with Obama. I think Obama is smart enough to understand that getting results in the peace process - if that's even possible - requires a cooperative Israeli government.
And by the way: I think that the need to shut illegal outposts can be an interesting test for a Netanyahu government, and that by passing this test Netanyahu will damage the settler-movement much more severely than a Livni or a Barak government. It is always better for Israel when the left is starting a war (thus, eliminating suspicions that it's a war of choice initiated by the crazy war-mongering right wingers)--and when the right is signing peace agreements and evacuating settlers (thus, eliminating the claims that it's an agreement of the weakling, softy, no-backbone-no-national-pride dovish left).
JG: What do you think the chances are that Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming year?
SR: If Israel has the intention to attack Iran militarily only a very small circle of people will know about it in advance, and this will be a closely kept secret. Yes--amazingly enough some Israelis are capable of keeping secrets when it's really needed (as proven by the attack on the Syrian nuclear installation last year). So my first response to your question is this: beware of people who tell you they know the answer to your question. I don't.
However, if you ask me to try and take a guess my answer will be no--I don't think Israel will do it "in the coming year". Clearly, the Obama administration is going to try "engagement" with Iran, and I don't think Israel would want to ruin this attempt, no matter how skeptical its officials might be. There's also some chance that the new US administration will be able to be more effective as far as international sanctions go. Obama has the momentum of an incoming administration and the enthusiasm people around the world have about him can help him persuade leaders around the world to join him in strengthening the sanctions in order to avoid confrontation. It seems as if he'd also agree to make some trade-offs with the Russians (dropping the plan for East European missile defense installations) in order to get them on board.
All of this will take time, and Israel will probably have to wait for a while before it can take any steps. One thing can change these calculations: an assessment by Israeli intelligence that there's no time to wait. If it's a "now or live with a nuclear Iran" kind of assessment, Israeli leaders may have to make some difficult decisions.
JG: Where's the best hummus in Israel?
SR: So, as familiar as you are with the country, as frequently as you have traveled, as knowledgeable as you are about Israel, you're still, in essence, an Orientalist? I can tell you about the best Chinese food, the best theater, the best book store, the best coffee shop (by the way, much, much better than American coffee shops), the best massage parlor, the most luxurious hotel, the best museum, the most tasty artichoke, the juiciest hamburger. But you want the hummus. Do you also want to know where to find the camel with the toothiest smile?
The best hummus I know of--and I hardly know them all--can be found in a small shop, just across the street from the new "Mishkennot Ruth Daniel" Jewish Reform Center in Jaffa. It's been there forever, and if you don't mind cigarette ashes in your food, you can order some salad too.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 10, 2008 8:08 AM
Rudolph the Jewish-American Reindeer
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reader Jay Soffian points me to the kind of nonsense I'm talking about:
"Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" caused a stir at a New Hanover County (North Carolina) school. A parent complained about the song's religious reference and got it pulled from her child's kindergarten Christmas show at Murrayville Elementary School. The song was pulled "because it had the word Christmas in it," said Rick Holliday, assistant school superintendent.
A Jewish mother, who didn't want her name published, objected to what she called "religious overtones" in the song. So the principal agreed to pull it from the program.
Of course, the song "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" was written by a Jewish-American songwriter, Johnny Marks. He also wrote "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day." Also written by Jews: "I'll be Home for Christmas," "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year," "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)," and of course, the mother of all Jewish-written Christmas songs, "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin. Why, you could almost say there's a conspiracy by Jews to dominate the Christmas-jingle-writing industry!
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 9, 2008 10:24 AM
A Win for Christ. Or Something.
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Glenn Reynolds reports that Amazon has changed its tune.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 8, 2008 2:20 PM
Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Via Instapundit comes the news that Amazon has now banned the term "Christmas" from one of its advertising campaigns. It is now, on Amazon, "12 Days of Holiday," rather than "12 Days of Christmas."
Well, this Jew objects. I mean, for Christ's sake, it's Christmas. Can't we call a thing by its name? Hannukah is a minor holiday of a minority religion. New Year's Day is merely a day on the calendar. It's a holiday season because it's Christmas. I love Christmas. I don't celebrate it, but I love it; I love the season, the lights, the chestnuts, the message of peace. I love the way our most Jewish city, New York, looks on Christmas. "Holiday" isn't a holiday. It's a way of avoiding offense. But who, exactly, is offended? This is what I don't understand. I'm perfectly happy living in a country that is populated mainly by Christians, particularly Christians who show nothing but acceptance for their fellow citizens who happen to follow other religions. So it doesn't sit well with me that Christians now feel constrained to offer the anodyne "Happy Holidays" rather than a greeting that touches directly on the reason for our seasonal merriment.
So, my Christian sisters and brothers, feel absolutely free to greet me with "Merry Christmas," and I'll greet you right back. You can say "Happy Hannukah" as well, or "Happy Kwanzaa." Say, in other words, what you feel. The important thing is to not be afraid.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 5, 2008 6:58 AM
The Conference of Presidents, With its Head in the Sand
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Each weekday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations sends out a useful compendium of news about the Middle East. It's called the "Daily Alert" and It can be quite exhaustive; today, it features articles on the Mumbai terror attacks, torture in the Palestinian Authority, and anti-Semitism in Egypt. It does not, however, contain one word about the pogrom by Hebron settlers against their Palestinian neighbors. So the question to the Conference of Presidents is: Was it not a pogrom, and therefore not newsworthy? Or are you simply too ashamed to report, amid your long list of Arab and Muslim sins, evidence of Jewish sin? These people, the Hebron settlers, are a threat to Israel and to Zionism. But not everyone in the American Jewish leadership has figured that out yet.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailEdit tags:
* J E W S
Dec 5, 2008 6:58 AM
My New Hero
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Is the Ha'aretz reporter Avi Issacharoff, who, with other journalists, stopped a Jewish pogrom against innocent Palestinians in Hebron. His harrowing report is here, and Dion Nissenbaum has more detail.
I've written about these Hebron settlers before, and have catalogued their extremism. But it needs to be said over and over again: They are a disgrace to Judaism. As the late, great Rabin said of Baruch Goldstein and his degenerate supporters: "You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 4, 2008 12:36 PM
Colbert's Wisconsin Dairy Farmer
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In case you're interested:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 4, 2008 9:32 AM
Wait, Neocons are Christian?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
According to Deepak Chopra, they are:
Once he becomes president, Barack Obama has no choice but to confront the problem of religious extremism boiling over from the Arab world. He would do well not to attack this as a religious problem, however, or an extremist one. The jihadis are like the point of a knife that has a long blade and a handle that controls it. In this case the handle is Islam itself. If America keeps making terrorism an Islamic issue (based on the neocons' avowed Christianity and ingrained sense of moral superiority), the handle will continue to twist the blade.
Someone should tell The American Conservative. There's also this beaut from Chopra:
There are already enough counter forces working to modernize Islam. Cell phones, texting, computers, the Internet, and satellite news are slowly doing the work that America's military power has failed to do.
Umm, weren't the Mumbai terrorists using Blackberries? Isn't this one of the big stories of the past decade, the utilization, for savage ends, of technological means?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 4, 2008 6:26 AM
Hotel Security: A Critique of the Taj
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reader Randy Bell writes in with a disturbing look at the pre-siege Taj:
I visited Mumbai in early October, staying at the Taj for 10 days. My room was in the tower (11th floor, overlooking the Gateway of India) and, upon reflection, and I realized that in the event of a terrorist siege, I might have had no choice but to have barricaded myself in my room and hoped for either God or rescue.
Although my room had a balcony, access was restricted as hotel staff had screwed the door shut in order to maintain environmental (heat and dirt) controls (as I enjoy the occasional cigar, I asked for access to the balcony and the staff removed the screws). Additionally, all of the tower balconies are screened-in with rather heavy (shrapnel resistant?) wire mesh. I wonder if the 2003 bombing across the street at the Gateway of India had anything to do with this precaution.
Needless to say, an expeditious escape would have been very problematic without prior planning (plus a good multi-tool, luck and 150' of rappelling rope). Escape from the Taj would have been greatly complicated by measures put in place in the interest of security and environmental control.
Btw, physical security measures at the time of my visit were cursory at best, although the security level was "heightened" due to bombings in Mumbai, both immediately prior to, and during, my visit. There were metal detectors and package inspections in the courtyard in front of the lobby, but the "security" was maintained by hotel staff dressed in rent-a-cop uniforms. I did not see an armed guard or policeman on the grounds during my stay. No doubt that last week's terrorists knew that there would be no resistance.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 3, 2008 11:23 AM
Even Colbert Can't Get Me On The No-Fly List
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I was on Colbert last night (I think you can watch it tonight at 8:30 if you're so inclined) talking about the farce of airport security. When I flew up to New York yesterday, I filled my carry-on with various banned items, including and especially a box cutter, which I proceeded to display on national television. Colbert, among others, thought that this would most certainly get me placed on the no-fly-list, or at least earn me a thoroughly invasive pat-down. But this morning, at the security checkpoint at LaGuardia, no one seemed to have been briefed about my nefarious activities. My box cutter, along with my Osama Bin Laden T-shirt and other similar items, went undiscovered. However, an 8-ounce tube of "Bodycology Sweet Petals Body Cream," one of the many gifts that guests of the Colbert Show receive as part of their service, was seized by agents of the federal government. Message to the TSA: I wasn't going to use it anyway.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 2, 2008 8:28 AM
More Advice on How To Stay Alive in a Terrorized Hotel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Loyal reader SJE sends in these follow-up tips to my earlier list:
1. Consider which side of the building is more vulnerable to rocket or
bomb attack. In general, it is better to stay on a room at the back
side of the hotel, away from the main street. Relatedly, consider the
location of the hotel in the city. If it's next to the US or Israeli
embassy that could be a good thing (greater security measures) or a bad
thing (greater risk of attack).
2. Get a mental picture of the surroundings of the hotel. Where would
trouble come from (not just terrorists, but muggers etc). Where would
you escape: you need to get away from the hotel. Then, where do you go
TO?
3. Regarding jumping out a window: onto what? Grass and bushes, concrete?.
4. Be nice to the hotel employees: you might find that they have some
inkling of problems, and have good advice (but don't necessarily take
it).
5. Could an attacker hide in your room, and where?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 11:14 PM
Those Self-Defeating Hamas Flacks
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I mean, when you kick Amira Hass out of Gaza -- that would be Amira Hass, Robert Fisk's favorite Israeli journalist -- you really are mismanaging your press relations. Dion Nissenbaum has the details. By the way, the dire state of journalism in Gaza is not only the fault of Hamas; Israel has refused to let foreign journalists into Gaza for nearly a month.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 5:46 PM
AIPAC and the Official Secrets Act
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Disturbing news from London; a conservative shadow minister has been arrested for receiving classified documents. This is why the AIPAC case, in which two former officials of the lobbying group are being charged with discussing classified information -- in fact, the information was concocted as part of a Justice Department sting -- with journalists and Israeli embassy officials. If they are convicted, it follows logically that journalists, too, could be charged with receiving and discussing classified information. This has had secrecy mavens like Steven Aftergood worried for some time:
Up to now, there has always been a bright line that distinguishes the leaker and the leakee, or the recipient of the leak, if you will. The government has always discouraged and gone after the leaker, except when the leak was intentional, but they have always stopped short of trying to punish the recipient of the leak. What this decision does is to say it is perfectly legal to go after the recipient.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM
Idiot Watch
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the mailbox, in reference to my post on how to keep alive in a terrorized hotel:
How about not supporting governments that oppress their own people? The U.S. has a history of supporting dictators, and then we wonder why Americans are a target abroad. For us to be really safe, we have to stop consorting with enemies.
Yes, that explains why the Lashkar-e-Toiba attacked the Taj in Mumbai, doesn't it?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM
Hitler Did Not Urinate Into the Mouth of a Billy Goat
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Our reporter on the scene, Ron Rosenbaum, has more.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM
An Astonishing Column from Roger Cohen
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Has he ever been to Israel? Does he talk to anyone there? Noah Pollak explains why today's column is so fatuous. My opposition to the settlement project is steadfast, and I of course agree with Cohen that it is damaging to Israel. But to write a whole column about the challenges facing Israel and not mention Hamas once? Pollak would probably disagree, but for my money the best column written recently about Middle East peace has come from Aaron Miller, who published in the Jerusalem Post a column so bracing it's making me rethink my semi-optimistic view that Hillary Clinton -- or anyone -- might be able to pull something off in the next couple of years:
The dysfunction and confusion in Palestine make a conflict-ending agreement almost impossible. The divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided) are now geographic, political and hard to bridge. Until the Palestinian national movement finds a way to impose a monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society, it cannot move to statehood. The hallmark of any state's credibility (from Sweden, to Egypt, to Poland) is its control over all the guns. Criminal activity is one thing; allowing political groups to challenge the state, or its neighbors, with violence is quite another. What Palestinian leader can claim to speak for all Palestinians or negotiate an agreement against the backdrop of a separate entity which controls 1.3 million Palestinians, possesses a different view of governance and nation-building and often attacks its neighbor? And what Israeli prime minister could ever make concessions to a Palestinian leader who doesn't control all of the guns? There is no solution to this problem now. Only by restoring unity to the Palestinian house will a conflict-ending agreement be possible. And that agreement will have to take into account the needs of both Israel and a unified Fatah-Hamas negotiating position which doesn't reflect Hamas's extreme views and irredentism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 10:59 AM
The Philo-Semite 50: Cyrus, Maurice Blanchot and Madonna?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The nominations for the Philo-Semite 50 keep pouring over the transom, and the Sanhedrin is compiling the list. But I'll post some particularly interesting nominations as they come in. I suggested last week that readers stop proposing both Jon Voight and Rashid Khalidi (two great tastes that taste great together) for admission. I should have included Madonna on that list, though Goldblog reader Mitch Ginsburg made the case: "I know she's not exactly the second coming of the Ari, but she's nothing if not devoted to Kabbalah."
Yeah, no.
Monica Osborne, a smarty-pants Jewish-American literature expert at UCLA wrote in to say, "Well, of course, Maurice Blanchot should be on this list! (French philosopher, close friend of Jewish-French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas; Blanchot said that 'Judaism is an essential modality of all that is human.')" She described him as her "favorite wanna-be Jew of all time." I'll feed Blanchot's name into the Philo-Semite UNIVAC as well.
Reader D. Shapiro wrote to say, "If you're placing Truman that high up, I sure hope you include the original King Cyrus (who, come to think of it, could teach Ahmadinejad a thing or two about how to get along with us)." Shapiro also nominates Denis Leary:
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 10:59 AM
Spare a Thought for Chabad
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm not the greatest fan of Chabad in the world, in particular its Christological, maybe-the-Rebbe's-not-dead streak, and its general fundamentalist, women-marginalizing outlook, but this is a group that does, in fact, try to spread a kind of happiness wherever it plants itself. And it plants itself everywhere. It puts other Jewish groups to shame, in fact, by its ebullient outreach. My friend Esther Abramowitz wrote to note that the "Chabad rabbi and his wife have welcomed and celebrated with thousands upon thousands of traveling Israelis with joy and no judgment." That's the formula, and it's a formula that works.
What happened in Mumbai was a horror. We're now learning that the people in the Chabad house were subjected to special tortures, but even if they were murdered quickly, they were still murdered, and they were murdered for the crime of being Jewish. It's astonishing to think that Pakistani-supported terrorists, obsessed with the alleged crimes of Hindu India, would go out of their way to murder a group of people who couldn't find Kashmir on a map. But the Jews are a cosmological enemy. I think we've learned that by now.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 1, 2008 6:06 AM
How to Stay Alive in a Terrorized Hotel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Four hotels I've stayed in recently have now been blown up, so count me an expert on where not to stay. But I've also thought a bit about how to stay alive in hotels - I'm sort of the TSA of hotel security, except that, unlike the TSA, I recognize that most of my advice is utterly without value. Also, my personal security guru, Bruce Schneier, says it's foolish even to worry about hotel safety, because the chances of something happening on any particular night in any particular hotel are vanishingly small. The taxi ride to the hotel is invariably more dangerous than the hotel itself. But: Here are six ways to minimize your chances - already remote - of dying in a hotel besieged by terrorists. I'm not including in this some of the self-inflicted mistakes people make, such as allowing Russian prostitutes into your Baku hotel room and believing that they have your best interests at heart.
1) Avoid big hotels. I stopped staying at the Marriott in Islamabad years and years ago. It was fairly well-protected, as hotels go - not like the hotels in Amman, though not terrible - but it was an obvious target, a supersized American hotel in a country boiling with anti-American feeling. Terrorists tend not to waste time on small targets; they're trying to maximize the body count and hit targets of maximum symbolic value at the same time.
2) If you can't help but stay at a behemoth, order room service whenever possible. This minimizes your exposure to restaurants located off the lobby. Obviously, the lobby is the most dangerous place in a hotel; it is akin to the security lines at American airports, which are prime targets for suicide bombers precisely because they're entirely insecure.
3) Ask for a room on the 4th, 5th or 6th floors, unless you're reasonably sure the fire department in the city you're visiting doesn't have ladders that reach up to six. I try to be high enough to escape whatever chaos might occur on the ground floor, but not so high that I can't be reached. I'm always of two or three minds on this question; it's also not a bad idea to stay on a floor close enough to the ground that a jump will leave you with broken legs and nothing more.
4) Make two plans the moment you set foot in your room. Figure out how you're going to escape, and figure out, alternatively, how you're going to survive a siege. If escape isn't an option - say, you believe that men are roaming the floors with automatic weapons - try to figure out what you're going to use to fortify your room. In certain parts of the world - well, two - I'll barricade myself in my room at night, using a desk or dresser. This is dangerous, of course, in the event of fire. But I measure the risk. In dodgy places, fill your bathtub, if you have one, with water; it will come in handy if you can't leave (and, of course, if there's fire outside your door). Always travel with a flashlight, utility knife (they're easy to sneak past TSA), matches, and a few energy bars. Know where your shoes are, as well as your passport and money, just in case you have to get out in the dark. Also, identify a lamp or other piece of furniture that could be used as a weapon of last resort.
5) Set up tell-tales in your room before you leave for the day; I use a discreetly-placed length of dental floss to make sure no one's tampering with my laptop. It's always good to know if somebody's been poking around your stuff.
6) Stay in hotels that have already been bombed or otherwise attacked. Mumbai is a fairly safe place for travelers right now. And visiting India soon sends a message that civilization cannot be defeated by terror. But that's another subject.
If you have other tips, please send them my way and I'll post them.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 25, 2008 9:16 AM
Anger = Terrorism = No Fly List
from Jeffrey Goldberg
US Airways, my least favorite airline except for all the others, threatens to ground a passenger because he expresses anger at airline ticket pricing. I'm glad the TSA is there to help the airlines deal with consumer terrorists.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 25, 2008 9:16 AM
Lee Abrams Wants Reporters to Dress Like Columbo
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Via Romenesko, the genius of journalism shares more ideas: "We've heard what the experts think, lets open it up to REAL people. This could be red hot. What the average citizen's take on the topics is."
Yes, this is why people watch the news and read newspapers, to learn about the financial crisis, or about the growing anarchy in Peshawar, from their uninformed, thoroughly average neighbors. Lee Abrams is the advance guard of ignorance. Just as a reminder of who Abrams is, here's a brief excerpt from my interview with him from earlier this year:
Question: When I was coming up, there was an expression that the role of the newspaper is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Does that ring true anymore?
Answer: Probably not as much as it did.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 24, 2008 8:48 AM
Zach Braff Does Some Jewish Thinking
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of the strange things about Hollywood is that it is simultaneously very Jewish and also not: The Holocaust is an acceptable topic of conversation, but Israel is not much discussed; Jewish victimhood is easier to process than the complexities of Jewish power. On the other hand, there's Zach Braff:
"As an American Jew it's an amazing feeling to come to a place where you feel you belong. You know we're such a minority in the U.S. Even though I grew up in New Jersey, which was very Jewish, and then I went to school in Chicago, which was Jewish, and then I moved to New York, which is very Jewish, and then I went to Hollywood, which is very Jewish. But they say we're only 2 percent of the population and shrinking because of intermarriage."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 24, 2008 8:48 AM
More TSA Stupidity
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Effect Measure, some interesting observations on the futility of behavioral detection protocols at airports:
Suppose that behavioral detection were so sensitive that you picked every single terrorist trying to get on an airplane. There are about 750 million passenger trips this year, so let's say one in ten million involves a terrorist, or 75 terrorist trips. Let's also say that the behavioral test IDs them all (highly unlikely) but also makes a mistake in about one in a ten thousandth of a percent of passenger trips. That's 750 false positives. That means for behavioral detector whose skills are 100% sensitive and 99.9999% specific (meaning he tags the wrong person only once per million times) the positive predictive value would still be only 10%. So it isn't at all surprising that the PPV of the current system is functionally zero and probably exactly zero. It's a fool's errand.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 24, 2008 8:48 AM
Settlers Behaving Badly
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Now they're pouring turpentine on Israeli soldiers in Hebron. I've said it a million times, so let me keep saying it: These people represent a severe threat to Israel's future as a Jewish democracy. Maybe Hillary will help the Israeli government see that.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 24, 2008 8:48 AM
Jon Voight and Rashid Khalidi
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Thank you to everyone who has written in so far with their nominations for the Goldblog Top 50 Philo-Semites Competition, but those of you who keep nominating Rashid Khalidi, you can stop now. I get your point. I defended him against charges of anti-Semitism, but let's not push this too far.
Also -- and this is directed at a different political crowd, quite obviously -- you can stop nominating Jon Voight now, as well. Message received:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 24, 2008 8:48 AM
An Anti-Semite Writes in to Make a Point about Philo-Semites
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In reference to our contest to name the top 50 Philo-Semites, a reader calling himself exposer99 sends in the following:
Jeffrey,
You're seeking Philo-Semites? How about...
1. Absolutely every cable news pundit except Pat Buchanan.
2. Absolutely every print columnist except Pat Buchanan and, briefly, Robert Novak.
3. Absolutely every congressman except Ron Paul and Jim Moran.
4. Absolutely every senator.
5. Absolutely every newspaper and magazine editor except Scott McConnell of The American Conservative.
6. Absolutely every television news executive, editor and producer.
Does that help?
(name withheld because I like to work)
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 21, 2008 8:23 AM
Hillary's Middle East Understanding, and Mickey's Dissent
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Mickey Kaus criticizes me (and derivatively, Andrew) for talking up Hillary Clinton, in particular her Middle East expertise. He argues that the statement I quote is an "unremarkable politician's statement that either tells Goldberg what he wants to hear or makes Hillary someone Goldberg might like to promote for either political or beat-sweetening reasons." The relevant statement, by the way, is this: "You do not get people into a process... unless the other side knows that your commitment to Israel is unshakable." Mickey asks: "Does it reflect Hillary's 'uncommon knowledge'?"
I plead guilty to the charge of political promotion (though not to "beat-sweetening") -- I would like to see Hillary as secretary of state because I think she's best-equipped (especially considering the group of putative finalists, Kerry, Richardson, Hagel, for the job) to engineer the comprehensive peace plan that I (and Scowcroft and Brzezinski!) believe is absolutely necessary right now, because at some indeterminate time in the very near future, it will be too late. I think Hillary's insight here -- one that Brzezinski doesn't share, I think -- is that this comprehensive peace will come about when the Arab side understands clearly that America has red lines of its own. The Palestinians suffer sometimes from the irrational hope that America's support for Israel is mutable, and that the key to success is to bring about direct American pressure on Israel. This won't happen for any number of reasons, and I think Hillary Clinton understands that American pressure will only encourage Israeli politicians to descend into the bunker.
The new secretary of state should plan on giving two speeches almost right away: One to the Palestinian parliament (or even better, to the Arab League) explaining exactly why most Americans tend to side with Israel. It should be, in essence, a speech that justifies the original Zionist idea. Then, the secretary of state should speak to the Israeli Knesset, and lay out, in very clear terms, the U.S. vision for Israel's borders, and talk very specifically about the need to bring about the end of the settlement project, and the birth of a viable Palestinian state -- and to speak of that birth as a direct American national security interest (and a direct national security interest of the State of Israel). Neither speech will be popular, of course, which is the point. But the hope is that these speeches, which would lay out in very specific terms the way things must be to ensure the survival of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, will shock the two peoples into an awareness of reality. Hillary Clinton, based on what she's said and done so far, understands this issue better than most anyone, and I think she is smart, savvy and energetic enough to, just maybe, pull this off.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 20, 2008 1:52 PM
Malcolm Gladwell's Top 50 Philo-Semites
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So, as you have undoubtedly heard, the Forward has chosen me as one of its 50 most influential American Jews. Me, Rahm Emanuel, Sarah Silverman, and Lipa Schmeltzer, among others.
This honor has changed my life, especially the magnificent gift of 1,000 shares of AIG stock from the finance committee of the Elders of Zion. It has also caused heartache. Friends are envious, even non-Jewish friends. For instance, Malcolm Gladwell is very upset. When we were roommates a very long time ago, Malcolm used to listen to the klezmer stylings of Giora Feidman on his record player. He is, in other words, very Jewy. He is also deeply wounded. "I am so jealous," he wrote. "Shouldn't there be a parallel list for wanna-bes?"
Yes, there should. If the Forward can publish a list of the top 50 Jews, then Goldblog can publish a list of the top 50 philo-Semites. I don't have a philosophical problem with this, by the way: I dissent from the line, first passed on to me by Frank Foer, who, tragically, is not a top-50 Jew (though his mother is!), that philo-Semites are anti-Semites who like Jews. So, a list, and one loyal readers can help me assemble. I already asked Malcolm to provide me names of other philo-Semites, but he said: "How do I know philo-Semites? I'm such a philo-Semite I only associate with the real thing."
Here are a few names, just to get us going:
1) George Eliot
2) Barack Obama
3) Harry Truman
4) Emile Zola
5) Malcolm Gladwell
Please send your entries to Goldberg.atlantic@gmail.com, and I'll post them as they come in.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 19, 2008 10:38 AM
One Reason Hillary Could be Extraordinary at State
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Her understanding of Middle East peacemaking is second-to-none, IMHO. Two years ago, I interviewed the front-runners for the Democratic nomination on a range of foreign policy issues. Obama was smart and savvy and reasonable and seemed to have, generally speaking, excellent judgment, but he was still unsteeped in some of the issues; Edwards was a dope; Clinton, however, was something of a wonder: her simultaneous mastery of the smallest details and of the biggest themes was beyond impressive. Her uncommon understanding of the Middle East could truly revive peacemaking. Here's a brief excerpt from the interview. This answer came in response to the question, "Would you have a different approach to peacemaking in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and would you think it necessary to put some light between the U.S. and Israel?" Please, note, in particular, her acute understanding of what makes negotiations work, at the end of her answer:
"I reject that. It's fallacious logic. I don't think you reject the commitments and relationships that are rooted in common values. Israel is a democracy and it is an ally. It is a beacon of freedom and it is a historical necessity. For me this is a given. But that doesn't mean you have to present solid support for Israel in a a way that alienates and rejects the feelings of other peoples in the world. And I thought my husband did a pretty good job of that. I thought he had a rock-solid commitment to Israel, a guarantee of Israel's security. The Israelis believed it. We were last there in November and people were saying to him, "Come and run for President here,' because he has such a deep connection and empathy, and I feel it and share it.
When he had a process going that kept Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other, people didn't die. There are those who say that that doesn't resolve the issue, so big deal, people didn't die, big deal that for a couple of years not a single Israeli was killed, big deal that the Palestinians were actually starting businesses. Well, I think it was a big deal. A process is better than no process, as long as everybody knows going into it where you stand. We stand foursquare as a guarantor of Israel's security and in making common cause with Israeli democratic human values.
We would love to see a two-state solution where the Palestinians could actually be living and planning for a future in a way that would enhance their prospects. That would be great... I have said over and over that I support the decisions that are made by the government and the people of Israel who are on the front lines. I have said that during Labor governments, Likud governments, Kadima governments. I think that's the level of commitment we need to show. You do not get people into a process or to the table to make any kind of tough decisions, including compromises, unless the other side knows that your commitment to Israel is unshakable.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 18, 2008 3:00 PM
Noah Pollak: Daniel Levy Doesn't Understand Hezbollah
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Noah writes in to say that Daniel Levy, in his interview with me, gets more than a couple of things wrong:
There actually is a decent argument for giving Shebaa Farms to Lebanon, in order that it would be one item that could be crossed off the list of things Hezbollah cites as reasons for the maintenance of its militia. It might weaken Hezbollah politically in Lebanon. But the problem is that Hezbollah (as it proved in May of this year) does not depend on public opinion for its political strength. That era is long past.
And we also know how groups like Hezbollah respond to territorial concessions -- they are strengthened and encouraged by them, not the opposite. But that's not even the real problem with Daniel Levy. The real problem is that he thinks Hezbollah has limited grievances. If Israel gave Hezbollah the Shaba, and handed over the Golan to Syria, and closed down Dimona, and sent bouquets of flowers to Nasrallah, Hezbollah would still want to destroy Israel, and it would still want to dominate Lebanese politics and act as an Iranian platform. There is no connection between anything we can do for Hezbollah and what Hezbollah wants. There is only a power relationship, what the group wants versus what it's capable of accomplishing. Silly gestures like Shaba will not affect that. Hezbollah simply moves the goalposts every time one of its ambitions is realized, or looks like it might be realized.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Twitter and Middle East Peace: The Secret Connection
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Venture capitalist Todd Klein came to a talk I gave with David Gregory this past Sunday and drew some unusual conclusions.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 18, 2008 6:56 AM
Be-More-Lame-Than-The-TSA Contest Finalist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Here's a good contest entry from Jack Nutting, who tries to out-lame TSA chief Kip Hawley. You'll recall that Hawley stated, in response to my article on airport security idiocy, that "most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if 'all' we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk."
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today the DOT's new policy for dealing with widespread defiance of speed limits on interstate highways. According to a new directive dubbed Let the Fast Ones Go (LEFOGO), local police and state troopers are being asked to focus on the slowest offenders, and simply let the fastest speeders get away. "In these times of rising gas prices and sinking police budgets, we as a nation cannot afford to waste fuel in high-speed pursuits," said Secretary Peters. "Not only is it a more efficient use of fuel to go after the slower speeders, it's also a better use of officers' time. Under LEFOGO we can therefore catch a greater number of speeders, making the roads safer for everyone." The directive encourages police to ignore any vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 miles per hour.
,
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 18, 2008 6:56 AM
Obama: Distressingly Pro-Israel?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ali Abunimah thinks so (with a couple of caveats):
Obama's positions are remarkable only for their conformity with long-standing U.S. policies. As Obama told AIPAC in June, "I have been proud to be a part of a strong bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment...both [Senator] John McCain and I share because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party."11
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 17, 2008 7:28 AM
Daniel Levy On Obama, Netanyahu and the Settlements
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Daniel Levy, the director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation (which is run by a blogger, it should be noted) and the director of the Prospects for Peace initiative at the Century Foundation, is one of the smartest analysts of the Middle East conflict in Washington, or anywhere else. He often veers too left for my taste (on only one occasion, I believe, I veered too left for his taste), but he's a rigorous thinker and is steeped in the painful and complicated details of the ongoing crisis. Levy, who keeps his own blog, of course, has been a player in negotiations through the 1990s, and brings real-world experience -- and real Israeli experience -- to the conversation. As we enter the Obama era, it seemed worthwhile to send Levy some questions:
Jeffrey Goldberg: Are you a Zionist?
Daniel Levy: The answer is a yes, albeit a more complex yes than I'd like it to be. I would describe myself as a Zionist on at least three levels. First, and at the most practical level, having made aliyah to Israel from the U.K., taken up citizenship, and made my life there, my Zionism meets the more classical and exclusionary definitions. Second, I do consider the Jews to be a people, and support that people's right to self-determination in a nation-state, Israel. Finally, and in many ways derived from both of the above, I consider Israel to be central to my own Jewishness and my identity--more than a religious affiliation, it's a national and cultural affiliation to modern Israel, the language, to Tel Aviv, etc.
Where it gets complex is this--sixty years after the establishment of the state, and alongside all its accomplishments, the onus is now on Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism, to demonstrate in practice that it can be non-expansionist in territorial terms toward its neighbors, and that it can confer genuine equality on the non-Jewish citizens of the state. Most troubling of course is that for more than two-thirds of its existence, Israel has imposed a hostile occupation on another people, the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and to be blunt, that occupation will have to end for Israel to survive. To the extent to which a Zionist narrative has been used to drive forward and justify the post-'67 settlement enterprise (and the discrimination within Israel), it is a Zionism that actually works against the interests of Israel, and not, of course, the Zionism that I am signing up for.
JG: You write about the occupation in a way that suggests you believe it was Israel's fault from the outset. Whose fault do you believe it is? Put another way, do you think the Khartoum declaration of late 1967--the so-called three noes--set the stage for the tragedy that followed, or is it not relevant?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 17, 2008 7:28 AM
The Art of the Lift, New York Times Division
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I'm reading Rachel Swarns' Times story yesterday about all the Obama-related private school excitement here in Washington, and I'm thinking that much of it sounds familiar to me, in particular the highly amusing anecdote about one-time Hillaryite Beth Dozoretz's lobbying efforts on behalf of Sidwell Friends. You know why it sounded familiar to me? Because I read it a week ago right here on the Atlantic website. Gabriel Sherman had the story first, and the Dozoretz story in the Times seems to have been appropriated, without a hat tip, from the Atlantic.
That's the thing about these Internets; they might be destroying society, but they also make it harder to boost other people's scoops.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 12, 2008 8:38 PM
Is Our Arabs Hating?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the mail, in re: What Obama and Rahm Emanuel know, or do not know, about the intentions of Israel's adversaries:
Does they know that the Arab in Israel dance and sing when Jewish blood is spilled?
Does they know that Mr. Pres of Iran calls in a loud voice for the destruction of Israel?
Where does these people come from?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 12, 2008 3:21 PM
Chuck Norris, Meet Rahm Emanuel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
True Rahm Emanuel facts:
"Israel is my middle name" is something Rahm Emanuel can actually say.
When donors offer Rahm Emanuel $5,000 checks, he hangs the fuck up on them.
Rahm Emanuel refers to Washington as "Fucknutsville."
Rahm Emanuel did not fight in the Israeli army as rumored but he probably would have been awesome at it if he had.
Rahm Emanuel's rabbi lets him work on Rosh Hashanah.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 12, 2008 7:55 AM
In Defense of Ink-Stained Wretches
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ron Rosenbaum delivers a scorcher in defense of us poor content-making shlubs. I tend to think that after the world has forgotten Jeff Jarvis, it will still remember Ron Rosenbaum. Why? Because Ron actually makes something:
Look, there's nothing wrong with Jarvis doing all this thinking and decreeing. He's said some savvy, if unoriginal, things about journalism (advocating looking at the article as an ongoing process, not a product, for instance). He's among the most rational of the new thinkers. But it's the callous contempt for working journalists that grates. It's a contempt for the beautiful losers who actually made journalism an honorable profession for a brief shining moment--well, longer than that--before it became a platform for "reverse engineering."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 12, 2008 7:55 AM
The U.S., Israel, and the Constitution
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Roger Ailes lists his priorities. I'd probably put the Constitution in second place, but that's just me.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 10, 2008 8:48 AM
Not So Impressed With Rahm
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From one reader, who actually believes -- well, read it for yourself (the helpful italics are mine):
You are showing exactly what kind of Jew the new chief of staff is. Obama is out to hurt Israel. I believe that this is a main mission of his life. It shows from the people that he surrounds himself with to the parties he has attended. It shows from his failures to submit his birth certificate to his throwing off reporters that didn't agree with him all the time. Our new president likes to hide the whole truth. This is not change. This is the same old hidden agenda. This is a case of masked lies.
This hiring of a Jew to cause destruction either intentional or not to the land of Israel happened in biblical times and continues today.. When this stops people will see the Jews as a strong nation and stop trying to destroy us. This election sadly did nothing to help the Jews of the world.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 10, 2008 5:21 AM
Why the Jews Should Rule Jerusalem
from Jeffrey Goldberg
To stop those crazy Christians from killing each other:
Monks from the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations were preparing for a ceremony at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City when a disagreement led to a full-fledged fistfight.
The photo accompanying the CNN story is priceless: An Ethiopian Jewish border policemen in a knock-down drag-out with an Armenian monk inside Christianity's holiest site. It's days like this one that make me miss living in Jerusalem, if only for its awesome weirdness.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 10, 2008 4:18 AM
The End of White Civilization
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi has details. You should pardon me for saying this (and Ta-Nehisi will, because he feels my people's pain) but from my tribal perspective, the Poles have not always done entirely great things for civilization.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 6, 2008 10:49 AM
Rahm Emanuel and Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The news that Rahm Emanuel has accepted Barack Obama's request to be his chief of staff is fascinating on many levels, not least of which is Rahm's deep Israel credentials. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I've known Rahm for a long time, and he's yelled at me for no good reason on many occasions. This, of course, is the way he expresses affection. I do believe, despite the yelling, that Rahm is an excellent choice to run the White House, and I'll get into that later.
But for now, a couple of comments about the Israel connection:
1) This choice makes the entire "Does Obama secretly hate Israel?" conversation seem a bit ridiculous (Though the vast majority of Jewish voters seemed to have figured that out by the election). Rahm did not, despite the rumors, serve in the Israeli Army, but he is deeply and emotionally committed to Israel and its safety. We've talked about the issue a dozen times; it's something he thinks about constantly, and his appointment gives me further reason to believe that the Obama Administration will not wait seven years to address the Israeli-Arab crisis.
2) Peace-processors take heart: Rahm, precisely because he's a lover of Israel, will not have much patience with Israeli excuse-making, so when the next Prime Minister tells President Obama that as much as he'd love to, he can't dismantle the Neve Manyak settlement outpost, or whichever outpost needs dismantling, because of a) domestic politics; b) security concerns, or c) the Bible, Rahm will call out such nonsense, and it will be very hard for right-wing Israelis to come back and accuse him of being a self-hating Jew. This is not to say that he's unaware of Palestinian dysfunction, or Iranian extremism, but that he has a good grasp of some of Israel's foibles as well. All in all, it's a very heartening choice.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 6, 2008 10:49 AM
TSA-Style Foolishness, Chicago Division
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader writes about a presumably Obama-related piece of federal security non-think:
I work for the Federal government in the same office building in Chicago where the Illinois Senators have their offices--the Kluczynski federal building at 219 S. Dearborn Street. Prior to this week all Federal employees could enter the building by simply showing identification from the agency for which they work. Members of the public had to show ID, walk through a metal detector and have their belongings X-rayed.
Starting on Monday, ALL individuals entering the building have to go through the same process as the general public. My boss was prevented from bringing in a 2-inch pocket knife and I've heard that scissors are banned as well.
What's the logic of this? I have no idea since almost every employee in my office has a pair of scissors in his or her desk. I have a pocket knife in my desk and we have standard kitchen knives in the office for birthday cakes, etc.
I suppose that, as a Federal employee, I shouldn't be surprised at the stupidity. But this is one of the stupidest things I have seen in my almost 30 years in the government.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 6, 2008 8:19 AM
Bush's Plans Before 9/11
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader writes:
Your statement "If I recall correctly, George W. Bush was pretty
much uninterested in dropping bombs on Arab and Muslim countries until
a large, diverse group of Arabs, operating out of the Muslim country
of Afghanistan, attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001,
murdering more than three thousand people." is wrong. As we know now
(and as is documented in many good books), Bush/Cheney had plans drawn
out to attack Iraq even before 9/11, and the first thing they wanted
to find out on that day was whether Iraq was behind it (to give them a
convenient excuse to attack the country).
Point taken, though I don't entirely agree. Bush, in particular, was not focused on Iraq before 9/11 (much less focused, in fact, than Bill Clinton, who actually did drop bombs on Iraq before 9/11). Plans? Everyone had plans to attack Iraq.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 5, 2008 1:53 PM
On Forgetfulness and 9/11
from Jeffrey Goldberg
There's a disconcerting moment in one of the many triumphalist stories today about the world's Obama-inspired jubilation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for jubilation, and like Andrew, I think that Obama's popularity is an important (though perhaps ephemeral) weapon in the war on terror. But Ethan Bronner's piece in today's Times contains this odd, unknowing passage:
It would be hard to overstate how fervently vast stretches of the globe wanted the election to turn out as it did to repudiate the Bush administration and its policies. Poll after poll in country after country showed only a few -- Israel, Georgia, the Philippines -- favoring a victory for Senator John McCain.
"Since Bush came to power it's all bam, bam, bam on the Arabs," asserted Fathi Abdel Hamid, 40, as he sat in a Cairo coffee house.
Bronner doesn't call out Fathi Abdel Hamid, so allow me: If I recall correctly, George W. Bush was pretty much uninterested in dropping bombs on Arab and Muslim countries until a large, diverse group of Arabs, operating out of the Muslim country of Afghanistan, attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001, murdering more than three thousand people.
There are many in the Muslim world who find America's actions over the past seven years inexplicable. Some of our actions have indeed been inexplicable, but they're all rooted in a trauma that many people seem to have forgotten.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 5, 2008 12:29 PM
Advice for the New President
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Last weekend, at one of the many soccer games that fill up my family's schedule, the talk on the sidelines was of a sermon delivered that Saturday morning by Rabbi Daniel Zemel of Temple Micah, on Wisconsin Ave. in Washington. Correction: Since this was Washington, some of the parents on the sidelines were on Obama campaign conference calls, and others were actually watching the game. But Zemel's sermon was still a topic of discussion.
Temple Micah is a liberal synagogue (How liberal? Put it this way -- Sy Hersh left my synagogue to join Micah), but Zemel gave a non-partisan sermon, in the form of an answer to a question posed by a Bat Mitzvah, Lila Klaus, who asked if politics and religion should mix. I asked Rabbi Zemel for a copy, and here's part of what he said. It's definitely worth reading (and it's worth hearing him live, as well):
How can our Judaism not inform the way we feel about the questions we face each day, questions large and small?
The challenge for religion is to keep politics focused on issues and not let it degenerate into campaigning for particular candidates, thus making synagogues and churches into hotbeds of political activity. Advocating for candidates in the context of prayer would run the risk of pitting worshiper against worshiper.
I have thought about your question for a long time, Lila, and I did so against the backdrop of this historic election. As I thought about this, a kind of fantasy question popped into my mind: it is the Shabbat after the election and the newly-elected president is in Washington to begin the work of transition. He decides to go with a Jewish advisor to Shabbat services. In my fantasy, in walks the President-elect to our Shabbat services at Micah. What would I tell them -- what would my Jewish voice have to say to a newly elected president?
1. Honesty. Please, Mr. President-elect -- simply tell us what you think, what you want to do and why. Try and shed yourself of the handlers and spinmeisters and doublespeak. There is nothing that so destroys the morale of our nation as this. The Talmud explicitly legislates against a kind of speech where the speaker is counting on being misunderstood. On the contrary, we are commanded to speak so that we can be clearly understood, ant not to use the power of words to mislead the listener away from our real intentions. Doublespeak is the equivalent of putting a stumbling block before the blind. Cynicism corrodes the heart and the American heart has become depressingly cynical. Ultimately in life, all we have is who we are. Please, I would say--- be yourself with us. That is, model yourself on Buber -- I-Thou. Speak to our dignity as full human beings.
2. Then I would perhaps reflect on Jewish models of leadership and simply remind the new President that Moses was always under attack and always lonely. His greatest moments came when he was alone -- the burning bush, Mt. Sinai, in the meeting tent where only he could enter, Mt. Nebo at the end of his life. The nature of the leader is to be lonely -- don't try and be popular, because seeking popularity is what gets us golden calves. Serious leadership results in the Ten Commandments. Do what you think is right.
3. Finally, I would say that there is nothing more important than hope. You can go without food for several days, but without hope, our lives are lost. Hope in Hebrew "tikva." I learned from a colleague, Rabbi Michael Marmur, about the different opinions about the origin of the word. Some say it comes from "mikva," a ritual bath. Hope then is a resource, a pool, a solace, and a support. Pools of hope are what we all need.
There is a second view on the derivation of the word, that it is connected to a cord or thread. The famous red thread which makes an appearance in the Book of Joshua is called a Tikva. If the first meaning of the word looks to sources of support, the second kind of hope is symbolized by a thin thread leading from a complicated present to a possible future. This is also a great need in our time for a thread of hope that can lead us to a strong bridge. Nachman of Bratzlav taught that the entire world is a narrow bridge and the important thing is to not be afraid.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 4, 2008 12:34 PM
On Electing an African-American President
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My hometown, Malverne, on the South Shore of New York's Long Island, is all white and mainly Catholic, but it shares a school district with a mostly African-American neighborhood called Lakeview. The house in which I lived (after we made the exodus from Brooklyn, that is) was near the dividing line - the appropriately-named Ocean Avenue. The public schools, when I was a child, were about half-white and half-black, but blacks were often poorly represented on the school board and in the school administration. There was a great deal of fear in certain white quarters of black empowerment; at one point, black parents, and their white supporters, notably, my parents, had to sue in order to get buses to take black students across Ocean Avenue to the district's two elementary schools, both of which were located deep in the white zone. Everything, it seemed, was a fight.
These are my memories of those tumultuous days: Friendship among students across the color line, and bitterness and suspicion among the adults. For all the obvious reasons, then, today seems to me a new story. Once, the fight was to elect African-Americans to serve on a local school board; now, the country seems ready to choose an African-American to be president. This upsurge of memories prompted me to call a dear friend of my mother's, a woman named Rener Reed, who was and is, a stalwart in the civil rights struggle in our school district, and well beyond.
Mrs. Reed, who was born in Mississippi, is a leader of the NAACP (I think it was she who signed me up for a lifetime membership), a large-hearted person and generally a tough cookie. I asked her how she felt about today, against the backdrop of her long struggles. She laughed and said, "Well, you know, the school board is back to one black member." But then she reported that she has seen Obama signs in the white parts of town. "We're living in a time when white people can look past color," she said, almost as if she were describing a dawning messianic age. "I always had faith that this could happen." She said she could not wait to vote. "I'm going early," she said. "My vote is going to count."
It will. That's a small miracle for a black woman born in Mississippi. The whole day, in fact, is an astonishment. It's worth remembering that.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 3, 2008 12:50 PM
The Czar is Dead (Or, Joe Klein Responds)
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Joe Klein, in his response to my earlier post, cedes the point I make about the misuse of the term "anti-Semitism," and I'm grateful for that, and I'm grateful that he's out there selling my book (there's no better way to soften a writer's heart than to praise his books, except maybe handing over cash money). But Joe goes on to say that I'm "truly foolish" for writing the following:
I know that Joe derives great pleasure from criticizing Jewish supporters of the Iraq War -- the Wolfowitzes, Perles and Feiths --in specifically Jewish terms, while never seeming to use the Christianity of other supporters of the war, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and other such marginal figures, against them. I don't like the double-standard, but it's part of the rough and tumble.
This is his response to my statement:
No, Jeff, I don't derive great pleasure from it. I'm pretty anguished about it. As a Jew, I'm embarrassed by these extremists and outraged by their assumption that they represent mainstream Jewish opinion in this country. Furthermore, I don't use the Christianity of Bush et al against them because their Christianity had nothing to do with their support for the war. For people like Doug Feith et al, their Jewish identity--their ethnic nationalism, not the religious part of it--had an awful lot to do with their plumping for war with Iraq and, more recently, Iran. Feith et al advised Binyamin Netanyahu, in a paper called "A Clean Break," to go to war with Iraq when he was Prime Minister in order to protect Israel. I find the conflation, by some Jewish neoconservatives, of Israel's interests and America's--and their truly dangerous misreading of both--to be appalling. But much worse is their rush to pin the tag of anti-Semitism on anyone who disagrees with them, including me.
There is much to unpack here. First, there is Joes's assertion that Bush's Christianity has "nothing to do" with his push for war. I think this will surprise a lot of people, including George W. Bush. Second, I think Joe is essentializing, to employ an unwieldy term, the Jews who supported the war. There's no denying - nor should it be denied - that American Jews, and American Christians as well, worry about Israel's security. (That Christian bit is important, by the way; I know this drives Mearsheimer and Walt crazy - and I know that Joe is no Mearsheimerite - but polls show the majority of Americans are sympathetic to Israel, despite the best efforts of the Mearsheimers and Walts of this country to blame Israel for America's woes. No Jewish lobby would be powerful enough to influence American foreign policy if it worked in opposition to the feelings of a majority of Americans.)
I think Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, were worried about Saddam Hussein for many reasons, including and especially his record of genocide, and I think that many advocates of the war, myself included, were eager to see Saddam overthrown because he was a uniquely evil figure on the world stage. And if the Jewish advocates for the defeat of Saddam argued the way they did because they were sensitized to the issue of genocide by the Holocaust, well, so what? In a different context - Darfur, say - they would be praised for their sensitivity. I would imagine - I certainly hope - that non-Jews who were mobilized to oppose Saddam were motivated by his record of genocide as well. But put aside genocide: I tend to believe, and the record bears this out, that men like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith had five or six or seven different motivations in this war, just as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did, as well.
This doesn't absolve the Jews in the Bush Administration of incompetence and negligence, but it doesn't absolve the non-Jews either, especially because, and I know Joe doesn't want to hear this, the Jews were not quite the all-powerful figures in the White House and Pentagon that people imagine them to have been.
But this brings me to a deeper question: Why is it illegitimate for American Jews to care about Israel's security and argue for American measures that would strengthen Israel's security? In a conversation earlier this year, Joe told me the following: "I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not."
Why not? American policy makers make decisions that benefit other countries all the time. American troops are in harm's way in South Korea and Japan, serving as tripwires against North Korean aggression. American troops are in Western Europe, in Kosovo, and dozens of other places, all with the aim of providing security to friends and allies. American troops died liberating Kuwait and defending Saudi Arabia, and those who argued for the first Gulf War were seldom accused of putting Kuwait's interests before America's. So why, exactly, shouldn't American policy makers consider the security of Israel, an American ally, when they're making decisions about Middle East policy? Support for Israel is a question that's worth debating, of course, just as support for Egypt and Kuwait and South Korea and a dozen other countries around the world is worth debating. But this country has been committed in a most bipartisan way to Israel's security for more than sixty years. Now Joe Klein comes along and suggests that American decisions should be made without consideration for Israel, and he argues that those who take Israel's security into account when making decisions - at least those Jews who do - are somehow disloyal to the United States. (By the way, just so we're all clear here, I'm not arguing for or against the Iraq War now; I, for one, believe that the war has set back, among other things, Israel's security. I'm only talking about the rights of American Jews to participate in the formulation of American Middle East policy. Even stupid Jews.)
But let's come to the final issue, the question of ethnic "embarrassment." I find Joe a little bit unfathomable on this question, actually. I tend to be unembarrassed by the actions of other Jews. I don't feel that the idiocy or immorality of other Jews reflects negatively on me, just as the great achievements of other Jews don't really redound to my credit. I have a visceral distaste for cringing (this is the Zionist in me, I guess), because it's a very unflattering, very ghetto sort of Jewish behavior. It seems as if people like Joe, whose anger at a handful of Jews for advocating the Iraq War is so outsized (he seems to spend more energy attacking neo-conservative Jews than he does the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) are saying to the rest of the world, "Those Jews over there, the ones you don't like? Well, I don't like them either! In fact, I like them less than you like them! So just remember, I'm not them."
But here's the thing: The czar is dead. A little Jewish self-confidence wouldn't be a bad, or inappropriate, thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 3, 2008 12:50 PM
Back in the Real World, of Real Horrors
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A gruesome discovery on a beach in Yemen.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Nov 3, 2008 6:19 AM
Jerry Nadler Won't Be Serving in the Obama White House
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My goombah Jake Tapper sends word of this strange Nadler performance in Florida. If Nadler keeps making gaffes like this one -- and I don't necessarily mean "gaffe" in the full Kinsleyan sense of something that is obviously true but not meant to be spoken aloud -- he'll find himself under a gag order from the entire New York delegation.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 31, 2008 12:35 PM
Aish HaTorah: Extremist, and Sexist to Boot
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I posted earlier this week about the fundamentalist group Aish HaTorah's involvement in the distribution of "Obsession," the DVD mailed to swing voters that is meant to suggest that Barack Obama is some sort of Manchurian Muslim. I neglected to mention a whole set of other issues about Aish HaTorah, including and especially its pre-modern attitude toward women, pluralism and non-Jews. But Goldblog readers have filled the gap! Here's one such reader:
Please know how much I appreciate you exposing Aish for what it truly is. For a long time I have been trying to make the case to several women in my community, telling them Aish's extreme positions against Jewish pluralism and tolerance in addition to their extreme and dangerous political positions on Israel.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 31, 2008 12:35 PM
Steve Pearlstein, Major Dude
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pearlstein gives it to one of Glenn Greenwald's stalking horses.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 31, 2008 12:35 PM
Joe Klein Responds
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Joe has a long and interesting response to my earlier post, which I would like to respond to at length, but can't until Sunday or Monday because of my commitments to both Judaism -- the imminent arrival of Shabbat -- and paganism. I'll be dressing this Halloween as Rashid Khalidi. Or something even scarier: Michael Goldfarb. If I were to be true to either character, I would probably wind up giving myself a splitting headache.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 30, 2008 8:42 PM
The Anti-Semantic Joe Klein
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Joe Klein is defending Rashid Khalidi from charges of anti-Semitism, and I, for one, am fine with that, as I'll explain in a moment. What I'm not fine with -- what I can't actually believe -- is this line from Joe's blog:
I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous.
I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not about to accuse Joe of being an anti-Semite, but I will note that this the first time I've ever heard a Jewish person, or a non-anti-Semite, make this sort of malicious statement, one that perverts the universal meaning of a term in order to mock the phenomenon of Jew-hatred. "Jew-hatred" is actually my preferred term, because, as I'm sure Joe knows, "anti-Semitism" was a term invented by the avant-garde Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr, who was the founder, in 1879, of the League of Anti-Semites, which argued that Germans and Jews were locked in a death struggle for racial superiority. And we know where that ended.
Since Marr's time, of course, the term has evolved from a compliment to an insult, but its meaning has held steady all these years. As I said, the only people who insult Jews by denying the meaning of the term are, in my experience, anti-Semitic. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, told me in an interview once that his organization could not be anti-Semitic, because Arabs were the true Semites, while Jews were simply European impostors. This interview occurred at a time when Yassin's suicide bombers were systematically seeking out large groups of Jews in order to murder them for the crime of being Jewish. By Joe's dangerous new standard, the World War II-era Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, who was a Nazi fellow traveler and a frank advocate of total Jewish extermination, could not be called an anti-Semite because he was Arab. So, really, who's being fatuous?
I know that Joe derives great pleasure from criticizing Jewish supporters of the Iraq War -- the Wolfowitzes, Perles and Feiths --in specifically Jewish terms, while never seeming to use the Christianity of other supporters of the war, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and other such marginal figures, against them. I don't like the double-standard, but it's part of the rough and tumble. However, emptying the term "anti-Semitism" of its accepted meaning in order to score points against John McCain? That's simply too much.
But about Khalidi -- he's a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East history. But an anti-Semite? I don't think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me, that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to reach a compromise with it.
By the way, the term Rashid Khalidi uses, in speeches and in his books, to describe Jew-hatred? Anti-Semitism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 30, 2008 9:01 AM
The Wal-Mart Economy and the Destruction of America
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Reader Steve Jozik writes to bemoan the catastrophe that befell Martinsburg, West Virginia when Wal-Mart came to town:
I just stumbled across your article on the Martinsburg, West Virginia Wal-Mart and wanted to give you my perspective. I grew up in Martinsburg from when I was born in 1979 until I graduated high school in 1998. I now live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina and go back home a few times a year to visit friends and family. I never noticed if the Martinsburg Wal-Mart was much better or worse than any other Wal-Mart, but I tend to find them all somewhat depressing (I liken them to a poverty perpetual motion machine).
I do, however, have a different grudge against that Wal-Mart. The Martinsburg Mall (especially the Wal-Mart) killed downtown Martinsburg. A number of my friends either owned or had family who owned businesses on Queen Street or in the old outlet mall. All of those businesses have been closed since the mall was constructed. Wal-Mart caused all of those personable entrepreneurs to close shop and really changed Martinsburg from a unique town with a lot of character and history into another bland piece of suburbia. My home town lost a lot of its charm not long after Wal-Mart came to town. I still have a special place in my heart for my hometown and think the surrounding area is beautiful, but I am not sure if it is the kind of place where I would want to raise my kids. National corporations have taken over the entire town and left few niches to be filled by local entrepreneurs. I miss the small mom-and-pop specialty shops and being recognized when I stopped in. Martinsburg is too small of a town for me to feel so anonymous when I walk into a business. Wal-Mart has taken so much from Martinsburg, and all we got was some "Chinese-made breakable crap". Next time you go into that Wal-Mart, please thank them for sucking the soul out of my hometown.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 29, 2008 2:40 PM
What if the L.A. Times Suppressed a Cheney Tape?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Imagine -- and it doesn't take much imagining -- but imagine Dick Cheney showed up at a party for Ahmed Chalabi, and made a videotaped toast? Don't you think the L.A. Times would try like hell to get that video posted on its website? Of course it would, and it would be performing a valuable service for its readers.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 29, 2008 1:14 PM
Send Kip Hawley to Beijing!
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Where he can see what Fallows just saw.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 29, 2008 1:14 PM
What is the L.A. Times Hiding?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact, the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.
I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won't discuss in detail why it's keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper's "readers' representative," Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.
There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps -- this is just a thought here -- the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.
Like I said, just a thought.
UPDATE 4:50 P.M.: Welcome, Drudge readers. Except for the guy who just emailed to tell me that I have "even less honor" than John McCain. Whatever that means. Also, I'll take the opportunity to make clear something that I didn't make clear at all up above: The first move, one I hope the L.A. Times has already made, would be to press the source to agree to allow the video to be posted. This sort of pressure is brought to bear on sources all the time. One other point, to those of you who think I'm interested in seeing this innocent source burned: We're not dealing with a wallflower here. The source already leaked the video to the Los Angeles Times. One final thought: The L.A. Times could give us a hint why it agreed to the conditions set by the source. That would certainly help clear the air. And clearing the air is important here: I'm willing to bet that the video does not show Barack Obama wearing a keffiyah. But the anti-Obama conspiracists, who all seem to have my email address, believe it shows something nefarious. Trying to serve the truth here would be a good thing.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 29, 2008 1:14 PM
Hawley Principle Contest Finalist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The entries to our TSA contest are pouring in. This one is a bit outdated, but good. It comes from one Dan Snyder:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld today said that there had been, "absolutely no" violence in the unpopulated parts of Iraq. He went on to point out that, "outside of the large cities and smaller villages, Iraq is largely unpopulated."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 29, 2008 1:14 PM
The Chicago Way
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Eli Lake with a typically astute piece in the New Republic about the recent raid into Syria.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 28, 2008 2:05 PM
This McCain Scare-Ad Voiceover Sounds Suspiciously....Jewish
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Goldblog friend Marc Fisher asks if it is just him, or does the voice-over in this Obama-Is-Going-to-Destroy-Israel ad sound a just a wee bit micro-targeted?
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 28, 2008 2:05 PM
People who Watch "Mad Men" Are Muslim
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I think this is what Ta-Nehisi says. I just started watching the show; it's genius. Ta-Nehisi is the go-to guy, it seems, for all sorts of Mad Men analysis.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Keep the TSA Mail Coming
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Kip Hawley contestants are flooding my inbox. And, boy, is that uncomfortable, a flooded inbox. There are several decent over-the-counter medications that can stop the itch, however.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 28, 2008 4:50 AM
New Contest: Can You Out-Lame the TSA?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Last week, in response to my article about the idiocy of airport security, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Hawley, essentially conceded the main argument of my article, which was that America's aviation security system is not designed to catch smart terrorists, but stupid terrorists. Here's what Hawley wrote last week:
"Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don't forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk."
Not quite believable. And yet he really said it.
And so, a contest: How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?
To get you started, here's an example:
"FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said yesterday in a press conference that his agency is well-equipped to cope with the consequences of strong winds and heavy precipitation. `FEMA has been criticized for its performance during Hurricane Katrina, but I would like to point out that Katrina was a very big hurricane,' he said. 'Most storms, in fact, don't become hurricanes, and it is these storms that we will focus our efforts on.' Paulison went on to say that FEMA is also prepared to handle the after-effects of such moderate storms as minor flooding, downed tree branches, and missing cats."
So, go to it. E-mail your entries to Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com. The Goldblog reader who comes up with the funniest application of the Hawley Principle wins a subscription to the Atlantic. If the winner is already a subscriber, well, thank you very much for your support.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 27, 2008 10:30 AM
The Jewish Extremists Behind "Obsession"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I've only watched the 12-minute version of "Obsession," the film sent to more than 28 million people in various swing states, apparently by associates and partisans of the Jewish movement known as Aish HaTorah, or "Fire of the Torah," but it was enough for to understand that it is the work of hysterics. One of my favorite hysterics, the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, is featured prominently, pieces of the sky falling about her head as she rants about the End of Days.
Aish HaTorah denies any direct connection to the film, which is designed to make naive Americans believe that B-52s filled with radical jihadists are about to carpet-bomb their churches, and are only awaiting Barack Obama's ascension to launch the attack. But the manifold connections, as laid out in this article, among others, make it clear that high-level officials of Aish are up to their chins in this project. The most disreputable flack in New York, Ronn Torossian, who represents Aish, makes an appearance in this story, which was to be expected: Torossian last made the news when he employed sock-puppetry in defense of one of his many indefensible clients, Agriprocessors, Inc., the Luvavitch-owned kosher slaughterhouse that treats its employees nearly as badly as it treats its animals, which is saying something, because Agriprocessor slaughterers have been filmed ripping out the tracheas of living cattle.
But I digress. It's said of Ronn Torossian that he represents "right-wing" Israeli politicians, but this description does not do his clients justice. "Right-wing" is Bibi Netanyahu. Torossian represents the lunatic fringe. Several years ago, in one of my only encounters with him, he introduced me to Benny Elon, a rabbi and settler leader who was then Israel's tourism minister, and who, at various points in his career, has more or less advocated the ethnic cleansing of Israel of its Arab citizens. At one point, when Elon had gone to take a telephone call, Torossian and I started talking about Israel's right to reprisal for terrorist attacks. I was arguing in favor of some sort of proportionality (this was after Jenin, in which the Israeli army chose to root out terrorism block by block rather than bomb the city from the air) but Torossian interrupted: "I think we should kill a hundred Arabs or a thousand Arabs for every one Jew they kill." I was somewhat taken aback, of course, because this is a Nazi idea, rather than a Jewish idea. I asked him to explicate: "If someone from a town blows himself up and kills Jews, we should wipe out the town he's from, kill them all. The Israelis are suckers. They should have destroyed Jenin." He went on like this for some time. I would only note that Torossian, to the best of my knowledge, never volunteered for the Israeli army, so he seemed to me by definition a chickenhawk.
Torossian's attitude toward Arabs and toward the peace process are echoed in the approach of Aish HaTorah, which is just about the most fundamentalist movement in Judaism today. Its operatives flourish in the radical belt of Jewish settlements just south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, and their outposts across the world propagandize on behalf of a particularly sterile, sexist and revanchist brand of Judaism. Which is amusing, of course, because "Obsession" is meant to expose a particularly sterile, sexist and racist brand of Islam.
The tragedy of "Obsession" is not that it is wrong; the tragedy is that it takes a serious issue, and a serious threat -- that of Islamism -- and makes it into a cartoon. Its central argument is that the "Islamofascism" of today is not only the equivalent of Nazism, but worse than Nazism. This is quite a thing for a Jewish organization to argue. One of the featured speakers in "Obsession" is a self-described "former PLO terrorist" named Walid Shoebat, who argues on film that a "secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism is today."
This is lunacy, of course. Islamism isn't Nazism. It's bad enough without being labeled Nazism. Martin Gilbert, the biographer of Churchill, shows up in the film as well, and doesn't cover himself in glory: "History has an unfortunate habit of always repeating itself," he says. Always? Does this mean that the Arabs are right now constructing death camps for the Jewish citizens of Israel?
Just unbelievable, but the most unbelievable part of the "Obsession" campaign is its timing: What does this film have to do with Barack Obama? The film is meant to suggest that Obama will provide aid and comfort to Islamism, or is an Islamist himself. There is not one shred of proof on this planet that Barack Obama is anything other than an Israel-supporting Christian. Yes, he went to party with Rashid Khalidi. So did I. Does that make me a member of Hezbollah?
I actually have another idea for a film: I would call it "Obsession" as well, but it would be about the poor souls who believe that Obama is a radical Muslim, that Israel has a right to expel Arabs from its lands, and that America should declare war on all of Islam.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 27, 2008 7:22 AM
Iran's Nukes "Too Deep To Hit"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Mark Hosenball sezs so:
According to this official and other U.S. experts, Israel does not possess conventional weapons capable of knocking out the facilities. Breaking through the thick shell would require, at minimum, several bunker-buster bombs striking precisely the same spot. "These targets would be very hard to destroy," said former U.N. nuclear expert David Albright. Theoretically, Israel could do a lot more damage with a nuclear strike. But U.S. and other Western experts say there is no reason to believe the Israelis will abandon their policy against shooting first with nukes.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 27, 2008 7:22 AM
The Sarah Palin Wig
from Jeffrey Goldberg
On the one hand, most Jews, apart from Joe Lieberman, seem to hold Sarah Palin at some distance. On the other, you have this, in the Orthodox precincts of Brooklyn.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 24, 2008 12:02 PM
About Those Racist Jewish Voters....
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It appears as if most Jews will be voting for the Democrat, as they have have done since the beginning of time. Or certainly since Jimmy Carter ran in 1980. Put another way, no other white ethnic group will support Barack Obama at anywhere the level Jews will.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 24, 2008 8:59 AM
Hope for Henry
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Because of a technical glitch (namely, me), the following short film, about an incredibly brave kid named Henry Strongin Goldberg, fell off this blog last week. So I'm posting it again. Watch it. It's important. Henry, who died six years ago, at the age of seven, lives on in the work of his parents, Laurie Strongin and Allen Goldberg (who is not related to me except in the we're-all-brothers sense of related). Their Hope for Henry Foundation is dedicated to bettering the lives of seriously ill children. Our mutual friend, John Donvan, made this great film:
Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 24, 2008 8:59 AM
"The Sopranos in Reruns Will Bore You"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ross disagrees, rightly, though not vehemently enough for my taste. I just wasted two hours watching Vito Spatafore shop for antiques in New Hampshire, a subplot that ranks among the worst Sopranos' subplots, and it was still wildly entertaining.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 24, 2008 8:59 AM
Why, That's an Odd-Looking Gun
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Via Andrew, a challenge for the TSA.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 23, 2008 11:33 AM
A Witless Response from the TSA
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Kip Hawley, the TSA administrator, has responded to my article rather tepidly, I think. Read it for yourself, but this paragraph stood out for me:
Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don't forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.
Quite astonishing, actually, and something of an admission. As the article says, the entire system is designed to stop stupid terrorists. When it comes to smart terrorists, well, we're on our own.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 1:05 PM
The Israeli Fear of Neo-Conservatism
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From Shmuel Rosner, in our Jewcy dialogue on McCain, Obama and Israel:
In some ways, what they fear in Obama is the repetition of Bush the democracy-promoter. It's true that most Israelis think Bush was a friendly president, but readers should realise that very few of them really bought into the lets-democratize-the-region notion. Too realistic to believe, or too racist (Ariel Sharon famously said "after all, it is Arabs we are talking about here"), or too experienced -- Israelis liked the part of Bush that was supportive of security concerns, and vehement in fighting terror, but didn't as much appreciate his desire to transform the Mideast. Not that they don't want it -- they just don't think it's possible. Not now, not this way.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 11:10 AM
The Brisket King
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An invaluable essay by Andrew Gow on the continuing woes of my ever-dying people:
These three mainstream movements are in serious trouble--not merely demographically and generationally, but also ontologically, in terms of their self-understanding. Renewal and Reconstructionism seem to be making gains--for the same reasons as the main denominations are in trouble, probably. All three mainstream movements are entangled in struggles of self-definition and self-legitimation vis-à-vis the others, and all seem to be on the defensive rather than actively articulating a living and viable Judaism.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 11:10 AM
Giving Bush Credit Where Credit is Due
from Jeffrey Goldberg
He's changed Africa for the better.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 11:10 AM
Quote of the Day
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From an excellent column by Ruth Marcus in today's Post. I saw Ruth on Saturday morning, and she said she was heading out to a McCain rally in Virginia, and I said, "Sucker," although in fact I was the sucker because we were at our school's chaotic fall fair, and she had found a way to lam it, and thus avoid the inevitable Excedrin headache. And then she stumbles upon this gem of a human:
"I make over $250,000 a year, between my wife and I," Thomas Jacoby, a 62-year-old contractor, tells me in Woodbridge. "I don't want to share it with anybody."
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 9:34 AM
Another Terrorist Caught by TSA
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the mail:
After a non flying hiatus of 6 years, I took the plunge again in 2004. Since that time I have flown quite frequently. I am always detained either for a "random" alarm I trigger or for my baggage. Whereas I am stopped every time, the term "random" does not really apply to me. After reading your article in the current Atlantic, I now understand the profile I fit. I am a middle aged (59) white woman, with moderate arthritis, usually traveling alone to visit my family or attend a conference. I carry a small bag and tote bag filled with all the personal things a middle aged woman need for 2 or 3 days. I am stopped and searched because my profile is least threatening. I am not going to run away. I surely possess nothing other than hair gel and nail clippers (which have been confiscated) that are threatening. I am the perfect passenger to stop to ensure the safety of the TSA employees. I have even met the drug sniffing dogs, who knew I was not a threat, because I carry the scent of my own dogs. So, if you want to meet all the interesting airport people I have come to know, maybe you should travel with me.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 22, 2008 9:34 AM
Another Newsstand Sale!
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Someone allegedly named Corey Schlichter writes to say:
i will buy a copy of the november atlantic so that i can piss on your high school journalism.
Buy two! Double the urinary fun!
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 21, 2008 10:43 AM
Why The Candidates Should Stop Talking About Israel
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Shmuel Rosner and I go back and forth on this topic at Jewcy.
It should be noted that if the candidates actually stopped talking about Israel, Shmuel and I would be out of work. But whatever.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 20, 2008 10:07 AM
Mark Salter on the Press and John McCain
from Jeffrey Goldberg
There was an astonishing quotation in a recent New York Times story about John McCain from Robert Timberg, a biographer and admirer of McCain's. Timberg told the Times reporter David Kirkpatrick that, "Political campaigns have a way of distorting reality and turning political candidates into caricatures of themselves. In some ways that has happened to (McCain), and in some way he may have contributed to that." Mark Salter, the McCain aide who has co-written most of McCain's books, is quoted as calling Timberg's assertion "deeply offensive."
I called Salter to talk about the Timberg quotation, and the Times story - in which Kirkpatrick explores the literary influences on McCain's life (and on Salter's) and discusses the shaping of McCain's heroic image. We also talked about Salter's current view of the press: "I think the media is driven by a need to see this history happen," he said. "And I think they've rationalized it, they think they're on the level with McCain, that he's not the old McCain. But he is the old McCain. He just doesn't know what happened to the old press corps."
Here is an edited transcript of our conversation.
Jeffrey Goldberg: How are you doing?
Mark Salter: No more debate prep at least.
JG: What did you think of the Kirkpatrick story?
MS: I'm kind of pissed off about that. That and a few other things. I never even read For Whom the Bell Tolls. I had to read it for the second book (I wrote with McCain). I didn't pattern McCain's life on For Whom the Bell Tolls. It pissed me off. It's McCain's fucking story. Kirkpatrick was part of the New York Times story that can't be mentioned, but I've talked to him for every one of the biographical series. I just thought the idea that we had created a sort of new John McCain, a sort of hybrid of Robert Jordan and Marlon Brando, because McCain's favorite movie is "Viva Zapata," was not fair to McCain.
JG: What specifically bothered you about the Timberg statement?
MS: Kirkpatrick never mentioned Timberg to me. I was responding to a question along the lines of, "What do you say to people who say McCain's exploiting his P.O.W. experience?" That's what I said was deeply offensive.
JG: Is Timberg wrong to say that McCain has become a caricature, that the campaign has brought out bad qualities in him?
MS: I have not talked to Timberg. And right now all I've got is the quote and Kirkpatrick's story. I would like to know what the question was, the exact quote, before I have any comment on what Bob said. I think the world of Bob.
JG: What do you think of the assertion that McCain is exploiting his P.O.W. experiences?
MS: I find that very offensive. Barack Obama gets to tell his story why? Because it's more potent?
JG: How are you feeling about the press these days?
MS: Look, I think, starting with the Democratic primary, there has been a different standard for Obama than there has been for any candidate running against Barack Obama. And maybe this should have set off more warning bells with me. I think much of the media has a thumb on the scale for Obama. I think the thumb has been there the entire time. There are many honorable exceptions, I don't mean to tar everybody, but I think there's one standard for us, and one standard for Obama. He has run more negative ads than McCain has run ads. They run from the quite misleading to the blatantly untrue.
JG: Do you think the Palin pick turned off people like me who care about foreign policy and felt that the pick undermined his credibility on the issue?
MS: I'll take your word for it that that's how it affected you. I think the press has been harsh consistently.
JG: What is your argument to people who believe Palin doesn't have any experience in defense and foreign policy? What do you say to people who say, "Mark, look, it's not there? If, God forbid, she had to step in, she doesn't know anything."
MS: Does she have vast foreign policy experience? No. No, she does not have vast foreign policy experience. What appealed to McCain about her was, you know, everybody was talking about a change election. Every challenger who ever has run a race has run on a change platform. Everybody essentially runs as a reformer. When you're a guy like McCain who really has fought for reform, he found enormously appealing a woman who ran as a change agent and then fought to be one in office. If it was going to be a foreign policy pick, then it would be somebody else, I guess, but it wasn't. And she learns quickly. She learns quickly.
JG: So what is it that David Brooks and David Frum and others are missing about her?
MS: I get what their reservations are, but you're missing that here's a woman who ran as a reformer, who got there and took on the oil companies and immediately took on the entrenched Republican power structure and then kept up the fight. In McCain's mind the biggest sin is to run as one thing and then be another. You incur an obligation, just like when you go to war, the worst thing is to not accept responsibility for the deaths that you are responsible for.
JG: But there are questions about her reform reputation. What about the so-called bridge to nowhere?
MS: To say that she didn't kill it is just false. She made a decision not to spend money on that bridge. She did it. She has cut spending, she has reduced earmarks. She's tough, she's tough. She took a lot of body blows, a lot of crap. Your blogging colleague over there seems to have lost his fucking mind, you know. Prior to Sarah Palin, he was accusing me of being a plagiarist, the whole Solzhenitsyn thing, the cross in the sand, and then it turned out that Sozhenitsyn didn't write such a story. I mean, Jesus Christ, it's just remarkable. This whole story about how the baby isn't hers? Jesus Christ. Just crazy shit.
JG: Do you agree with Bill Kristol when he said that McCain should open up to the press in the final weeks?
MS: So we can get stories that McCain is answering questions that aren't of interest to the voters?
JG: We've talked in the past about narratives, and what narrative the press is looking for with McCain --
MS: Look, Obama is blaming the "deregulators," George Bush and John McCain, for creating this whole mess, when everyone knows how this mess got started: people pushing sub-prime loans on people who can't afford to pay them back. That's how it got started. Which party is more culpable for that phenomenon? The Democrats! The Democrats are. We say, if you want to pin political blame pin it on the Democrats for the Community Reinvestment Act and all the things they did protecting Fannie and Freddie, a position Barack Obama wholly shared. But what do we get in the media? That Rick Davis lobbied for Fannie Mae. We get no competing narrative.
JG: Do you think your guy still has a shot?
MS: Yes I do. You know, we got hit with an unprecedented financial crisis that turned an extremely challenging environment into an extraordinarily extremely challenging environment, and I get it, but I see persuadables left, I see soft support for Obama, I see reservations about his readiness.
JG: Do you think your campaign has been too negative, like a lot of people think?
MS: The other guy is much more negative, by some almost immeasurable factor. His message on McCain has been consistently negative since the North Carolina primary. Barack Obama has not made a public statement in this country which did not include a full-throated attack on McCain. It's just a fact. They have ads saying McCain opposed stem cell research. McCain voted for stem-cell research as he got ready to run for President. He offered, against the consensus advice of his staff, the immigration bill. Obama runs an ad saying, "He's turned his back on you." For three weeks Obama has walked around this country calling McCain a liar, dishonorable, and erratic. Those are character-based attacks that he has been leveling at us for weeks and weeks and not a single reporter has called him on it. It's just insane. McCain won't even use Rev. Wright, out of an abundance of caution. So he raises the next guy, Bill Ayers, and you know what we get? We get called racist. How is that racist? You got me.
JG: Does McCain hold Obama in contempt?
MS: No, that's absolutely false.
JG: Does he respect him?
MS: There are things he respects about Obama. He recognizes his gifts, and we said in the convention speech that he recognizes the symbolic importance. This has a real impact on our culture, his winning the nomination. McCain understands that. It demonstrates that the country has moved to a better place.
JG: What do you say to people who say, "The McCain I like I haven't seen in two or three months, and I hope he comes back to us."
MS: That's the McCain who's running in this race. You just don't report what you see. It's the whole thing about our rallies. Ninety-nine percent of our rallies, if there's a disruption, if there's something ugly shouted, they're Obama supporters.
JG: Are Sarah Palin rallies are different?
MS: I haven't been at them so I don't know. Her rallies are bigger than ours, so it increases the possibility that you get a few more nuts.
JG: Looking back, do you think there was something false about your salad days with the press?
MS: No, I'm trying not to draw general lessons about the press or us or the meaning of life out of all of this. Otherwise I'd despair. I think the media is driven by a need to see this history happen. And I think they've rationalized it, they think they're on the level with McCain, that he's not the old McCain. But he is the old McCain. He just doesn't know what happened to the old press corps. They rationalize a reason to go get him. Every Obama attack they carry. Every McCain criticism of Obama they rush to blunt even before Obama does.
JG: Putting aside Palin, is one of the problems you're facing the fact that there's no foreign policy discussion right now?
MS: Iraq was supposed to be the issue of the campaign. We assumed it was our biggest challenge. Funny how things work.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 20, 2008 7:04 AM
Germans Love A Good Parade
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Including parades in Teheran that threaten the existence of Israel, apparently. And I thought the Germans learned a lesson after they were busted for selling chemical weapons components to Saddam. And the Holocaust. I thought the Holocaust taught them a lesson as well.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 20, 2008 7:04 AM
Fallows on Airport Security
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An interesting observation from China. "Security theater" is a universal plague, apparently.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 20, 2008 7:04 AM
The Age of Pelosi
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My friend Larry Gellman has sensible thoughts on McCain's descent and Pelosi's rise.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 20, 2008 7:04 AM
Brownie Likes the TSA piece
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Does this mean I have to disavow it?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 17, 2008 12:02 PM
Another TSA screw-up
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The TSA apparently hasn't retrieved the passes and uniforms of former employees -- and there are a lot of former employees, given the agency's high turnover rate -- for years. Not that it matters, because a terrorist doesn't need a TSA uniform to talk his way through airport security.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 17, 2008 12:02 PM
Message from a Fallen Hero
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Just a reminder, amid all the bullshit, of the real world, in which American soldiers are facing down barbarians. This is from a blog entry written by Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato, who was killed earlier this week in Afghanistan. The whole entry can be found here.
I am a proud American. i believe that my country allows me to live my life more or less however i want to, and believe me, i have seen what the alternative of that looks like. i also believe that our big scary government does way more than it has to to help complete [expletive deleted]-ups get back on their feet, a stark comparison to places where leaders just line their own pockets with gold while allowing the people who gave them their power and privilage to starve. I have chosen my corner. I back my country, and am proud to defend it against aggressors.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 17, 2008 8:56 AM
John Ryan, Arch-Terrorist
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A reader named John Ryan writes in about my TSA piece:
As somone who IS on the no-fly list with the name John Ryan (sounds Muslim, doesn't it?) who:
-can't do advanced check-in online
-can't use a check-in kiosk at the airport
-gets held up at the check-in counter while they check my name
-gets detained by US Immigration from time to time (most recently, this week)
-can't get off the no-fly list
...I thoroughly enjoyed your article.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Hamas Explains Why My AIG Stock Tanked
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ismail Haniya explain all. It's about "usurers," you see.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 16, 2008 2:31 PM
The TSA Follies
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My new article, in the all-new Atlantic, is now up. In it, I try to get arrested at various American airports.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 16, 2008 2:31 PM
Wehner on Obama
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pete thinks Obama won last night's debate by a wide margin.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 16, 2008 8:30 AM
AIG's CEO to Shareholders: Later, Suckers!
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I get home yesterday and there's a letter to me from AIG. Several years ago, I bought 100 shares of AIG for my retirement account; I paid $36 a share, I think. In any case, a share is now, as I write, worth $2.27. A little bit less, in other words. If I sold my shares today, I could buy quite a bit of gas with the proceeds, so I suppose it's not all bad. Nevertheless, I've been substantially pissed off at this particular company. And that was before I opened the letter. It was from Edward M. Liddy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "To our shareholders," he began:
"On September 23, 2008, American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") announced that it had signed a definitive agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for a two-year, $85 billion revolving credit facility," he writes. "Under the agreement, AIG will issue a new series of Convertible Participating Serial Preferred Stock to a trust that will hold the Preferred Stock for the benefit of the United States Treasury. The Preferred Stock will be convertible into Common Stock of AIG following a special shareholders meeting to amend AIG's restated certificate of incorporation."
And so on: A couple of more blathery paragraphs, all leading to the news -- surprise -- that the shareholders have no say whatsoever in the decision-making of the company (this includes, I take it, the choosing of junket destinations). Mr. Liddy closes by announcing that "the Preferred Stock will be issued when AIG has received all material approvals of governmental authorities required for the issuance and no earlier than ten days after the date of mailing of this notice to AIG shareholders."
He then signs the letter, "Very truly yours, Edward M. Liddy."
Very truly yours. He's not merely truly mine, he's very truly mine. This, of course, is very nice, Mr. Liddy. But you know what would be even nicer? If you apologized on behalf of AIG for losing my money. How about, "Dear Shareholder, on behalf of everyone here at AIG who screwed up so massively that our share price was driven down pretty much to zero, we're very sorry. We'll try to do better next time. And thanks for the tax-funded bail-out, by the way."
How about that, Mr. Liddy? You schmuck.
.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 16, 2008 8:30 AM
How I Know Obama Is Going to Win
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Over the weekend we were out at the Big Lots in Martinsburg, West Virginia, buying decorations for our sukkah (Christmas tree decorations which we convert to Judaism at the check-out counter, actually) and I noticed in the parking lot not one but two Ford F-150 pick-up trucks with Obama bumper stickers. Ford F-150s! West Virginia! Ford F-150s have always been, for me, a leading indicator of Republicanism. They're the opposite of Subarus, in other words. In fact, when my Washington friends tell me they don't know a single person planning to vote for McCain, I ask them if they know anyone who owns an F-150. Now remember, the F-150 has been, for the past eighteen years or so, the number-one-selling vehicle in America. Of course, it doesn't sell so well in Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, and most people around me couldn't pick an F-150 out of a line-up.
But: Things are changing. Remember, of course, that West Virginia is in the McCain camp; it's where Hillary crushed Obama, and a place whose white residents sometimes have a difficult time acknowledging Obama's Christianity, among other things. So this was quite a revolutionary find, two F-150s in the same parking lot.
I realize that this doesn't qualify as a scientific survey, but I thought I'd pass it on anyway.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 15, 2008 2:15 PM
A Great Source for Obama-Related Paranoia
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A couple of people have forwarded me a column by an American-born Israeli writer named Naomi Ragen, who is described in her biography as "an iconoclast, an Orthodox woman, and a fiercely outspoken advocate for gender equality." Also, apparently, someone who traffics in slander. This is from a recent column, posted on the main pro-settler website:
The Presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician
in America, a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a
man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous
pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors - all of whom side with Israel's
Leftist enemies (including Israelis) as well as to anti-American,
anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same
people who brought down the American economy with their 'liberalism' in
money-lending, is just about a fait accompli.
Gevalt. Strong Muslim ties? A strong Muslim background? Numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors? You mean, like Dennis Ross, Mel Levine, Daniel Kurtzer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Robert Wexler, Dan Shapiro, and Rahm Friggin' Emanuel? Anti-American Israel-haters like that, you mean?
Enough already. These conspiracy-mongers remind me of these cretins dug up by Ta-Nehisi.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Ta-Nehisi on Jesse's Zionist Obsession
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi writes:
I have two problems with this. 1.) The "Zionist control" theory is a cop-out, a kind of "the Israelis made me do it!" defense. If you have a beef with American foreign policy over the past couple decades, take it to the people you elected and supported. 2.) Why is this dude speaking for Barack? How does he know what Obama's foreign policy priorities will be? Why can't he stop talking? I don't get this at all.
A "cop-out" is one way of looking at it. But it's also a cop-out to call it a cop-out. Scapegoating is another term.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 15, 2008 11:09 AM
David Frum Makes for Good Liberal TV
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I know I should be working, but this conservative crack-up business just fascinates. If you read National Review (the one that used to have Chris Buckley on staff), as I do, you'll see now that David Frum is being accused of sucking-up to liberals, or being a liberal himself, or something. Yes, the same David Frum who co-wrote "An End to Evil" with Richard Perle.
For what it's worth, I know David Frum (he credits -- blames? -- my writing for helping him come up with "Axis of Evil") and he ain't no liberal. He is, however, smart, and he knows, among other things, that having Sarah Palin anywhere near the levers of foreign-policy or defense power is a frigging disaster.
But listen to Ross: He knows everything.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 15, 2008 8:05 AM
Maureen Dowd to Tackle Jews, Arabs Next
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A great column from MoDo. I'm on Brooks' side on this one, in case you didn't know.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 15, 2008 8:05 AM
Jesse Jackson Hates Obama, and Not Just His Nuts
from Jeffrey Goldberg
If the New York Post account is accurate, and I'm trying to dig into it a bit, then Jesse Jackson has just disinvited himself from my Hannukah party, as well as, oh, the White House for the next four years. According to Amir Taheri, Jackson said, in France (!), that though he believes that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will remain strong, they'll lose clout in an Obama administration. "Obama is about change," Jackson reportedly said. Note the Ahmadinejad-style deployment of the word "Zionists," by the way.
Jackson once called Zionism a "poisonous weed" choking Judaism. He obviously hopes to play the role of poisonous weed in the Obama campaign, in which he has no role. For those readers who believe that this outburst suggests something true about the Obama campaign, please read this.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Barack Obama and Yitzhak Rabin
from Jeffrey Goldberg
In the months before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, he was the target of numerous vitriolic demonstrations, during which he was labeled a liar, a traitor, and a coddler of terrorists. Bibi Netanyahu, his opponent at the time, did little, or nothing, to tamp down the anger of the crowds. We know how that story ended. Those demonstrations, and the anger hurled at Rabin, created the climate for what might be considered the worst day in Israeli history, and one from which the country has not recovered.
John McCain did the right thing by calling out demonstrators and defending Barack Obama's decency last week. But we should see that continually. And Sen. McCain, how about instructing your running mate on the fundamentals of decency as well? I'm not suggesting something terrible is in the offing. But the anger of these crowds is a dangerous thing to democracy. Thank God, if nothing else, for the United States Secret Service.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 12, 2008 1:56 PM
Enough About Israel Already
from Jeffrey Goldberg
As someone who quite obviously likes to talk about Israel, and who thinks about Israel more than is healthy, or necessary, I am probably not one to criticize other people for talking about Israel too much. But, really, if neither presidential candidate, or vice-presidential candidate, mentioned Israel between now and the election, I wouldn't mind at all. Neither would Shmuel Rosner, who wrote in Slate this week:
Barely can a presidential debate go by without the mentioning of this tiny country in a distant region. Last week in the vice-presidential debate, Israel's name was mentioned 17 times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn't come up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan--the countries in which U.S. forces are fighting wars.
The goal of Zionism is normalcy, Jewish normalcy. This, of course, is an oxymoron, but we can still hope. The cause is not helped when presidential candidates, well-meaning though they might be, constantly invoke the existential dangers to Israel when arguing for a) getting out of Iraq; b) staying in Iraq; c) talking to Iran; or d) bombing Iran. Not everything is about Israel (I'm talking to you, Walt and/or Mearsheimer). America faces complicated challenges in the Middle East, only some of which involve Israel, and it would useful to hear this truth once in a while.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 10, 2008 6:12 AM
Sarah Palin: Fatal Cancer?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
David Brooks is taking some heat from doctrine-enforcement agents of the left and right for stating, in an interview with me at that famed redoubt of populism Le Cirque that Sarah Palin represents a "fatal cancer" for the Republican Party. Critics say that Brooks was far more blunt with me than he is in his column. At least one critic accuses him of dishonesty. It's quite the opposite, I think. David is one of the rare columnists today who wrestles with himself constantly, and who lets the public watch him change his mind. This makes him vulnerable, of course, to accusations that he is his own man. This, apparently, is a bad thing in Washington. So be it.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 8, 2008 3:28 PM
Dear Jews: Stop the Obama Paranoia
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I can't tell you how many e-mails I've received in the past two weeks that attempt to revive all of the absurd fears about Barack Obama, mainly of the sort that suggest he's a Manchurian Candidate who has been groomed his entire life by some Middle Eastern version of KAOS to seize the White House and immediately annihilate Israel. It's craziness of this sort:
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And of this sort:
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here?
I'm torn by my desire to destroy these ridiculous smears (Valerie Jarrett was born to American parents working in Iran!) and ignore them. When conspiracy-theorists direct their malevolent energies at Jews, I usually try to ignore the particulars of their arguments, simply to avoid crediting them in any way. So let me do the opposite: Instead of debunking, I'll bunk:
Barack Obama has called Israel America's strongest ally in the Middle East; he wants to stop Iran from getting the bomb; he is a stalwart enemy of Hamas and Hezbollah; he is the darling of Chicago Jewry; he is the protege of Sen. Dick Durbin, whose election was aided immeasurably by AIPAC; he himself is close to AIPAC; his advisers include Dennis Ross, Jim Steinberg and Richard Clarke; and on and on and on.
So, all you rumor-mongering, fever-headed Jewish conspiracists: Support McCain, if you want, and there are credible reasons for doing so, but stop smearing Obama in the face of overwhelming evidence that the man is a great friend of Jews and of Israel. After a point, it becomes obvious that what you fear is not Israel's destruction, but the presence of an African-American in the White House. And that's disgusting.
And on that note, to all my MOTs, have an easy fast. This blog most definitely does not roll on Yom Kippur.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 8, 2008 3:28 PM
I Need More of This Sort of Thing on My Blog
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So I went to the Daily Beast, because that's what you're supposed to do, at least for one or two days, and I found this piece of helpful advice from Padma Lakshmi:
I recommend trying organic essential oils at Neals Yard Remedies and mixing them to create your own fragrance. Commercial perfumes are someone else's version of what we should smell like, and I want to smell like no one else. I like the fact that I can change my scent to match my mood, season or even the place I am going to be that day.
A yawning gap in the World Wide Web has now been filled.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 8, 2008 7:09 AM
I've Seen the Apocalypse, and it Looks Like Hummus
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Friend of Goldblog Norman Winer points me to this disturbing news: Lebanon is declaring war on Israeli hummus. Rockets into the Galilee is one thing, but this is too much:
Lebanese businessmen are making a legal claim that would designate hummus as traditional to Lebanon. That would make it easier for them to sue to prevent companies in Israel and other nations from marketing the popular chickpea-and-olive-oil spread as their own.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 8, 2008 7:09 AM
I'm Still Betting on the Zimbabwean Dollar
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Loyal Atlantic reader Adrian Harsten points out a flaw in my personal financial management:
Jeffrey,
If your 401k is pegged to the Zimbabwean dollar and you're only up 12% this year, then you've got serious problems. Shouldn't it be up like 4000%?
I'm thinking we must have the same financial advisor.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 8, 2008 6:24 AM
Yom Kippur is More Important Than Politics
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Just thought I'd mention that.
Here are Rabbi David Wolpe's thoughts, which I agree with, except for the fasting bit:
What was the most difficult part of the binding of Isaac for Abraham? (Gen. Ch. 22) When the Kotzker Rebbe asked his students, they gave the expected answers: first hearing the command; walking with his son knowing what would happen; actually binding Isaac to the altar on Mt. Moriah. As Rabbi Simcha Weinberg pointed out to me, the Kotzker's answer was characteristically brilliant: The hardest part, he said, was coming down the mountain. Then Abraham understood that he had to live forever with the consequences of his choice.
The hardest part of Yom Kippur is not having to fast. The hardest part of Yom Kippur is six months later. Sitting in synagogue we examine our souls and make resolutions. Six months later we must live up to them or fail to realize our ideals. Not the choices themselves but their consequences are what truly test us and determine the quality of our lives.
Do we have moral stamina? Can we sustain the promises we make to God, to ourselves? These are the questions of the season; too often we believe that a test is passed and over. Abraham learned that in life a test is passed and begun. The days of awe are the top of the mountain but most of life is lived in the foothills. May the inspiration of the peak accompany us throughout the year.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 7, 2008 12:00 PM
The Difference Between Fake Homeland Security and Real Homeland Security
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From a fascinating article by Commander John Patch (Ret.), in the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine:
The Israeli Navy immediately challenges unidentified or uncooperative vessels with well-armed surface patrol craft. Any hint of a threat means armed aircraft accompany the patrol craft. Ships foolish enough to then ignore or evade the Israeli Navy can expect to be fired on and seized if they cross into the 12-nautical-mile limit. Simply put, the Israelis take maritime homeland defense (MHLD) very seriously, they are exceptionally proficient at it, and America can learn much from them.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 7, 2008 8:55 AM
Acute Financial Analysis from Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
You'll never guess who's to blame for the financial crisis.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 7, 2008 8:55 AM
Solid Advice from Megan
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Don't look at your 401(k), she says. Unless you're retiring in November, in which case you're no longer retiring in November anyway, so no reason to look.
I did, however, look. Unbelievably, I'm up 12 percent this year. The only bad news is that all my assets are pegged to the Zimbabwean dollar.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 7, 2008 5:54 AM
"Sit Down, Boy"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dana Milbank reports from a Palin rally where they didn't seem to like black people so much.
You betcha I don't know a lot of hockey moms, but the ones I do know aren't demagogues. Here's an idea: How about a press conference at which Sarah Palin can answer for her attempts to whip her followers into an anti-free speech frenzy?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 6, 2008 5:41 PM
Ta-Nehisi: McCain's "Jungle Law"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ta-Nehisi sez about my McCain piece:
One theme that rings out is just how much war is at the core of John McCain's being. I don't mean that as a slight--it just seems true. Jeff would probably disagree with this, but to my mind his reporting shows how much the literal fight has blinded McCain to the greater war...There is no sense here that one may have other reasons, short of cowardice, for wanting out of Iraq. But this is like being back on the block. Your man tells you that he got jumped by some cats from across the tracks, so you and him go to war. The beef lasts for months, and then you find out he never got jumped to begin with. But when you pull out, he calls you a chump.
I think Ta-Nehisi is on to something -- namely, the privileged place war has in McCain's toolbox -- though I think McCain does a poor job of explaining why "jungle law," as Ta-Nehisi calls it, actually applies here. There's no mercy for the weak in the Middle East; if America ducks out of Iraq in a way that makes it look like it is actually ducking out of Iraq, well, you won't want to be an American in the Middle East, believe me. Of course, if America stays in Iraq, you might also not want to be an American in the Middle East. More thoughts later; right now I'm busy picking up my 401(K) off the floor.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 6, 2008 7:30 AM
Best Bumper Sticker At Our Tony DC Private School So Far
from Jeffrey Goldberg
"Barack Obama: Time for Change," plastered on the bumper of a new Range Rover. Seen at drop-off Friday.
It must suck to drive a Range Rover.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 5, 2008 11:21 PM
Joe Biden: Not so Perspicacious, Actually
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jackson Diehl has Biden's number: "A good deal of what Biden said was exaggerated, distorted or simply false -- especially in his nominal area of expertise, foreign policy," Jackson sez.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 3, 2008 2:17 PM
Sarah Palin, Hockey Imam
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I was having a drink yesterday with E.J. Dionne and Todd Gitlin (I'm so liberal sometimes I actually scare myself) when E.J., who in another life probably wrote headlines for Joseph Pulitzer, suddenly, and apropos of nothing much, said of Sarah Palin, "She's a hockey imam!" This was, of course, pure genius. At first I was going to steal it, but we are in the intermediate days between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, so no stealing. I was left with a problem, however: What does it, in fact, mean? We couldn't figure that one out; she's a fundamentalist, and so are many imams? Hockey, of a sort, is big in Pakistan? She's a particularly judgmental hockey mom?
No matter. I'm reasonably sure Palin will say something, to the extent that she says anything, in the coming days that will fit the label.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 3, 2008 10:20 AM
The Weakness-Free Sarah Palin
from Jeffrey Goldberg
A centrist though leaning-to-ambivalently-hawkish friend writes:
Brooks, whom I usually love, is I think all wrong today. Palin didn't answer almost any question, but most important, did not answer the question about her weaknesses (Biden did) and did answer what would happen if McCain died -- she said she is a maverick. When someone attests to no weakness, and says that if her principal dies she'll do what she wants, my knuckles do whiten. I thought Biden was far, far better last night. But I cry in the wilderness.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 3, 2008 4:28 AM
Here's an Idea: How About a Palin Press Conference?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
I'm with Andrew on this one, particularly after watching the debate, in which Gwen Ifill, for whatever reason, chose against toughness. Palin seemed to have a head stuffed with answers, though not answers to the questions being asked. I understand the strategy here -- she argues that the MSM is irrelevant and evil in order to avoid press conferences. It's a ridiculous argument, of course; the McCain campaign's actual, internal argument against press conferences is simple: the candidate might melt under the pressure of rapid-fire questioning from people who won't back down (I'll be in the last row, preemptively yelling "Answer the question!" I'm pro-preemption, as you know). The only thing Palin proved is that she has a gift for memorization, and for reading note cards. Biden, on the other hand, seemed like an authentic leader. When he chooses not to blow hard, he's quite the senator.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 2, 2008 3:06 PM
A Question for He Who Runs at the Mouth
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Times op-ed page today has questions for Biden and Palin from Andrew as well as from yours truly. My question for Biden is there; my Palin question couldn't make it for space (damn print!) but here it is. I hope Gwen asks.
Governor Palin, recently you were asked to discuss the "Bush doctrine," and it seemed to many viewers that you were unacquainted with the term. Three weeks have elapsed since you were asked that question. Could you share with us now your philosophy of anticipatory self-defense? And a question concerning another aspect of the Bush doctrine: Would you argue for the holding of democratic elections in Egypt if the CIA told you that the Muslim Brotherhood might be in a position to win such an election?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Oct 2, 2008 7:08 AM
Sarah Palin Supporters Write the Most Interesting E-Mails
from Jeffrey Goldberg
One of the best responses so far to my Sarah Palin post comes from someone allegedly named Dennis Dean:
Did you even think about how your Palin diatribe is received around the world?
I doubt you feel shame about anything.
Your just another liberal trying to affect the outcome of the election by making
far-reaching untrue statements to sell yourself.
You may be making good money, but your really a pathetic looser.
Liberal? Me? A "looser," maybe, but liberal?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 29, 2008 6:51 PM
McCain Campaign: Sarah Palin Did Not Endorse Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Goldfarb of the McCain campaign writes in to say that I libeled Sarah Palin in my previous post:
Governor Palin did no such thing, and your title is nothing short of slander. Having read your work for some time I doubt that you believe Hamas qualifies as "those who seek democracy." That you would put those words in Governor Palin's mouth is libel.
Umm, Michael, the title was a joke, designed to make the point that Sarah Palin knows so little about the Middle East that she accidentally "endorsed" Hamas. It's hard to tell, of course, because her answer made no sense. As to Goldfarb's second point, I actually believe that Hamas does "seek democracy," but for its own ends. Unlike al Qaeda, Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations do participate in the political process, in order to take control of their countries. Whether they would give up power after losing a free and fair election is another question. I could go on, but it's time to sign off for a bit. As they say in the Beka'a Valley, L'Shana Tovah Tikatevu.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 29, 2008 8:47 AM
Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas
from Jeffrey Goldberg
How can it be that some people still pretend that Sarah Palin is suited for high office? This country has never seen someone so comprehensively unprepared for the vice presidency; Dan Quayle was Metternich by comparison. I've watched Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric three times, and my astonishment does not diminish. Her nonsensical answer about Russia has deservedly been highlighted, but let me focus on another question, this one concerning the export of democracy. Couric asked, "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."
The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day. Freshman congressmen know how to answer this question. Here's one possible Republican response:
"Yes, Katie, it's true that if you push for democracy, sometimes you get an outcome that you don't want. This happened in Gaza with Hamas, and I think the Bush Administration was as surprised as everyone else. So the lesson here is that you have be careful when you try to export democracy. But I still believe that, over the long-term, democracy is the best antidote to terrorism that we have. What we have to do, though, is know when to push, and know when not to push. And every day, we have to do the hard work of advocating for press freedom, and the rule of law, and for all those things that build a civil society."
See? Not that hard. Unless you don't:
a) Know what happened in Gaza;
b) Know where Gaza is;
c) Know who rules Gaza today;
d) Care.
I want to wait and see Palin on Thursday night in her debate with Joe Biden; perhaps her performance in the Couric interview was abnormally bad. But I have a terrible feeling that John McCain has placed this country - and, of lesser importance, his campaign - in an untenable position.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 29, 2008 6:28 AM
Tom Segev: Ignore Anti-Semites in Order to Make Peace
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Tom Segev, the post-Zionist Israeli author, has stringent standards for what makes a good Middle East book: Above all, it has to be helpful to the "peace process." Its truth, or falsehood, is not quite so important, Segev suggests in his review in yesterday's NYTBR of Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam, by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann. The Mufti in question, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a notorious anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, and his legacy can be seen today in pockets of Palestinian thought. The Mufti, Segev acknowledges, was a committed Nazi sympathizer: "In addition to meeting with Hitler, he sat down with Adolf Eichmann and sabotaged a plan to transfer Jewish children from Eastern Europe to Palestine."
This, Segev notes, "was wrong and shameful." Yes, quite. No matter, though: Excessive emphasis on the Mufti today may subvert peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis. "The suggestion that Israel's enemies are Nazis, or the Nazis' heirs, is apt to discourage any fair compromise with the Palestinians, and that is bad for Israel," Segev argues. This might be true, but it is also no reason to avoid unpleasant subjects. Segev compares the Mufti's behavior to that of Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister of Israel who was once a terrorist with the Stern Gang, and he criticizes the authors for neglecting to mention Jewish extremism in the time of the Mufti. I'm not sure why a book about pro-Nazi sympathies among certain Arabs need include this (and there are plenty of books about Jewish terrorism already). Let's say that Segev is right, though, on the historical merits. Nevertheless, wouldn't a reminder of Israel's "extremist" past undermine peace talks today? Or is it only Arab extremism that should be ignored?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 29, 2008 5:39 AM
No Goldbergs In Hockey
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Alert reader Kevin Stevens writes:
I was unable to find Jeffrey Goldbergs in the following fields, leaving them free for pioneering Jews to plant their flag.
Hockey
Curling
Electrical Contracting (though there is a electrical engineer in Boston named Jeff Goldberg)
Hip Hop
Disc Jockey
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 26, 2008 10:10 AM
Goldberg Answers All Your Mortgage Questions
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Not this Goldberg, however. I've gotten a couple of e-mails in recent days asking me for advice about mortgages and bankruptcy law, and it took a little while before I realized that they were meant to be directed to Jeffrey Goldberg, an attorney in Albuquerque. Perhaps, though, they were meant to be sent to Chicago lawyer Jeffrey Goldberg, though he practices mainly personal injury law. In New York, I would recommend as an attorney Jeffrey Goldberg. In San Antonio, please call Jeffrey Goldberg. He also services Corpus Christi, Laredo and Brownsville. If you need a trial lawyer in Los Angeles, might I suggest Jeffrey Goldberg?
By the way, this Jeffrey Goldberg: Definitely not me.
Jeffrey Goldbergs can also take care of your medical needs. If you happen to be in Suwanee, Georgia and need your thyroid removed, call Jeffrey Goldberg. If you're looking for an oral surgeon in or about Syosset, Long Island, try Jeffrey Goldberg. If your oral surgery has caused you to be depressed, Jeffrey Goldberg, Long Island psychiatrist, might be able to help. In Cleveland and giving birth? Give Jeffrey Goldberg a ring.
I have a strong feeling these are not the only Jeffrey Goldbergs in law and medicine. If you happen to know of any other Jeffrey Goldbergs, particularly anyone in a non-Jewish field (say, gastroenterology, or the violin) please send them my way. And on behalf of Jeffrey Goldbergs everywhere, Happy New Year.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 24, 2008 9:15 AM
News That Makes an Israeli Strike on Iran More Likely
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Russia forces the collapse of sanctions, Yossi Melman says.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 23, 2008 11:33 AM
What is the McCain Camp Hiding?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
If Sarah Palin becomes vice president, she will presumably have meetings with people who are scarier than Michael Cooper, the Times reporter who seems to have the misfortune of covering her today. I know Michael Cooper; he's a good reporter, but not very mean at all. So why would the McCain campaign want to keep him -- and other print reporters -- from watching Sarah Palin shake hands with Hamid Karzai, who is also, by the way, a very nice person? What will happen, God forbid, if Sarah Palin is forced into a position where she will have to meet someone who is not so nice? Such as, say, the prime minister of Spain?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 22, 2008 12:04 PM
The Steve Coll Interview: An al-Qaeda October Surprise?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
When you want cogent thinking about terrorism, you go to Steve Coll. Which is what I did this morning:
Jeffrey Goldberg: Do you think al-Qaeda is planning an "October surprise," an attack on an American target, here or overseas, in order to influence the election?
Steve Coll: AQ leaders, maybe because they spend a lot of time trapped and bored in safehouses, seem to be obsessed with calendars. They like anniversaries and they pay attention to elections abroad. So I'm sure they have the American election in mind. My last well-sourced conversation is a few weeks dated, but last I checked the US intel system was very quiet in terms of "chatter" or other indicators of any attack in the U.S. What seems more likely are more attacks against US-affiliated targets in the Pak-Afghan region, coupled with media tape releases, similar to Osama's election-eve video of 2004. They like to be heard at big moments in American politics, and this campaign is certainly such a moment.
JG: What do you think the next President's first Pakistan-related crisis will be? Will it be prompted by intelligence suggesting that Pakistan's nuclear program is no longer secure, or will it be the need to put ground troops into the tribal areas? Or something else entirely
SC: The big in-box item is going to be fixing Pak-Afghan strategy comprehensively. What to do about the tribal areas will be at the heart of that. Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs will present the next president with some sort of plan, but exactly what it will be, and how radical a departure from current policy it will represent, I'm not sure. More troops, more politics, more jobs for angry young tribal men - something along those lines.
JG: Would a "surge" in Afghanistan work? How many troops would it take to secure the country?
SC: I really don't know. US ground troops, as in Iraq, can at best buy time, create some breathing space to get a larger and more capable Afghan force fighting effectively. That effort so far has been hobbled by under-investment. It is not as constrained by sectarian problems as the Iraq project has been, but it isn't easy. The troop number question is embedded in the training-of-capable-Afghans question.
JG: Is Yemen drifting into the camp of America's adversaries?
SC: Yemen is such a strange country - I'm not sure that it will ever find its way into anybody's camp. Chew and discuss.
JG: I stopped staying at the Marriott in Islamabad several years ago, thinking it was a bomb-magnet. Had the thought occurred to you as well?
SC: I have a blog post going up on Pakistan today, in theory at least, which contains a little elegy for the Marriott nee Holiday Inn, my onetime home away from home. I cut down on staying there recently for the same reason, but nostalgia drew me back sometimes. I asked for rooms facing the back, figuring the truck bomb would arrive out front - as it happened, that wouldn't have done much good.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 22, 2008 12:04 PM
Holbrooke and Co. Lay Down Some Iran Markers
from Jeffrey Goldberg
From the Journal:
Tehran claims that it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy uses. These claims exceed the boundaries of credibility and science. Iran's enrichment program is far larger than reasonably necessary for an energy program. In past inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, U.N. inspectors found rare elements that only have utility in nuclear weapons and not in a peaceful nuclear energy program. Iran's persistent rejection of offers from outside energy suppliers or private bidders to supply it with nuclear fuel suggests it has a motive other than energy in developing its nuclear program. Tehran's continual refusal to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about this troublesome part of its nuclear program suggests that it has something to hide.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 22, 2008 9:25 AM
A Dissent on Scowcroft and Containment
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Tamara Wittes writes in to say that I misunderstand Brent Scowcroft when he argues that the Iraq invasion was avoidable because Saddam Hussein was sufficiently contained in 2003. It's a smart letter, though she doesn't contend with Parmenides' Fallacy, and she buttresses her argument by contending that Scowcroft's view is "an understanding shared (at the time and still today) by many in the foreign policy community." This is an excellent reason, of course, not to share such an understanding. Anyway, here's her argument (and to answer her final question, down below, "no, I'm not convinced"):
I think you may be misreading Scowcroft on Iraq; let me suggest an alternative way of understanding his view, an understanding shared (at the time and still today) by many in the foreign policy community. I don't think Scowcroft's opposition to invading Iraq in 2003 because "Saddam was contained" rested on any assumptions at all about what might happen in 2004 or 2005, but on a judgment of relative threats at the time - the threat presented by Saddam in 2003, and the threat presented by insufficient commitment of national resources to a global war on terrorism in 2003.
It was clear, as you said, that the sanctions were crumbling and the rest of the world wasn't interested in containment, but in normalizing relations with Iraq and doing business there. But Scowcroft's point, made by others at the time and since, is that there was no immediate urgency about invading Iraq. It might well have been inevitable by 2003 that at some point Saddam would get out of his "box" and we would have to decide whether to invade and depose him to resolve the threat he posed; but it was not (in the Scowcroftian view) necessary to do it then, on the heels of the Afghanistan invasion and at a time when we were heavily reliant on international cooperation in combating a worldwide terror network that, for all we knew, might be planning other massive attacks in short order. The alternative view argued that it was more important to devote sufficient troops to Afghanistan, to devote military, intelligence, and other resources to the Philippines and Indonesia, and Somalia and Sudan, and North Africa, and other places like that where radical jihadists had been finding refuge and had engaged in plotting and in attacks. Saddam, if he needed to be dealt with later, could be dealt with later.
So even if you are right that containment was dying, the timing of the invasion was a choice, and one Scowcroft disagreed with. Richard Haass, after he left the Bush State Department, made exactly this point.
The Administration felt, for its part, that the threat from Saddam was urgent, because in the post 9/11 environment they had heightened threat perceptions across the board, and viewed the risk of future WMD activity or transfers by Iraq as intolerable. That risk, in Scowcroft's eyes, was not necessarily nonexistent, but it was tolerable for a time, and his judgment was that the more urgent priority was fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates and putting into place the necessary framework to prevent future attacks. It was a judgment call on what to tackle when, and making judgment calls like that is what national security leaders do. The White House weighed the factors differently than Scowcroft did. I'm not convinced they were right - are you?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 22, 2008 7:44 AM
"Nothing Says You're Serious Like a Good Scoop"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Seth Lipsky's staff gets the man's big idea. It's almost the end of the month, and it seems that an insufficient number of billionaires has stepped up to save The New York Sun. Considering the approaching high holidays, I would argue that it would be a terrifically-timed mitzvah to invest in the Sun. What better way to get right with God than invest in a free press?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 22, 2008 7:44 AM
A Bin Laden October Surprise?
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Seems plausible, according to Eli Lake.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 19, 2008 8:47 AM
Todd Gitlin on McCain's Belief in War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Todd Gitlin, after reading my October piece, argues that John McCain is the very model of the unreconstructed Vietnam revisionist:
Like his father, John McCain thinks the Vietnam war should have been fought and could have been won. For its loss, on the strength of what he tells Goldberg, he blames--surprise!--the media and civilian authorities. (Here he resembles an earlier revisionist, John Rambo.) He blames Walter Cronkite for turning against the war. He seems to think that had it not been for Watergate, Nixon would have been free to use air power to stop the North Vietnamese takeover of South Vietnam.
I don't agree with Todd Gitlin too terribly often (though more often than some people might think), but I'm grateful he's paying attention to the actual life-and-death issues in this race -- preemption, preventative war, the future of terrorism, and so on -- rather than the nonsense that fills the Internets.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Why We Hate Us
from Jeffrey Goldberg
NPR's Dick Meyer, in his new book, Why We Hate Us, diagnoses the self-loathing, moral confusion and ennui that infect supersized America without hectoring and badgering us and without tiresome self-righteousness or smugness.
If that sounds like a blurb for the book, well, it is. In fact, it's mine, right there on the back cover. But I meant it, even though it's a blurb. Dick wrote a great book, rollicking, funny and crazy-making. An interview with Dick appears below. Full disclosure: Dick is a friend, and I gave his manuscript a charity read. Fuller disclosure: Dick and I are in the same poker group. Even fuller disclosure: Dick's a crappy poker player. Fullest disclosure: I'm much worse.
Jeffrey Goldberg: Explain, in the context of your book, why the presidential campaign is unfolding the way it is. And, are we right to hate ourselves over the way politics is conducted in this country?
Dick Meyer: I had a brief, shining moment of optimism that this campaign was headed in a direction we could hate less and even like. It's fading fast. It seems clear to me that both candidates are honest people. They are not phonies and, importantly, are able to communicate their authenticity as human beings through our absurd, distorted 24/7 media Cuisinart. Further, both candidates started out trying to capture the middle, which was how all American campaigns were run until the Nixon era. Finally, both Obama and McCain are temperamentally sideline, not mainstream, people; they have independent, even mischievous anti-establishment streaks that I admire in a world of fake goody-goodies.
So looked at from 30,000 feet, I thought the selection of Obama and McCain, men of character, expressed a "hidden hand" desire of voters to put down the polarized and plastic politics we rightly hate. Maybe the winner will be able to govern well; that would be an outcome of consequence. But at this point both campaigns are tawdry and misleading, both platforms are the worst of their parties hackneyed, predictable old groupthink and the media coverage has bulimic and obnoxious. Are we right to hate all that? Of course.
JG: An oversimplified question, but an important one: Is television to blame for everything? I don't mean everything-everything - I don't think you can blame the atomization of community, which is one of your themes, on television - but, really, is television and the race to the bottom to blame?
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 16, 2008 10:37 AM
Jill Greenberg Dropped by Photo Agency
from Jeffrey Goldberg
The Vaughan Hannigan photo agency, which has represented the disgraced, excrement-obsessed photoshopper Jill Greenberg, has just dropped her from its client list. Bill Hannigan, who runs the agency, told me a few minutes ago that Greenberg and the agency had "different views on how to conduct business." He said he couldn't say anything more because he is "still sorting out some issues with Jill related to her contract."
Vaughan Hannigan has done the right thing, of course, and not only because it's best not to represent photographers who deceive their clients, but because the damage Greenberg has done to her fellow photographers is tremendous. For a discussion of that, please see Joerg Colberg's astute blog. The only good thing to come out of this ridiculous situation is that I've been introduced to several very interesting photography websites. There's a bright side to everything, I say.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 16, 2008 8:35 AM
Scowcroft, Saddam, and Parmenide's Fallacy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Steve Coll reports on his swanky new blog about a swanky dinner he attended at John Kerry's over-large Georgetown home, held to celebrate the publication of "America in the World," a book-length conversation between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, moderated by the Washington Post's David Ignatius. Steve describes as "remarkably lucid and useful" an exchange between Scowcroft and Ignatius on Scowcroft's opposition to the Iraq invasion. Scowcroft told Ignatius that he opposed the war for many reasons, including this one:
"Saddam, in fact, was quite well contained. And we had a big problem following 9/11 in dealing with this greater threat of terrorism."
It is an open question, however, whether Saddam was in fact "contained." The sanctions regime was crumbling; the world was tired of keeping Saddam in a box. And as John Kerry himself said in October of 2002, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it."
But let's assume it was true that Saddam was actually contained in early 2003. Does this mean that he would have remained contained in 2004? Here, Scowcroft falls victim to Parmenide's Fallacy, which occurs when a policymaker considers the merits of a particular proposal by judging it against its current context, rather than by what might occur in the future if the proposal isn't acted upon. In the words of Phillip Bobbitt, "indefinitely extending the present is never a realistic option." Just because Saddam was contained in 2003 (assuming he was) has no bearing on whether he would have been contained in 2004 or 2005.
I'm not arguing for the Iraq War, by the way. When I do that, I'll let you know. I'm just arguing against easy answers, and amnesia.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 16, 2008 6:33 AM
The Specific Danger of Sarah Palin
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Bradley Burston, as usual, gets to the heart of the Sarah Palin problem. Israel provides a useful contrast, he writes. It is impossible to imagine the Israeli public supporting a politician for a top leadership position who quite obviously, and without apology, knows virtually nothing about defense or foreign policy:
Israel is far from a model of good government, wise policymaking and exemplary leaders. But here, at least, voters and the politicians... relate to politics not as if it were a spectacular bowl game or a reality show, but for what politics really is, in America and Israel both: a matter of life and death.
As Burston suggests, it's almost enough to restore your faith in Israeli politics. Almost.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 15, 2008 11:51 AM
A Bit of Good News on the Jill Greenberg Front
from Jeffrey Goldberg
At least she's not going to be paid for her dishonorable behavior. There's nothing like stopping a check to send a message.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 14, 2008 3:05 PM
About that McCain Photo
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Like others at the Atlantic, I was appalled to read about the actions of Jill Greenberg, the freelance photographer who took the cover portrait that illustrates my article about John McCain. Greenberg doctored photographs of McCain she took during her Atlantic-arranged shoot, which took place last month in Las Vegas. She has posted these doctored photographs on her website, which you can go find yourself, if you must. Suffice it to say that her "art" is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession. Here is a partial account, from the New York Post, of what she did, and of the Atlantic's reaction to what she did:
"Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor - turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.
Asking McCain to 'please come over here' for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.
The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.
'He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. 'I guess they're not very sophisticated,' she said.
The Atlantic opted not to use the distorted McCain shot on its cover, selecting instead a more straightforward portrait. 'We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. 'We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture.'
But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way.
'We feel totally blind-sided,' he said. 'Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional.'
Greenberg later decided to use some of the images she was assigned to take to make a political statement.
Her Web site now features a series of Photoshopped pics of McCain in some highly unflattering poses - including one that has a monkey squirting dung onto the Republican candidate's head. Another one reads 'I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer,' with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips."
I don't know Greenberg (I count this as a blessing) and I can add nothing to what James Bennet told the Post except to say that Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism. Every so often, journalists become deranged at the sight of certain candidates, and lose their bearings. Why, this has even happened in the case of John McCain once or twice. What I find truly astonishing is the blithe way in which she has tried to hurt this magazine.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 13, 2008 11:49 AM
NY Times Ignores Douthat, Publishes Bad Porn Writing
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Jack Shafer tells us that the Times reporter Alexei Barrionuevo has difficulty not copying other people's writing. But I think he should actually engage in plagiarism, at least when he's trying to write soft-core porn:
At the Bar Urbano disco, boys and girls ages 14 to 18 are stripping off their shirts, revealing bras, tattoos and nipple rings. The place is a tangle of lips and tongues and hands, all groping and exploring. About 800 teenagers sway and bounce to lyrics imploring them to "Poncea! Poncea!": make out with as many people as they can.
"A tangle of lips and tongues and hands, all groping and exploring"? From the foreign desk of The New York Times? I'll grant that this is an important story -- how could a story about the sexual mores of Chilean teenagers not be? -- but if you're going to publish stories about an outbreak of horniness in Latin America, at least consult Penthouse on how to make the writing non-humiliatingly bad.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 11, 2008 8:31 AM
Why McCain's Campaign Peddles Nonsense
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Like many people who have covered John McCain, I think of him as a deeply serious man, preoccupied with America's defense and its position in the world. So I've been confused for the past few days, trying to figure out why he's allowing his campaign to make a circus of this election, leveling unserious and dishonest accusations about Barack Obama's positions on sex education and Sarah Palin. Then it came to me: The answer can be found in my new Atlantic cover story! (How's that for Washington-based solipsism?) The story grapples with John McCain's philosophy of war, and in particular with the doctrine of preemption, which McCain still endorses. So do I, in certain cases, but that's not the point. The point is that McCain knows that preemption isn't the easiest sell these days: "It's very hard to run for president on this idea right now," he told me.
So, what do you do when one of your core ideas is out of sync with the predispositions of the American public? You spend your days talking about lipstick on pigs. This might win him the election, but I'd rather see him debate preemption.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 11, 2008 8:31 AM
The Sarah Palin Reality Show
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Marc Fisher went to the Palin-McCain rally in Virginia yesterday, and came away with this observation:
In this hyperdemocratized society, the national conviction that anyone can succeed is morphing into a belief that experience and knowledge may almost be disqualifying credentials.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 10, 2008 7:36 AM
McCain on the Usefulness of War
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Ambinder, clever reporter that he is, noticed before I did that my latest article on McCain is now posted on this here website.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 9, 2008 6:56 AM
McCain and Obama on Nuclear Terror
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My op-ed in the Times.
Money quote:
Oh, forget it, just read the thing.
If you don't mind, that is.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 5, 2008 2:17 PM
Maira Kalman's Tel Aviv
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It's a joyful city, and Maira Kalman and Nextbook capture it beautifully.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 4, 2008 9:00 AM
Explaining Michael Chabon's Spanish Inquisition Reference
from Jeffrey Goldberg
For those of you who asked: Popout
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 4, 2008 7:20 AM
Bad News From the New York Sun
from Jeffrey Goldberg
My friend, and former boss, Seth Lipsky, reports some potentially catastrophic news today about his newspaper, The New York Sun. It seems as if the paper is running out of money, and will shut down at the end of the month if new investors aren't found. The Sun is a great newspaper, a bracing read, even when -- especially when -- you don't agree with its line. So come on, you conservative-leaning billionaires, it's time to pony up: You don't need more planes. Everyone has a plane already, anyway. What you need is a newspaper.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 4, 2008 7:20 AM
Wehner on Filkins on Iraqi Democracy
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Pete reads Dexter and says:
Filkins is right about what constitutes democracy. But Iraq actually has those things: elections, compromises between groups, newspapers and political parties, and more. He is correct that these things are in their infancy, and hence these achievements, while heartening and even unprecedented, are still fragile. And there are miles and miles to go before Iraq can be considered a strong, stable, flourishing society. But a young democracy is still a democracy. And while we cannot know the future, we can say with some confidence that Iraq is finally on the mend, something which was thought virtually impossible just 18 months ago.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Foxman On Jews for Jesus, Then and Now
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, a man who has done terrific and important work exposing anti-Semites over the years -- and no, Andrew, he doesn't criticize people as anti-Semites when they "sneeze into a bagel" -- told the JTA yesterday that "he didn't have much problem with Palin's pastor." Foxman explained, according to the JTA, that unlike Catholics, "evangelicals never promised to renounce proselytizing. For another, they don't have the same sort of history of violent persecution of Jewish non-believers. For one more, there's no evidence Palin knows or shares those views."
Eleven years ago, for a New York Times Magazine article on the insidious Jews for Jesus campaign organized by the Southern Baptist Convention, Foxman told me this: "'Christians have been trying to make us disappear as Jews for 2,000 years. Now they're trying a different method, which is for them to tell us that you can believe in Jesus and still be Jewish. It's baloney, of course."
I agree with the Foxman of 1997.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 3, 2008 1:52 PM
The Michael Chabon Interview: Special Sarah Palin Edition
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Michael Chabon is an expert on a great many things, especially hummus and Alaska. He seemed like the perfect person to turn to for a conversation about Sarah Palin:
Jeffrey Goldberg: Isn't it great that Michael Palin's sister is running for vice president?
Michael Chabon: Jeffrey, I fear it might actually be kind of sad that I had exactly the same thought when I first heard her name. At least we can safely assume, at this point, that Governor Palin fully appreciates the deep wisdom contained in that old axiom: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
JG: Is Sarah Palin Jewish? Her husband was in the Yiddish Policemen's Union. Or maybe the Steelworkers, I forget.
MC: It's unlikely and, I feel, sort of weird the way this Alaskan lady's fortunes have become caught up, and so quickly, with those of the Jews. An exhaustive search of press mentions on Lexis-Nexis reveals that, until very recently, "Alaska" and "Jews" had been included in the same sentence only 18 times, ever. I know I probably deserve some of the credit for this uptick, but I decline to accept it.
JG: What's your favorite Alaskan food?
MC: I know you want me to say moose. You probably also want me to point out that moose (properly slaughtered of course) is kosher. Same goes for reindeer. I have eaten both, in Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell. Reindeer sausage. Mooseburger. Also fiddlehead ferns and lingonberries. But I'm going to have to go with lox.
JG: Alaska. Crazy place, or what?
MC: It's crazy beautiful, that's for sure. I found it a dark place, and not just because it was literally dark much of time, during my second visit, in late winter. Also, I found it (the place, not the people) hostile, and not just in the sense that wilderness is generally said to be hostile. I kept thinking of that bit from Twin Peaks, where the sheriff says, "There is something very, very strange in these old woods. Call it what you want, a darkness, a presence." Almost everything humans have built there is unbelievably ugly. That might have something to do with the air of resentment given off by the underlying terrain.
JG: Do you think Barack Obama has placated whatever fears elderly Jews have of him?
MC: Huh, I don't know, can elderly Jews actually be placated? The Israeli government, as you know, has squandered billions of shekels to date on one ill-starred placation program after another, with results that have been uniformly disappointing, leading it to issue the famous finding: You just can't alter a kocker.
But if anyone can do it, Obama can.
JG: Do you think McCain was a) smart, or b) stupid, to pick Palin as his running mate?
MC: I think the answer is probably both more pathetic and more chutzpadich than either a) or b) would imply.
JG: Are any of your children named Bristol, Willow or Track?
MC: I was kind of excited when I thought Willow was a Buffy shout-out. Like, how cool, she named her kid after a Jewish lesbian witch! It was part of this weird, innocent spasm of credit-extending that I experienced on first seeing the Governor in action last Friday. But the moment was very short-lived, alas. I bet she doesn't even watch Buffy. The names are kind of awesome, in my opinion. But then I have a son named Ezekiel Napoleon Waldman Chabon.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Andrew is Right: Palin Has a Jewish Problem
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Andrew gets it: Where is the coverage of Sarah Palin's church? If Jeremiah Wright is fair game -- and he should be -- then what about this lunatic "Jews for Jesus" preacher and his vile sermon at Palin's church? I've been writing about Jews for Jesus for years; it is a Southern Baptist front organization that uses deception to convince Jews to convert to Christianity. It's a nasty outfit, and good church people know it's a nasty outfit. If a Jew converts to Christianity, well, have a nice day, but Christian churches shouldn't be part of a conversion-by-subterfuge campaign. You can't be Jewish and Christian at the same time, no matter what the snake-oil salesman David Brickner says. When it comes to the Jews, Christian churches should focus on repentance, not conversion.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 3, 2008 12:04 PM
A Retraction of "Retraction"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
It has been pointed out to me that The Jerusalem Post does not, in fact, retract its previous story about Joe Biden. What it does is run his denial, and acknowledge, in its story, that the "Army Radio report was unsourced and did not name any of the officials to whom Biden had purportedly spoken." The story goes on to assert that "Biden has a solid 36-year Senate record of pro-Israel leadership. He has called Israel 'the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East' and declared himself a Zionist in an interview with a US Jewish television channel last year, saying that 'you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.'"
It's not a retraction, but it is, in a way, an endorsement.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 3, 2008 6:26 AM
Israeli Press Retracts Biden Iran Smear
from Jeffrey Goldberg
So it turns out that Joe Biden did not, in fact, tell unnamed Israeli officials that "It's doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front." Israel Army Radio reported this last week, asserting that Biden told the Israelis to grow accustomed to a nuclear Iran, because that's what they were getting.
I know this will come as a surprise to long-time Israeli media watchers, but the Army Radio report was completely unsourced (before there was a blogosphere, there was Israeli journalism), which didn't stop Ha'aretz and The Jerusalem Post, among others, from reporting it as truth from Sinai. My obvious guess is that it was placed by someone on the right who believes that Barack Obama won't do what the Israelis believe they might have to do themselves, namely, bomb Iran.
Pinning this on Joe Biden, however, betrayed a complete lack of sophistication about American politics. Joe Biden is one of those politicians who feels Israel in his guts; he's been a stalwart friend to the country, and its prime ministers, since he came to the Senate. Biden is many things, a big mouth among them -- maybe this is why Jewish voters like him so much, actually -- but he can't be accused of unfriendliness to Israel, and he can't be accused of sanguinity in the face of Iran's threats against Israel.
In any case, when confronted with the Biden camp's flat-out denial, the Israeli papers have decided to, in essence, retract the story. Here's part of a statement from Biden's spokesman, David Wade: "This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel.... Senator Biden has consistently stated - publicly and privately -- that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran. As recently as July 2008 in a Foreign Relations hearing, Senator Biden reiterated his long-held view on this subject and stated that: 'Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening.'"
Here's the Jerusalem Post retraction. Whoever's peddling this ought to try for a softer target than Biden the next time.
,
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 2, 2008 9:41 AM
Dexter Filkins: The Progress in Iraq is Remarkable
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Dexter Filkins is the greatest war correspondent of my generation, and I would say this even if we weren't friends. We've reported together on occasion; Dexter knows better than anyone how to work your way into bad places, and work your way out again. He's also the author of a great new book, coming out imminently from Knopf, called "The Forever War." I e-mailed him some questions about his Times story today, and here are his answers:
Jeffrey Goldberg: In a review in the Times today, Michiko Kakutani quotes Farnaz Fassihi writing in 2004: "The genie of terrorism, chaos, and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes, and it can't be put back into a bottle." The question is, is the genie back in the bottle?
Dexter Filkins: Yes, it is, for now. The progress here is remarkable. I came back to Iraq after being away for nearly two years, and honestly, parts of it are difficult for me to recognize. The park out in front of the house where I live--on the Tigris River--was a dead, dying, spooky place. It's now filled with people--families with children, women walking alone, even at night. That was inconceivable in 2006. The Iraqis who are out there walking in the parks were making their own judgments that it is safe enough for them to go out for a walk. They're voting with their feet. It's a wonderful thing to see.
Having said that, it's pretty clear that the calm is very fragile. The calm is built on a series of arrangements that are not self-sustaining; indeed, some of which, like the Sunni Awakening, are showing signs of coming apart. So the genie is back in the bottle, but I'm not sure for how long.
JG: The most astonishing detail in your article today is your description of a parade through Ramadi, which included "American marines and soldiers wearing neither helmets nor body armor, nor carrying guns." You wrote, "The festive scene became an occasion for celebration by Iraqis and Americans, who at several moments wondered aloud in the sweltering heat how things had gone from so grim to so much better, so fast." How much of this can be credited to the surge in troops and the shift in tactics last year, and how much to the notion that Iraqis simply got tired of the killing?
DF: Astonishing indeed. I haven't seen Americans soldiers walking around Iraq without helmets since the summer of 2003, when the Americans, who were popular in southern Iraq for having taken down Saddam, used to do that.
What's happened in Anbar really doesn't have anything to do with the surge and, in fact, it is one of the main reasons why the surge has worked.
In Anbar, two things happened: Al Qaeda overreached and the Americans wised up. If you will recall, the Americans came into Iraq in 2003 in a very heavy-handed way, often sweeping up large groups of young males who had nothing to do with the insurgency. In a tribal society, where everyone is related to everyone else, the Americans dug themselves a very large hole.
Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, through sheer ruthlessness, became the dominant player in the insurgency. And while the guys from Al Qaeda were very good at killing Americans, a goal with which many Sunnis sympathized, they also wanted to kill Iraqi Shiites, who they consider apostates, and anyone associated with the Iraqi government. Ordinary Iraqis, it's now clear, didn't want to go along.
And the sheikhs in Anbar didn't go along. So when Al Qaeda started murdering the sheikhs, the sheikhs went to the Americans. The Americans, chastened by their earlier mistakes, grabbed the opportunity. They made a deal. They crushed Al Qaeda in Anbar. The result is the calm you see today.
The Sunni Awakening, which began in Anbar, spread rapidly to other Sunni areas of Iraq, and that took enormous pressure off the Americans and the Iraqi government as the surge kicked in.
JG: One tribal leader you quote, Hamid al-Hais, puts most of the blame for the chaos of the previous years on Paul Bremer's decision to disband the army. Do you agree?
DF: I don't know. I don't think there are any one-line explanations for any of this. But it's pretty clear that decision had a lot of bad consequences.
JG: Is the average Iraqi better off today than he was under Saddam? Or, put another way, is the average Iraqi who was not directly tied to the regime better off today than he was six years ago?
DF: Today is a moment in time. The calm is just a few months old. The Iraqis have been through an extraordinarily violent and traumatic five years. Many, many people suffered horrendously under Saddam. Ask me the question again in five years.
JG: Is Iraq a democracy?
DF: I don't think so. A democracy has many things: elections, compromise between groups, an atmosphere safe enough to discuss the issues of the day, and institutions that exist outside of government that are strong enough to allow all of the above to flourish--newspapers, political groups and the like. In Iraq, most of those things are in their infancy.
JG: How do you, as an American, feel walking through Baghdad today vs. two years ago?
DF: I'll answer with two snapshots from dusk. I went running in the park in front of the New York Times house the other day as the sun was going down and I felt no threat at all. People waved, people smiled. It felt very normal.
A couple of days later I went to Sadr City, also at dusk. Sadr City is a vast slum that takes in about three million people. It's the stronghold of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, and it's been the scene of heavy fighting, as recently as a few months ago. I was with some Iraqi friends. It felt perfectly normal. Then one of my Iraqi friends said to me, "What do you think would happen if you were alone?" And I said, "What?" And he and the other Iraqis laughed and said: "You'd be dead in ten seconds."
Let me just say: I left.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 2, 2008 7:33 AM
Pollak: "Standard Leftist Trope on Iran"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Noah Pollak takes on Hillel Levin's contention that McCain is bad for Israel:
All of this today is standard leftist trope material. The idea is that before the invasion in 2003, Iran and Iraq held each other in something akin to suspended animation, frozen in a historic standoff, is silly. For Iran's purposes, Iraq had been neutered by the Gulf War in 1991 and the imposition of no-fly zones and embargoes. Far more beneficial to Iran's ability to project power against Israel have been 1) the dramatic increase in Iran's oil revenues, and 2) Israel's withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza -- which, Levin surely knows, are exactly the two places where Israel faces Iranian-sponsored terrorism today.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 2, 2008 7:33 AM
Steve Coll's Got a Blog
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Welcome, Steve. All we need now is Jane; if she would start a blog, the entire New Yorker Washington bureau circa 2007 will have shifted to the Internets. Steve's got a piece up as well, on General Petraeus.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 1, 2008 2:53 PM
I Know This Isn't As Important as Bristol Palin's Pregnancy, But...
from Jeffrey Goldberg
Anbar province is now under the control of the Iraqi Army. From Amit Paley in the Washington Post:
The U.S. military on Monday handed the Iraqi government responsibility for security in Anbar province, the former stronghold of the Sunni insurgency that has now become one of the safest areas in country.
But, whatever. Maybe someone will unearth another Todd Palin DUI arrest from the 1980s and we can get back to real news.
Add starShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Sep 1, 2008 4:39 AM
"McCain: Bad for Israel"
from Jeffrey Goldberg
An interesting and challenging view of McCain (and Bush) from Hillel Levin:
I am a religious Zionist American Jew, deeply committed to the security of the State of Israel (where much of my immediate family resides). In my community it is not unusual to hear people express support for John McCain because of his Israel policies. Frankly, I'm puzzled. John McCain, like George W. Bush before him, is a disaster for Israel.
John McCain is not George W. Bush, but it is difficult to find much daylight between his views on Israel and Bush's. Indeed, McCain expressly promises to continue Bush's strong support for Israel. If we take him at his word, we should be quaking under our kippot (yarmulkes).
Israel today is in more peril than it was eight years ago. In fact, it is in more peril than it has been since at least the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and perhaps even since its War of Independence. So color me skeptical that Bush's policies have been "good for Israel," as the refrain in my community goes. It is unfair, of course, to assume that Israel's situation today is the result of Bush's policies merely because they have coincided with his terms in office. So let's not assume; let's look.
Israel's gravest external threat comes from Iran. The relevant question, then, is, has Iran become more dangerous to Israel because of Bush's policies, or in spite of Bush's policies? Plainly, the former. The war in Iraq has removed Iran's historic nemesis and counterbalance, strengthening its hand and ambitions in the region. The war has also demonstrated to Iran's leaders precisely why it is so important that Iran develop nuclear weaponry: America wouldn't dare attack Iran once it has attained nuclear capabilities. The mishandling of the war has also weakened America's hand in the region, removing any credible threat of a sustained American military engagement with Iran--Americans just won't stand for it. As a result, our words get louder and louder, but our stick gets smaller and smaller. And finally, Bush's refusal to engage with Israel's closer neighbor Syria--not a traditional ally of Iran's--has pushed Syria further into Iran orbit than it has ever been before, providing a land-bridge for the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Simply put, Bush's policies have emboldened and empowered Iran and improved its regional standing. Israel is left facing the consequences.
Meanwhile, Bush's policies have also strengthened Hamas. Recall that it was Bush who insisted, over then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strong objections, that Hamas participate in elections in Gaza and the West Bank. This was part of Bush's brilliant neocon-inspired plan to democratize the region. To state the obvious, that turned out badly for Israel too, and Hamas is now in control of Gaza and becoming a graver threat to Israel every day.
So why, exactly, do Israelis love Bush so much? Actually, it isn't that difficult to understand. From the perspective of an Israeli, Bush is a true friend. Israelis live in a tough neighborhood, surrounded by states and movements that expressly seek the destruction of Israel. And here we have President Bush, the leader of the strongest country in the world, declaring himself an unabashed ally of Israel. Indeed, there's no reason to question Bush's sincerity on this point: he really does care about Israel's security. So Israelis can be excused for putting aside the content and effects of his policies and for appreciating his steadfast rhetorical and personal support for Israel. (By the way, this explains the paradox of why Israelis love both Clinton and Bush, despite their radically different regional policies: for Israelis, it isn't about the policies.)
What is more difficult to understand, though, is why American Zionists, who follow American politics closely, insist that Bush has been good for Israel and that McCain's promise to continue Bush's policies is an argument in his favor. The evidence argues otherwise. We have no excuse for ignoring the disastrous consequences of this administration's policies in favor of the good intentions that have spawned them.
No comments:
Post a Comment