The New York Met’s performance of the opera has gotten numerous Jews and others in the pro-Israel camp all worked up and bent out of shape, even though almost all of those who are protesting the opera’s staging—on account of its putative justifying of terrorism and backhanded antisemtism—haven’t actually seen it. Adam Shatz did see a dress rehearsal of the opera at the Met last weekend, however, and, in a review posted on the LRB blog, has pronounced it to be very good, hardly antisemitic, and that in no way apologizes for terrorism. As far as I’m concerned, if Adam says it is so, that means it is so.
Archive for the ‘Israel-Palestine’ Category
It looks like I have a new series going here. I just came across a commentary by Philip Weiss, founder and co-editor of Mondoweiss—the go to site for the stateside Israel-bashing one-stater crowd—, explaining how “Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza — [the] same way she lost it in Iraq the last time.” Weiss asserts that Hillary’s pro-Israel pronouncements during the latest Gaza war—notably expressed in her recent “famous interview” with Jeffrey Goldberg—and her striving “to please neoconservatives” have put paid to her ambitions for 2016, as the liberal-left primary and caucus-voting Democratic party base will turn away from her on account of her rhetoric on Israel/Palestine (my emphasis) and support en bloc the candidate who runs to her left—and that it is a certainty that such a candidate will emerge and “exploit this sentiment [on Israel/Palestine] for political gain.” Weiss acknowledges that “he’s going out on a limb” with his prediction but he’s pretty sure of it, as he sees a sea change underway on the liberal-left side of American politics in regard to Israel, with younger, progressive, and disaffected ex-liberal Zionist voters increasingly rejecting the Democratic party’s uncritical pro-Israel stance and slavishness to AIPAC. And that this sea change will manifest itself in the ’16 election.
Weiss is, as we say over here, à côté de la plaque, i.e. he’s out to lunch. His understanding of American electoral politics is clearly deficient or/and he believes his gauchiste Israel/Palestine-obsessed Mondoweiss milieu to be more consequential in the Democratic party base than it is. Now it is incontestable that liberals—including Jews—have become more critical of Israel in recent years, which any liberal-lefty in the US can attest to (e.g. I am continually struck by the number of American Jewish friends who speak harshly of Israel these days, which they never did in the 1970s-80s or the post-Oslo 1990s). And these personal observations are supported by polling data, e.g. last year’s Gallup poll showing 24% of self-identified liberals sympathizing with the Palestinians over Israel, with 51% for Israel, i.e. a mere 2 to 1 ratio, which, in the US, is not bad for the Pals. With Israeli governments now indistinguishable from US Republicans—and Tea Party Repubs at that—, liberal/Jewish disaffection toward Israel is only normal. But the disaffection is toward the current Israeli government and its leading personalities—Netanyahu, Lieberman, Bennett et al—and Israeli policy, not toward the State of Israel itself—or to Zionism (as defined here). If the Likud and its far right allies were defeated in a general election and replaced by a center-left government—such as center-left is understood in Israel—, and there were a serious return to the “peace process,” a lot of the disaffection among liberal Jews would dissipate. But even if this doesn’t happen in the next election or two—and I’m not holding my breath—there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that American Jews outside Weiss’s New York-New Jersey gauchiste milieu will become one-staters and endorse Palestinian narratives.
Or that Israel/Palestine will drive voting behavior. Weiss is deluding himself if he thinks I/P will be an issue during the 2016 primary season and cause even a minuscule number of voters not to vote for Hillary should she run. Why on earth would Israel suddenly become a major issue in a Democratic presidential nomination race when it never has in the past (except maybe in New York state, and even then)? Except when American soldiers are fighting and dying in a war, foreign affairs never figure in American presidential primaries. As for a candidate to Hillary’s left, the only potential one who would have any credibility—at least as it looks today—is Elizabeth Warren, though who says she’s not running. But if Warren changes her mind and throws her hat in the ring, she will definitely attract a lot of support (including from me, BTW; pour l’info, I am a registered voter in Cook County, Illinois, and faithfully vote absentee in all national elections and primaries), but it will be for all sorts of reasons and policy stands, and that will have nothing to do with the Middle East. Unless Hillary tacks sharply left on domestic policy, she will definitely be vulnerable to an eventual Warren candidacy. Mais on n’en est pas là…
But if Warren does run, pro-Pal liberal-lefties are likely to be disappointed, as it is a certainty that her rhetoric will be decidedly pro-Israel, perhaps even as much so as Hillary’s. Warren is a politician and will not take positions that will cause her to lose more than she will gain. As I explained during the last Gaza war, there is a reason US congresspeople and presidential candidates are 100% pro-Israel—even more pro-Israel than Israelis are themselves—, which is because they have absolutely nothing to gain by being otherwise. And on this, they have nothing to worry about vis-à-vis public opinion, as the American public remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel (the numbers on this are clear; and if Democrats have become less pro-Israel, Republicans have become more so, the latter thus cancelling out the former). This may evolve in the future but one shouldn’t count on it, as with the Middle East going to hell in a handbasket—with ISIS, bloodbaths in Syria and Iraq, brutal dictatorship in Egypt, state collapse in Libya, unsympathetic socio-cultural-political orders in the Arabian peninsula, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et j’en passe—Israel will continue to look relatively good to most Americans. Désolée mais c’est comme ça.
UPDATE: M.J. Rosenberg, on his new blog (August 24th), explains “Why Democrats will never change their tune on Israel.” Money quote
Progressive Democrats are not single issue. If a candidate (think of former Congressman Barney Frank) is good on health care, jobs, GLBT issues, fracking, taxes, abortion, etc. but supports the slaughter in Gaza, progressives vote for him anyway.
That is why even Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown are down-the-line Netanyahu supporters. There is no downside in offending progressives but there is one in offending Israel Firsters.
Obviously. And, lo and behold, Philip Weiss has expressed disappointment with Elizabeth Warren in her Senate vote to give Israel an extra $225 million in military aid and for “mouth[ing] Israeli talking points” in a public meeting with constituents (August 28th). Hey, Phil, what did you expect?
Haaretz has a must read interview, dated August 13th, with historian and activist Zeev Sternhell. The lede: Israel Prize laureate and renowned scholar Zeev Sternhell fears the collapse of Israeli democracy, and compares the current atmosphere with that of 1940s’ France. The time we have left to reverse this frightening trend is running out, he warns…
Sternhell is, of course, a leading scholar of fascism but I don’t know if I go along with his contemporary use of the term; on this question, I follow my friend—and specialist of Italian fascism—Frank Adler, who argues that fascism was a historically specific phenomenon of the interwar period in Europe and doesn’t apply to any regime in the postwar era (and on this, see the recent blog post en français by historian André Robert in regard to the French Front National). But apart from these historial quibbles what Sternhell has to say is important. For those maxed out on their monthly Haaretz quota, here’s the whole piece (introduced by journalist Gidi Weitz and who conducted the interview)
At 1 A.M. on a day in September 2008, Prof. Zeev Sternhell opened the door of his home on Agnon Street in Jerusalem, intending to enter an inner courtyard. As he turned the handle, a thunderous explosion rocked the building. Sternhell, who a few months earlier had received the Israel Prize in political science, was lightly wounded by a bomb hidden in a potted plant.
A year later, the police apprehended the perpetrator of the attack: Yaakov (Jack) Teitel, a resident of a West Bank settlement. At one time, Teitel was an informer for the Jewish Department of the Shin Bet security service. In his interrogation, it turned out that his crimes included the murder of two Palestinians.
“I chose Sternhell as a target because he is held in high regard, he’s a left-wing professor,” Teitel told the interrogators. “I didn’t want to kill him, because that would turn him into a martyr. I wanted to make a statement.” Teitel was sentenced to two life terms. After the assault, Sternhell said in the hospital that “the act in itself reveals the fragility of Israeli democracy.”
I asked Sternhell now whether he thinks that very soon, we will no longer be able to claim that we are the only democracy in the Middle East.
“Indeed, we will no longer be able to say that,” he replied, adding, “There is no doubt that the main state authorities do not act with the same determination against the right and against the left, or on the eastern side of (more…)
I have been bombarded for the past several weeks, mainly via social media, by reports from Anglo-American and Israeli websites—each one more alarmist and hysterical than the other—of an apparent upsurge of antisemitism in France. As for the comments threads accompanying these, the France-bashing has been such that I can no longer look at them. To read the Francophobic Jews and right-wingers—mainly American though not only—on these threads, one would think another Rafle du Vél’ d’Hiv is imminent. I have much to say on this subject and will have a special post on it soon, but, in the meantime, need to say something right now about the latest brouhaha—that I naturally learned about via social media—, which is the letter sent two days ago by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the French Ministry of Interior expressing shock at the discovery of a rural locality in the Loiret, some 100 km south of Paris, called “La-Mort-aux-Juifs,” and requesting that the name be changed. The Wiesenthal Center letter expressed particular shock, moreover, that the existence of a place with such a name could go “unnoticed during seventy years since the liberation of France from the Nazis and Vichy.”
The reason why La-Mort-aux-Juifs went unnoticed all these years was precisely because practically no one had heard of it. The story is presently all over the French media, which is precisely where Frenchmen and women are learning that such a locality exists. A couple of things. First, La-Mort-aux-Juifs has been called a “village” or even “town” in English-language reports, which is inaccurate. It is a “lieu-dit”—which may be translated as “locality” (literally: said place)—, in the commune of Courtemaux (population 239)—itself a place practically no one outside the eastern Loiret has heard of. Communes are the smallest administrative units in France (of which there are some 36,681 in the 101 departments of metropolitan and overseas France, the majority with populations of under 500). Most communes have lieux-dits—which are sometimes indicated, sometimes not—, referring to a bit of the commune that had a specific identity in centuries past. As for La-Mort-aux-Juifs, it consists of two houses and a farm (above photo), is on a country road probably taken by no one except the few people who live around there, and is not indicated on any sign. In other words, even if one drove through the place, one would not know of the lieu-dit’s name.
Secondly, it is not even clear what the name of this lieu-dit is supposed to signify. As a piece in Marianne pointed out—and that I had been wondering about—La-Mort-aux-Juifs does not, in fact, translate as “death to the Jews.” Without the definite article “la” and the dashes—which are generally the rule in place names in France—, it would indeed mean this. But the definite article and dashes change the meaning, which is indeterminate but may simply indicate a place where Jews were killed—maybe even massacred—eight or nine centuries ago. For all one knows, the lieu-dit may have even been named this to commemorate such an event, to remember a tragedy…
As has been reported, the anti-racist association MRAP in fact learned of the existence of the lieu-dit in the early 1990s and sought (unsuccessfully) to have the name changed. Pour l’info, the MRAP is left-wing—it was a longtime front group of the Communist party and retains an affinity with it—and has organizationally participated in some of the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel demonstrations in French cities over the past month. Just sayin’.
Adam Shatz, LRB contributing editor and funny guy, has a very amusing parody on +972 of hand-wringing liberal Zionists, “‘Living with political depression in Tel Aviv is harder than dying in Gaza’.” As it happens, Max Blumenthal, who
is somewhat of a dumbfuck was fast on the draw, took Adam’s satire in the first degree—thinking that “Amos Yehoshua-Shavit” was an actual “Peace Now leader & top liberal Zionist author”—, i.e. he thought it was serious, as he tweeted seriously before quickly deleting (happily there are screen captures)
Or, I should ask, the people who edit Mondoweiss, plus the blogger Roland Nikles, whose post on Moshe Feiglin Mondoweiss published the other day (and that was uncritically posted on FB by a prominent MENA historian, which is where I saw it). Now I have no objection to anything Nikles has to say about the unspeakable Feiglin. On the S.O.B., we are in 100% agreement. What got me was this
Over the past month Israel bombed countless targets in Gaza, killed more than 1,800 Palestinians (mostly civilians), wounded in excess of 9,000, destroyed in excess of 10,000 homes, the strip’s only power plant, hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure, and lost 64 Israelis in the process (Haaretz’s tally). The onslaught lit up the sky to outer space.
The paragraph was followed by the above photo, followed in turn by this
If this bombardment speaks a language, it speaks the language of Moshe Feiglin.
The photo of the apparent bombardment was taken by German astronaut Alexander Gerst on July 23rd from the International Space Station. Gerst, who’d been tweeting numerous photos from outer space, had the above one and with this text (as Nikles does not explain or link to the tweet, here it is)
My saddest photo yet. From #ISS we can actually see explosions and rockets flying over #Gaza & #Israel
This wasn’t the first time I’d seen the pic, as various persons posted it in social media. So where are the explosions and flying rockets?
What I see in the photo is Israel (on a west-east axis), with Ashdod to Haifa in the upper right quadrant, Amman the lit up splotch on the bottom right, and El-Arish, Egypt, on the upper left. The streaking lines—what are apparently taken to be flying rockets—link Beersheba with Qiryat Gat (upper right) and Dimona (bottom left; I can’t say where the other little ones emanate to or from). I have no idea what these streaks are but they have nothing to do with Gaza and are definitely not rockets. And they certainly do not involve explosions (who knows, maybe they’re highways, all lit up like in Belgium).
In this outer space photo, Gaza city is the less lit up bit of what it geographically south of Ashqelon. Now I do happen to find this sad, but because so relatively little of the densely populated Gaza strip is lit up, not because it’s exploding or being hit by rockets, of which one sees none at all in the pic. Do people have any idea of what they’re looking at? Don’t they know their geography? Astronaut Gerst may be forgiven for his ignorance of this but the editors of Mondoweiss—who spend their waking hours obsessing about I-P—and all the others who approvingly linked to the pic? Not at all. They have no excuse.
ADDENDUM: In the interest of fairness and balance I should say that Mondoweiss is not stupid 100% of the time. It can, on occasion, run a worthy piece, e.g. the post on July 15th (with updates) by Sam Knight, on the Rue de la Roquette synagogue incident in Paris, which is the most accurate and comprehensive I’ve seen on it in English. I’ll link to it when I do my (long overdue) post—in the coming days, inshallah—on the Gaza war demos, French Jews, and antisemitism in France.
With the ceasefire holding—for now at least—voilà a few bilans of the month-long war.
Aaron David Miller, writing in FP (August 6th), asks “Who won the Gaza war?” Assigning a grade to each of the principal actors, the rank order is: Egypt, Israel, Palestinian Authority, the US, Hamas. In other words, Israel won (more or less), Hamas did not.
Nahum Barnea, in a different take (August 7th), says that “In some wars, both sides lose.” He explains why he believes Israel lost, less so why Hamas did.
In an op-ed (August 6th), TOI’s David Horovitz, offering “10 thoughts at the end (maybe) of the summer 2014 Israel-Hamas war,” says that “Israel might have won [but that] Hamas certainly lost.” This sounds right to me, for the moment at least.
More bilans to follow in the coming days, très certainement.
UPDATE: Yehuda Ben-Meir, a former academic and member of the Knesset, asserts in a Haaretz op-ed (August 8th) that “Israel won the Gaza war in a big way.” The lede: After wreaking destruction on the population of Gaza and losing its only strategic card, Hamas is agreeing to what it rejected three weeks ago. Could there be any greater and more obvious defeat?
2nd UPDATE: Gershom Gorenberg, writing in The American Prospect (August 7th), has a very good analysis, “It isn’t about the tunnels. So what is the Gaza conflict really about?” The lede: The Israeli government’s tactical goals shifted repeatedly. At no point, it appears, has Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a strategic political vision.
3rd UPDATE: Gershon Baskin posted a must read commentary on his FB page today (August 8th): The end of the ceasefire, the renewal of war and the end game.