Matthew Yglesias » A Team of Coreligionists

Jan 12th, 2009 at 11:43 am

A Team of Coreligionists

Another fantastic Roger Cohen column on the Israeli-Arab conflict starts with a little joke:

The Obama team is tight with information, but I’ve got the scoop on the senior advisers he’s gathered to push a new Middle East policy as the Gaza war rages: Shibley Telhami, Vali Nasr, Fawaz Gerges, Fouad Moughrabi and James Zogby.

The joke, of course, is that those guys are all Arab-American or Iranian-American and no president would ever assemble a Middle East team like that even though those are all well-respected figures. Instead, the Obama team looks more like this:

They include Dennis Ross (the veteran Clinton administration Mideast peace envoy who may now extend his brief to Iran); James Steinberg (as deputy secretary of state); Dan Kurtzer (the former U.S. ambassador to Israel); Dan Shapiro (a longtime aide to Obama); and Martin Indyk (another former ambassador to Israel who is close to the incoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.)

Like Cohen, “I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males” but there is a certain diversity issue here. And of course it buts up against the fact that US policy toward Israel is in part a real aspect of our national security policy and in part an aspect of US domestic politics. And these things don’t cut in the same direction. In particular, the politics of the situation dictate that Mideast policymaking should be dominated by Jewish people. By hawkish, right-wing Jewish people if you want a hawkish policy or by dovish, left-wing Jewish people if you wanted a dovish policy. You can easily enough find Jews to fit whichever ideological template you want and either way it’ll serve the same purpose of demonstrating, for political purposes, that you like Jewish people.

But for actual policymaking, a Jewish peacenik is no substitute for someone with actual ties to the other perspectives in the region:

Enlightenment will require a fresher, broader Mideast team than Obama is contemplating. As noted in “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East,” [link here—sure would have been nice of the NYT to put that in the original] a fine evaluation of U.S. diplomacy by Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky, the lack of expertise on Islam and an Arab perspective was costly at Camp David. At one point, the State Department’s top Arabic translator had to be drafted because “the lack of cross-cultural negotiating skills was so acute.”

In particular, I think that with Hillary Clinton taking over as Secretary of State the whole world is going to be looking for a sign that she understands the difference between an Israel policy well-suited to New York electoral politics and an Israel policy well-suited to advancing the interests of the United States of America. Those aren’t the same thing.

Comments
41

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Israel, Roger Cohen

41 Responses to “A Team of Coreligionists”

fostert Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“(or half-Jewish)”

How is it possible to be half-Jewish? Either your mother is Jewish or not. Are we talking about people with more than one mother?
El Cid Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 11:56 am
CAMERA was already complaining that the New York Times was “attacking Israel” on its editorial pages. And Roger Cohen was already on their sh*t list.
David Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
fostert:

Matt is clearly referring to himself.
Capn America Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Quick, how many ethnically mid-Eastern bloggers of American FP can you all name? And no, neither Juan Cole or Abu Aardvark count.
fostert Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
David: actually, those were Cohen’s words. But I figured it out: to be half-Jewish, your mother must have been half-pregnant.
JimboSlice Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Not to mention his Chief of Staff, is none other than Rahm Emanuel a former civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces. I am sure he will come at this conflict from a non-biased perspective.
steve duncan Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I think Obama should commence negotiations with the Moon to produce tidal patterns more favorable to agriculture on the U.S. coastline. They’ll be as fruitful as seeking peace in the Middle East, but hey, you have to try.
Farid Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
SLC Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Apparently, Mr. Yglesias has forgotten that Lebanese American George Mitchell was a Middle East envoy during the Clinton administration.
Farid Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Good news

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=797
Anon Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
How about just the difference between ‘an Israel policy well-suited to New York electoral politics and an Israel policy well-suited to advancing the interests of the Israel’, because THOSE aren’t the same thing either.
Don Williams Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Yep, but the OIAN Rule (”Obama Is a Negro”) of Democratic Politics applies so all of Matthew’s post is irrelevant. Actually the full title of the rule is “Obama Is A Negro and He Is Not , Thank G-d, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton” .

Also , the remark about Marty Indyk (”We have the intelligence on Iraq WMDS”) is cancelled per the HIAW Rule (”Hillary Is A Woman”) and the TSNPOA Rule (”Thou Shalt Not Piss Off AIPAC”).
mds Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
In particular, the politics of the situation dictate that Mideast policymaking should be dominated by Jewish people. By hawkish, right-wing Jewish people if you want a hawkish policy or by hawkish, left-wing Jewish people if you wanted a hawkish policy.

Fixed some of MY’s spelling errors there. When have the politics of the situation ever dictated a role for dovish, left-wing Jewish people?
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
But–uuuhhhhhhh, Jews have won more Nobel Prizes than them Muslims! So there, nananana booboo!
shawn Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Quick, how many ethnically mid-Eastern bloggers of American FP can you all name? And no, neither Juan Cole or Abu Aardvark count.

Absolutely right, Capn America. How come there are so few bloggers of Arab, Persian or South Asian descent? The only one I can think of who blogs about American foreign policy is Shadi Hamid at Democracy Arsenal. Hamid actually has a really good post up today on the the varying popularity of different mideast Islamist governments.
Matt Daniels Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
No Hillarophile myself, I was nonetheless impressed by Jeffrey Goldberg’s regard for her understanding of regional dynamics. His two-speech solution for reinitiating the peace process is perhaps no longer enough of a game-changer but still the only plausible suggestion.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/hillarys_middle_east_understan.php
nbt Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Fostert: You are being pedantic. I understand the rule that you are deemed Jewish if and only if your mother is Jewish. But don’t you think someone with only one Jewish parent (whether father or mother) might identify with Jewishness slightly less than someone with two Jewish parents?
agum Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hillary should sign her former aide Huma Abedin to the position of Middle East advisor.

Not only is she an Arab-American, but she could mesmerize the Israelis and Arabs into a peace deal.
nbt Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Huma Abedin is of South Asian heritage and grew up in Saudi Arabia. I think that’s certainly good enough.
ANDY Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Huma Abedin is also the girlfriend of arch-Zionist NY Congressman Andrew Weiner.
nbt Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I wonder if Huma is softening Andy’s views on the ME, or vice-versa. I would guess Andy is coming to see things her way — with a girl so hot, how could you not?
fostert Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“But don’t you think someone with only one Jewish parent (whether father or mother) might identify with Jewishness slightly less than someone with two Jewish parents?”

Well, it depends on some things. I’ve met Jewish people who live in difficult environments that celebrate Christmas just to fit in. I have two cousins from a Jewish father who celebrate Chanukah, but they are not Jewish. I always celebrate Passover, and I’m Buddhist. Whatever. We can identify with whatever religion we see fit, but being Jewish has a very specific definition. I could get re-circumcised to abide by Jewish tradition for marriage, but I will never be Jewish. But if I’m doing that, my wife would be Jewish, and so would my children. But it’s because of her, not me. And no re-circumcision can change that.
fostert Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I’ll add that I don’t really want the re-circumcision. I couldn’t walk for 18 months after the last one.
nbt Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Fostert,

I think you’re confusing me (or maybe I’m not understanding you) because I have in my head three different definitions of Jewishness:
1) Ethnic heritage. By this definition, one could be 100% Jewish, 50% Jewish, 25% Jewish, or what have you.
2) Automatic Jewishness by virtue of a Jewish mother.
3) Personal belief in, and practice of, Judaism as a religion. [And it is possible for someone who was not born Jewish to formally convert to Judaism, no? I know a guy who was born Catholic but converted to Judaism and now is an ardent Zionist.]

In your post #23 at 6:29pm, I guess you are referring to definition (2). But you also say “I’m Buddhist”, which is more a matter of internal belief rather than genetics, no? I gather that your father but not your mother is Jewish?

Anyway the point of this thread was that all these Jewish diplomats might be biased. I do think that someone with two Jewish parents is more likely (not definitely, but more likely) to sympathize strongly with Israel, compared to someone with one Jewish parent. You don’t seem to address that in your post #23. All you’re saying is “If you’re Jewish, you’re Jewish, and if you’re not Jewish, you’re not Jewish. End of story.”

As for the circumcision, uh… yeah. Don’t do that.
JimboSlice Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
Farid Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
SLC can’t figure out whether he’s ‘Farid’ or SLC.

You’re fucking child SLC. I am glad pro Israelis are almost always as retarded as you are.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:44 am
I’m still amazed that Matt is actually questioning – however lamely – Obama’s intentions with regard to the Middle East.

How about this?

That Iran NIE? Oh, We All Just Ignore It
http://crooksandliars.com/cernig/iran-nie-oh-we-all-just-ignore-it

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, when finally released after months of the Bush administration trying to get it changed without success, said that “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Since then every major Western media outlet and political leader, especially including Barack Obama, has done their level best to ignore that finding – well, after the wingnuts got over crowing about how it proved Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a good thing, at least – yet there’s not a shred of real evidence for doing so.

Much of the narrative which allows the consensus view of the entire US intelligence community to be ignorable centers around the infamous “laptop of death” and around statements last year at a private briefing by the IAEA’s Oli Heinonen. However, the documents contained upon the laptop are of questionable provenance, probably at least in part forged by their provider – the MeK terrorist group – and in any case refer to programs from before 2003. Heinonen’s briefing likewise referred to programs from before 2003 – as it would, since it was based on those laptop documents, given to the IAEA by George Schulte so that Hoinonen would brief members and Schulte could then leak his notes of that briefing to the media establishing a stage of plausiblity between him and the information. However, the information given at that briefing was public knowledge even in 2005, something not even mentioned by David “Judy in Drag” Sanger at the NYT when he recycled his 2005 report on the laptop’s information for his widely cited 2008 report on the briefing. By this weekend, Sanger had entirely dismissed the NIE and was willing to bend the IAEA’s findings and briefings all out of shape in service of the narrative. David Sanger may be the finest stenographer for his “unofficially official” sources at the White House in the history of journalism.

The IAEA’s assessment to date is in full agreement with the NIE: that there “is no evidence that the weapons program continued after 2004″ but you’d be forgiven if you hadn’t realized that, as much reporting on the subject has deliberately played games with tense. Given that’s there’s no evidence that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program, warmongers have been reduced to arguing that there’s no proof positive that it doesn’t. The inability to prove a negative, to prove “evidence of absence” was what got us into Iraq too, so they hope it serves again.

Unfortunately, Obama’s recent statements would indicate that it will serve again. On Sunday he told George Stephanoupolis that “they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race”. The conversation continued:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you have to do something about it in your first year.

OBAMA: Andwe are going to have to take a new approach. And I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran. And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves, is… (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But a new emphasis on respect.

OBAMA: Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.

That sounds nice but if Dennis “walks with neocons” Ross is really to be given the Iran brief, as rumors indicate then it’s simply more of the same pretence at engagement while actually being as obstructive as possible – playing the negotiation game as part of a campaign to pressure Iran alongside constant threat of attack.

“This may be the best example in recent times of highly coordinated threat of force against a country to bring about diplomatic solution…I’m not sure,” said Ret. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of CENTCOM, the military command responsible for the whole of the Middle East. “[...F]or people that think this is serious, I would put it in the utter folly department.”

Once again I call on ANYONE here who thinks he can explain HOW Obama is going to solve the Iran problem when his goal is NO centrifuges on Iranian soil and the Iranians absolutely will not agree to that.

What does he do then? Accept Iranian enrichment? Hand off the problem to his successor as Bush appears to have done?

C’mon, folks. How does Obama solve this problem WITHOUT going to war, WITHOUT accepting Iranian enrichment, and WITHOUT handing off the problem to his successor?

Any takers?
fostert Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
nbt, I think you should understand that I was just being facetious. I brought up some of the absurd traditions for fun. These are some of the things my Jewish friends and I joke about (Jews have a great sense of humor). I’m not Jewish in the slightest sense, I’m Scots-Irish and as white as freshly fallen snow. I was raised Atheist, converted to Christianity, went back to Atheism, and then became a Buddhist. I’ve read every religious text you can name, but I’m not a religious scholar, I’m an engineer. I’ve visited more religious holy sites than most people can even name, and of many religions. My favorite is the Maha Bodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya, India. And yes, I have a leaf from the tree.
fostert Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I should add that I celebrate Passover because it’s just such a wonderful tradition. It really doesn’t hold much meaning for me, but it’s a lot of fun. And it’s great for the kids, too. The reading of the Haggadah can get a little boring, but we do the hiding of the Matzo and drink plenty of wine. So it’s fun for all.
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
منتديات جنس Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic ) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
اغتصاب Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic ) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 6:51 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
How to Get Your Ex Back Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Hey, nice tips. Perhaps I’ll buy a glass of beer to that person from that chat who told me to visit your site

Matt Yglesias

A Team of Coreligionists

41 Responses to “A Team of Coreligionists”

Blogroll