Foxman Steps Up His Campaign Against Fairness
Yesterday, Abe Foxman took the weird step of complaining that George Mitchell is “fair” and therefore somehow unsuited to serve as an envoy overseeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, Foxman whined to Ben Smith that Mitchell is “a fair person, he’s a decent person, he’s a knowledgeable person – but I think he is the personification of even-handedness.” Foxman, you see, is looking for an envoy who’ll eschew even-handedness.
I understand that Foxman thinks he’s helping Israel by demanding that the U.S. only appoint envoys who’ll be biased toward Israel, but that’s an incredibly short-sighted view. Wiser pro-Israel figures like J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami are applauding the choice:
The choice of Senator Mitchell signals the President’s serious intention to inject new thinking and fresh perspectives into America’s efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
President Obama spoke eloquently Tuesday about the important role the United States must play in ushering in a new era of peace and in helping people around the world to move beyond old hatreds and lines of tribe. We share and endorse his vision both of a new direction for U.S. policy in the Middle East and of renewed American leadership in Middle East peacemaking.
Former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell is uniquely well suited to play a critical role in that effort. His many accomplishments – including brokering Ireland’s Good Friday peace accord and his well-received report on the causes of the Second Intifada – are rooted in his ability to listen and to speak to both sides in conflicts and to provide the leadership needed to solve long-standing problems.
Israel has a strong interest in peace. And achieving peace requires the United States to participate in a credible way. If President Obama were to send someone over there who’ll just repeat Israeli government talking points, that won’t help anyone. Credible American intervention can, by contrast, deliver Israel the security goods that military strength never has. We’ve seen it in the past with deals with Egypt and Jordan. And we could see it again with Syria and, one hopes, with the Palestinians and—via the Arab Peace Initiative—with the entire Arab League. Ultimately, that would do far more to advance Israeli interests than would any yes-man.
47 Responses to “Foxman Steps Up His Campaign Against Fairness”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Howard Dean got hammered–in an open letter from Pelosi, who denied he spoke for the Democrats–for suggesting the US behave “even-handedly” toward both parties. (That is the episode to which I previously referred, I think.) Again, you can’t really blame Foxman for going to a well that worked the last time he used it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I don’t think that’s right, Al. I think Yglesias wants all the makers of dairy products to have advocates.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Even-handedness is merely the anti-Semitism that dare not speak its name; hadn’t you heard?
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I’ve always said that a fair solution is unacceptable to Israel, but I’d never have imagined that Abe Foxman would have me back on that.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
???
It was a joke about misinterpreting a misinterpretation/mis-hearing/misrepresentation of what the initial speaker said. “Blessed are the makers of cheese,” etc.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
It’s the way Foxman goes out of his way to make his own position sound absurd that impresses me. Nobody’s against fairness or even-handedness, at least not the words. If you’re going to take a stand against those things, at least have the sense to phrase it in a way that makes them sound like bad qualities.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Israel has a strong interest in peace.
Grow up Matt, Israel has no interest whatsoever in any peace that involves a Palestinian state even if it consists of “bantustans”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Foxman’s position is that in the international community the Palestinians have lots of advocates – some European countries, Russia, the rest of the Arab world and the extended Muslim world – and fairness requires that Israel have an advocate in its corner. If the US is “even-handed,” he’s arguing, the scale will tip in the Palestinians’ favor.
I think he’s wrong about that, but his argument isn’t illogical or particularly crass.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Matt, have you ever thought that maybe the leadership of Israel doesn’t actually want peace, or even to engage in meaningful diplomacy? You might want to. Israel can, in time, get all the land it wants, one settlement at a time. Why negotiate if that would mean having to give up what you want, when you can eventually get what you want without negotiating?
More simply, ever consider that for Israel expansion is preferable to security?
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Please — you’ve got to comment on Muammar Ghaddafi’s op-ed in the NYtimes yesterday. Isratine?
(A black President, and Gaddhafi in the Times!)
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
While Smith’s article isn’t crystal clear, I think it’s obvious enough what Foxman is referring to.
There’s a certain mindset of mediator or referee who in an effort to be “fair and evenhanded” treats every demand by one side as something to be taken seriously and that the other side needs to compromise on, regardless of how ridiculous the demand is. In other words, in an effort to appear fair, the mediator becomes unwilling to tell either that certain of its demands or points are BS. The result becomes that becomes sides are incentivized to make more and more extreme demands, until they give up and actually end up farther apart than where they started. To reach resolution the mediator needs to be able to explain to one side when certain claims are meritless and that they should not expect the other side to respond to them, to bring them back to reality.
I don’t know whether that’s an accurate characterization of Mitchell, but its tolerably clear that’s what Foxman’s comments are referencing, and Matt is mischaracterizing Foxman’s point.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Bloix, I think you’re right as to what Foxman means. Of course, it just sounds idiotic. Opposing a peace broker, which is what the Middle East envoy is supposed to do, because he’s even-handed is like opposing a pitcher for having too good of a fastball.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Yes, they do. They are also thoroughly off the rails with tactics, both on the battlefield and the diplomacy field. The last thing the region and the world needs right now is more of the Bush/Likud doctrine of cheerleading more bullets and bombs. And that is especially true for Israel, and it’s prospects for peace.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Aside from everything else, it should be noted that Mr. Mitchell is 76 years old. It would seem that a much younger man is needed here as this assignment promises to be quite taxing, given the fact that the two sides hate each other and will give ground only grudgingly. After all, didn’t we just get through claiming that John McCain at 72 was too old for a taxing job like POTUS. I don’t think that acting as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians will be substantially less taxing then POTUS.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
When Obama said something about cutting across the old lines of tribe, that sounded suspiciously anti-Zionist.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
What an odd position. According to J-Street and Matthew, the Palestinians deserve to have lots of advocates, and Israel deserves to have none.
Foxman and Al are upset because only 4/5 of the envoys to the region will be Jewish men instead of 5/5.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Peace is in Israel’s best interest, but Israel does not have a strong interest in peace.
And WTF does this mean?
What are “security goods”? Goods tend to be material in nature, and so far American support of Zionism have delivered them a fuck ton of “security goods”
Credible American intervention would lead to a reduction in “security goods” to Israel, but an increase in their security, which would be good for the Israelites.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Foxman has found it pertinent to honor a politician (Berlusconi) who publicly stated his belief that fascist dictators are really not so bad. What else can you say about this morally bankrupt individual?
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Al, either side can have all of the advocates they can afford to pay. The point is that an envoy negotiating a peace agreement can’t be an advocate for either. You’re in exceptional intentionally obtuse form today.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
As Calderon basically said in #13, I think what Foxman is decrying is what he sees as Mitchell’s “moral equivalence” rather than his fairness as such.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“Foxman’s position is that in the international community the Palestinians have lots of advocates – some European countries, Russia, the rest of the Arab world and the extended Muslim world – and fairness requires that Israel have an advocate in its corner. If the US is “even-handed,” he’s arguing, the scale will tip in the Palestinians’ favor.
I think he’s wrong about that, but his argument isn’t illogical or particularly crass.”
Bullshit. You’re not going to come to a resolution by choosing up sides. And none of those countries cited have any significant influence on Israel, whereas the US does because the US has supported Israel for the last forty years or longer.
Therefore it is imperative that the US become more even-handed.
Foxman is a fucking intellectually dishonest Zionist – or is that a redundancy?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“After all, didn’t we just get through claiming that John McCain at 72 was too old for a taxing job like POTUS.”
If Mitchell dies, Sarah Palin doesn’t become peace envoy.
Also, it really needs to be borne in mind that Mitchell is extremely good at this extremely difficult business – he’s hugely respected over here for steering the Northern Ireland peace process, which has been unbelievably successful. He wasn’t acting alone, of course, but if anyone knows how to do it successfully, it’s him.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
PATENTLY FALSE.
Israel has had numerous opportunities to make peace. The state of Israel thrives on victim mentality. It’s their national pastime.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Matt, are you losing your marbles by writing such ridiculous statements?
Abe Foxman and AIPAC thugs are not threatening you or are they?
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I’d like to second Ikram’s request (@5:43) for a comment on Gaddhafi’s Op-Ed in the NYT today (re: Israstine). The religious among us might find something Solomanic about the one-state solution.
And yeah, I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that piece in the NYT.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
How can anyone argue that the US shouldn’t be even-handed because the playing field is tilted in the Palestinians favor? Oh sure there’s more sympathy in the press than before, meaning something more than none whatsoever, but in terms of practical and governmental support the whole world has nothing for the occupants of Gaza but neglect. Some neglect with sympathy, some with contempt, but no government in the world, from Amman to Ottawa to Paris to Moscow to Cairo to the West Bank, has really said boo.
How can Israel claim the PR slate is stacked in favor of the Palestinians? The mind boggles. What country recognizes Hamas, will negotiate with it, or give it even minimal verbal cover, much less material support? None, zilch, zero, as far as I know. Don’t see anyone at the UN’s most biased committees trying to pass resolutions to praise Hamas.
The truth is the exact opposite. The worlds governments are silent, notably in the Arab world as opposed to in non-Arab Muslim nations. But anyone who’s paid any attention is outraged. Refugee camps razed and the Obama Presidency used as blatant media cover. Cynical is far too small a word for Operation Cast Lead.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Foxman is a formerly impressive leader of a formerly respected organization. He does not, they do not, see that their brand was fairness itself. He is and has for some time been eroding that brand value by increasingly ’sided’ comments that are no longer clearly anti-defamation and anti-hate, but actually pro- somethings, some sides or even states, that include many not so nice characters or not so ‘fair’ sentiments.
His latest foolish pronouncement comes trippingly off his tongue because he has travelled so many increments down this slippery slope that his whole frame of reference is distorted to such an extent that he does not even perceive that his attack on Mitchell’s fairness will boomerang.
which the posts here demonstrate is happening.
i don’t give a crap about Foxman, but i am hating losing the Anti-Defamation League’s value to our society. and it is, now, lost.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
I have to take issue with Obama’s talking about Gaza. He wants the Palestinian authority in west bank to somehow handle the aid to Gaza? How does that work? He has to talk to Hamas, AIPAC be damned.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Again, you can’t really blame Foxman for going to a well that worked the last time he used it.
Like Joe Leiberman, Israel has been tarred by its close association with George W. That well has been poisoned by eight years of neo-con blundering topped off by the Israeli horrorshow/PR disaster in Gaza. Israel has a demographic problem over here, too. Old coots like Foxman aren’t helping matters either except with the rapidly aging Israel right or wrong crowd here in the US and with pockets of lunacy in places like Crown Heights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad-Lubavitch
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Re Ginger Yellow
The issue isn’t Mr. Mitchell croaking. The issue is whether, at 76, he has the stamina and powers of concentration to carry out a most difficult assignment.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Looking at Foxman’s actual remarks it seems clear that Bloix is wrong and Calderon has it right.
The Foxman position is that it was wrong of Mitchell to criticize both the things the Palestinians do to make peace impossible and the things the Israelis do to make peace impossible.
Presumably he prefers the Dennis Ross approach of criticizng the Palestinians for the the things they do that make peace impossible because it shows they hate peace, while the Israel’s deserve to be credited for the things they do to make peace impossible because it shows they are serious about getting popular support for peace.
It is a pretty stupid view. But not a non-sequitor as Yglesias is suggesting.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Al,
The bigger imbalance is actually that the Israelis have a country and the Palestinians don’t. That creates a bigger imbalance as far as negotiations go than the having of foreign countries that impartially favor ones side.
The arab countries become important players on the Palestinian side precisely because they can do the kinds of things for the Palestinians which the Israelis can do for themselves.
The US does more good for Israel as an honest broker than it does as a cheerleader along the lines of the arab states for the Palestinians.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 16th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
This advice is really going to help, thanks.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra