Time: Israel Can’t Win
The Israel policy right-wing still has an incredibly hold over the US Congress with only a few exceptions such as Rep. Donna Edwards. But to an interesting extent that’s not the case in the media. Despite the effort to anathematize John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, for example, I saw Newsweek run Mearsheimer’s take on how the US should approach the whole region and and one of the things the Washington Post Company did after buying Foreign Policy was hire Walt. There was a neocon effort to intimidate Joe Klein into backing down on something or other he said and that didn’t work. And now what’s on the cover of Time magazine but this: “The siege of Gaza may punish Hamas but won’t make Israel safe.”
And there was this great column yesterday from Nicholas Kristof and now this from Roger Cohen and this from Rashid Khalidi.
Unfortunately, all these expressions of more open-minded thinking on the issue are useless unless they translate into some actual policy substance and I don’t see any clear signs that the new administration intends to do that.
43 Responses to “Time: Israel Can’t Win”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am
But this is how it goes: you need the CW to shift first, then the official policy can shift. It’s unrealistic to expect the policy to lead.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Matt,
We may be seeing commentary that is more open-minded than before, but does that really mean that it’s open-minded? Most of the writers you linked to take pains to mention that, although Israel is going a bit far, Israel of course has the right to defend itself. Any chance that we’ll see someone say that, although indiscriminate rocket fire probably isn’t the best choice, Palestinians of course have the right to defend themselves. Or that we’ll see someone mention what’s obvious to the rest of the world: Israel is a colonizing force trying to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.
Not that much has changed.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Matt’s point occurred to me independently over my morning cereal. Even on television, journalists are much more critical of Israel than Congress has been willing to be.
I agree with Rich in PA about this — it feels like a leading indicator. But change can happen very slowly. The CW on agricultural subsidies, for instance, has been lukewarm-to-scornful for as long as I can remember. But a lot of swing states grow corn, so . . .
January 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I’m sure that Mr. Yglesias will want to comment on todays column by his favorite columnist that has a decidedly different take on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010802993.html
January 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Only one of those three articles mentioned that it was Israel who broke the current ceasefire. (Khalidi)
They’re better than your average coverage I guess, but that’s from some pretty low starting standards.
I’m in France, and the coverage in Le Monde is a world away from what you see in the times. They ran an article on the history of Gaza today, and managed to mention facts such as that most of its inhabitants are refugees from the south of Israel, the circumstances of the blockade, that the Hamas-Fatah fighting was fomented by the US in an attempt to fight out Hamas, and that the ceasefire was broken by Israel.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
To echo g’s point, I was in Madrid for the whole of the 2000 election (yeah, that was embarrassing). The coverage you get in European papers is worlds apart from what you read in the US. Check out El Pais sometime. They had some quality coverage of Israel/Palestine back then (at least from what I can remember, including where that Palestinian father and son were shot and killed on camera).
January 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Also, since my analogy to corn states might seem to suggest that I’m blaming our policy paralysis on Jewish voters . . . let me just say that I really doubt that’s true at the moment.
I think the bigger problem is that American minds clamp up when they encounter the “Muslim terrorist” meme. People aren’t able to weigh the rest of the picture.
For this among other reasons, I really believe Matt is right that a relatively non-violent posture would serve Palestinian ends much better.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Why is nobody talking about the fact that Hamas didn’t break the “cease-fire” because Israel had already done so 2 months before??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
Therefore, the need to “punish” Gaza is just false.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am
This might be progress. However there are presentation issues with this article in particular that make be break out in hives. The star of David is shown behind barbed wire on the cover, and the article’s title is (no lie) “Can Israel Survive its Assault on Gaza?” I get the point the authors and illustrators are trying to make, about Israel’s long term prospects and all that, but Goddamn. Can the Gazans can survive Israel’s assault on Gaza? Last I checked about 700 of them hadn’t. There are people who are having trouble surviving Israel’s assault on Gaza, there are people imprisoned behind barbed wire and walls, and it ain’t the Israelis.
This kind of thing is pretty common. Maybe it would be counterproductive to insist that we call a spade a spade, and call a massacre a massacre. Maybe if we make the case that it’s in Israel’s long term interest to end the occupation (true), the Israelis would be more likely to do so than if we insist that their government is full of war criminals who would be right at home snuggling up to Milosevic. But that cover and that title are obscene at a time like this.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“For this among other reasons, I really believe Matt is right that a relatively non-violent posture would serve Palestinian ends much better.”
That it would, but who wants to attempt to explain to the Palestinians that they should be non-violent so Americans, comfortable and safe at home, will feel more inclined to support them?
It would be nice if some sort of sustainable nonviolence effort were to break out (like what happened in that town someone mentioned in comments yesterday). It needs to happen, and it needs to continue and stay true. You’d think people would get that through their heads, but the urge for vengeance must be so strong in the human psyche as to push out all attempts at rationalization.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Matt: “I don’t see any clear signs that the new administration intends to do that.”
Hallelujah! Is Matt starting to rub the Obama dust from his eyes? Is Matt waking up from the Obamania state he has been in for months?
Did Obama’s placement of Dennis Ross as “Middle East Czar” somehow cause Matt to snap out of his conditioning?
Or are we just jerking off?
January 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
The US media frequently criticizes Israel, in the same way it criticizes the US government. But that doesn’t change the background requirement that the analysis of events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must always be conducted according to the question, “Is this good for Israel?”
Imagine a Time cover that said:
The assault on Chechnya may punish Chechen terrorists, but it won’t make Russia safe.
Why Russia is in peril like never before.
And imagine if you can a headline like:
The rocket assault on Israel may punish supporters of the Israeli government, but it won’t make the Palestinians safe.
Why the dream of Palestinian independence is in peril like never before.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Re Matthew’s comment “Unfortunately, all these expressions of more open-minded thinking on the issue are useless unless they translate into some actual policy substance and I don’t see any clear signs that the new administration intends to do that.”
——————
Maybe we should ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is any changes are upcoming.
[Haaretz] Will she be good for Israel?
[Haim Saban] I think so.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Richard Steven Hack: you probably need to spend a lot more time jerking off – the backup in your system has reduced your intellect to that of a 14 year old Republican boy.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Re Nick
Or that we’ll see someone mention what’s obvious to the rest of the world: Israel is a colonizing force trying to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.
Boy, those Israelis must be the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in history as evidenced by more the 1 million Arabs living in Israel.
Re spokeytown
This kind of thing is pretty common. Maybe it would be counterproductive to insist that we call a spade a spade, and call a massacre a massacre.
Mr. spokeytown doesn’t know what a massacre is. A massacre is Hafaz Assads’ army killing 20,000 people in the Syrian City of Hama in 2 days of indiscriminate artillery bombardment.
Re Don Williams
Mr. Don Williams once again attempts to blame the Iraq clusterfuck on Israel, despite the evidence from Lawrence Wilkerson and Dan Kurtzer that officials there counseled against it and that Bibi was sent to lobby congress only after it became clear that the Bush administration. was not going to take their advice. He also, once again, brings in his favorite whipping boy, Hiam Saban, conveniently ignoring the report put out by the Saban institute advocating negotiating with Iran. The authors of that report been fired yet?
January 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
St Augustine of Hippo
January 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Mr. spokeytown doesn’t know what a massacre is. A massacre is Hafaz Assads’ army killing 20,000 people in the Syrian City of Hama in 2 days of indiscriminate artillery bombardment.
I can see the ad campaign now…
Israel: We’re on a Higher Moral Plane than Hafez Assad
Congratulations! Your nation has just won a gold star and a cookie, and we all promise to never, ever draw a moral equivalence between your government and the Syrian Baath Party. Your massacres are much smaller and much less indiscriminate than most of the great totalitarian leaders of the Twentieth Century. You guys rock!
Now, about this whole business where you attempt to control the entire former territory of Palestine by gerrymandering a Jewish majority state that gets all the good land, water, and resources, and leaves most of the majority ethnic group permanently consigned to squalid refugee conditions under military occupation with no civil liberties or political sovereignty, and subject to having their homes bulldozed or seeing bombs dropped on what little civil infrastructure they have…
January 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Someone change SLC’s playlist. He’s a tedious and uncreative troll.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
STEPHEN
HIS NAME IS STEPHEN WALT
On what he said, I felt Walter Mead’s review of the book express what I think about Mearsheimer and Walt on this subject. They wrote a bad book, they got what was expected. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101fareviewessay86611/walter-russell-mead/jerusalem-syndrome.html
January 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I am as glad as anyone that the dialogue is finally taking a real form.
However, I’m going to disagree with the CW here, this Gaza incursion might not be the strategic disaster many claim, in fact, this time, I think, purely strategically, it might’ve been pretty good.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Hmmm…on the one hand, Time Magazine says Israel can’t win. The same Time Magazine that told us George Bush would have to pull out of Iraq. In 2007.
On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer says Israel is just about to win. The same Charles Krauthammer who told us we were just about to defeat the insurgents in Iraq. In 2004.
So this means…ambiguous ending resulting in something like the status quo ante? I hate it when two south-pointing compasses give opposite predictions.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I think morally so far, Israel is on fairly defensible grounds.
However, I think they should turn around, right now, and lift the blockade, if they do, they can appear both strong and merciful, it’s not like Hamas militants can claim they drove Israel out.
If Israel stays longer though, I think they quickly begin to lose both strategic rationale and any moral defense.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I think the clear take-away here is that Time magazine is anti-Semitic.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“I think morally so far, Israel is on fairly defensible grounds.”
Thanks for the laugh or is it the lack of critical thinking skills?
January 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Why does the UN give Hamass a pass when it sends its terrorists to shoot from buildings where there are civilians. Isn’t that a violation of international law?
Hamass knows the world will yell at Israel when Israel shoots back. The UN wants Hamass not to fall.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Another reflexive fact-devoid comment by a pro Israeli asshat.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Trust me, there’s no backup whatsoever – I couldn’t spend more time jerking off.
And that remark coming from some schmuck named “Jack B. Nimble” is a hoot. How you figure I have any relation to a Republican is amazing. Was it the Obama criticism? Are you that stupid?
January 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“And that remark coming from some schmuck named “Jack B. Nimble” is a hoot. ”
hehe – good one.
he’s more like Jack the numb nuts. Come to think of it aren’t people who support Israel no matter how genocidal its regime has become numb nuts?
January 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
“Thanks for the laugh or is it the lack of critical thinking skills?”
No, you lack critical thinking skills.
Wanna volley all day long or you wanna discuss?
January 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Discuss? discuss what? your fact-devoid views on the issue? your views mean shit.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Thanks for the tip!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra