Oct 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Who’s “Pro-Israel”?
I’m gone this morning to speak at the J Street conference. Jon Chait and I will be debating what it means to be “pro-Israel.” Always looking for synergy I wrote a Daily Beast column on this very subject. So there.
57 Responses to “Who’s “Pro-Israel”?”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Why should you be “pro-” any foreign country?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Matt, why does the Daily Beast article have this misleading (indeed, totally false) subtitle?
You don’t say anything even remotely like that in the article. At best, it’s a grotesque “it” error, that thinks it’s referencing the “hawkish establishment” rather than J Street.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:07 am
You need to send a nastygram to whoever did the subediting for that article. The summary headline is horrible.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
By their own admission, the JStreet goatfuckers have admitted that they are not pro-Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256557968276&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
October 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Having had a chance to read your article, I find myself identified here: “I hear from readers of my blog who want to see Israel and Palestine amalgamated into some kind of unworkable binational mush”
Why do you feel that a multicultural state would be unworkable?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am
“Pro-Israel” is obvious. Anyone who wants eternal war against the Arabs whose land they’re on. No peace, no annhilation, just eternal war.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“What it means to be pro-Israel?” is a tricky subject in this context, but “What it means to be Israel-neutral?” is a trickier one. What if the US took the same kind of stance to Israel as it did toward other foreign countries?
Anyone who advocated that stance would be called an Israel-hater or worse. Rightly or wrongly this remains a third rail in American politics.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“Why do you feel that a multicultural state would be unworkable?”
Umm, both people are eternally determined to kill each other. Think that might be a sticky point?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“Why do you feel that a multicultural state would be unworkable?”
Umm, both people are eternally determined to kill each other. Think that might be a sticky point?
Well, as we know from looking at the American South, deep-seated prejudices are really easy to change. Can’t you just envision the possibilities?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Umm, both people are eternally determined to kill each other. Think that might be a sticky point?
I think that formulation tries to take a situation that has been constructed by a very specific set of circumstances and extrapolates it out as as some sort of “eternal” struggle– which then acts as an excuse for not solving things.
We’ve seen states that have populations that hate-each-others’-guts integrated successfully before, and we have every reason to believe it could work here.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
A tragic missed opportunity for one of Yglesias’ famous typos to make this “Whose Pro-Israel,” which would be a much better question.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
fostert:
Umm, both people are eternally determined to kill each other. Think that might be a sticky point?
PBS had a good movie on the end of apartheid in South Africa the other night called Endgame which starred Chiwetel Ejiofor.
It makes a good point that the “endgame” could have easily gone badly, that there was a lot of luck thanks to some brave people.
Also, interestingly at the end of the film they have commentary text that says the IRA asked the ANC on how to negotiate a peaceful settlement to their conflict and that now Sinn Fein is advising Hamas. I just think the Palestinians have been unlucky in their leadership and the Israelis have been good at playing divide and conquer, something the white apartheid South African government tried very hard to do, but ultimately failed in accomplishing.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am
And when I say they want to kill each other, I don’t mean the people. They could get along, and have. But their leaders understand that they only stay in power as long as the conflict keeps going. The leaders of both sides would be out of power if there were peace. So there must be war whether the people like it or not. And the people are easily riled in that conflict. So keep the anger going to maintain your power. Quite frankly, a simultaneous assassination of Bibi and whoever’s leading Hamas these days would be welcome. It would send the right message: you guys are both idiots, and we need to try this again. The next leaders might be a little more reasonable on both sides.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I suppose next we will be having debates on what it means to be “pro-Paraguay,” “pro-Malaysia,” and “pro-Botswana”?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“and we have every reason to believe it could work here.”
Yeah, right. When the Israelis are willing to admit that the Palestinians exist and are actually human beings, I’ll give it 50 years from there. But I’ll be dead by then and not care. When the Palestinians are finally willing to give up their land to the Israelis, the Sun will have burned out.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
PBS had a good movie on the end of apartheid in South Africa the other night called Endgame which starred Chiwetel Ejiofor.
The whites in South Africa were a dwindling minority and a peaceful transition to black-majority rule was one of the better plays available to them. As Zimbabwe shows, it’s not exactly a risk-free play. But they’re whites, there are plenty of places (like Portland) where they can live the whitest of lives if things don’t work out.
The Jewish majority in Israel has plenty of higher probability plays to try out before betting on a multi-culti Palestine. Such as, for example, getting the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Great column.
Not sure about that sub-heading, though, as mentioned above.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
The Jewish majority in Israel has plenty of higher probability plays to try out before betting on a multi-culti Palestine. Such as, for example, getting the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza.
Right, because aside from the settlements, Israel is an unmitigated success.
Just as long as the girls don’t try to marry any Arabs.
The elephant in the room here is that one side is a lot more racist, intolerant, and ideologically fixated than the other.
I’ll let you guess which one.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
“The whites in South Africa were a dwindling minority and a peaceful transition to black-majority rule was one of the better plays available to them.”
The demographics in Israel/Palestine aren’t much different. It’s about 50/50 now, and the Arabs are growing faster. So we’ll get to the South Africa situation eventually. The difference is that the minority will never give up power in this situation.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Matt,
Nice article. As others have noted, there is something seriously wrong with the subheading.
I have my own, parochial, concern. To wit, “how will liberal American Judaism retain membership, if its institutions (e.g., URJ and USCJ) are aligned with a conservative nationalistic (pro-war) Zionism, but American Jews are progressive, internationalist, and generally dovish?
Even as late as the 1930’s mainstream American Judaism (at least as represented by its leadership) was not Zionistic.
It would be an irony indeed if Zionism was the cause of the downfall of Judaism.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“I’ll let you guess which one.”
I’d guess both.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am
And to make it clear about my comment at 15, I don’t know which would happen first. All I hope for is that we don’t bring this conflict to the next planet we find.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:34 am
In general, people ought to be in favor of actual people, and not “pro” nation states, which are actually assemblages of power structures.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Dear fostert, I suppose it’s never occurred to you that the Israel/Palestine conflict has a specific origin, rather unrelated to the essentialist notion implied in comment 8?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The demographics in Israel/Palestine aren’t much different [from South Africa]. It’s about 50/50 now, and the Arabs are growing faster.
Whites in SA are outnumbered by blacks at about 8 to 1. Throw in “coloureds” and Asians and it’s better than 9 to 1. So at the current rate the relative population shares will be similar in what, about 500 years?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“Dear fostert, I suppose it’s never occurred to you that the Israel/Palestine conflict has a specific origin, rather unrelated to the essentialist notion implied in comment 8?”
Yes, and I’d be interested in what you think that origin is. I’d say it’s the establishment of the British Mandate. Although you could argue a late 19th century agreement between England and the Ottoman Empire to allow Jewish immigration. Either way, the Jews and Arabs got along pretty well until the British got involved. What say you?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
El Cid @23: In general, people ought to be in favor of actual people, and not “pro” nation states, which are actually assemblages of power structures.
I agree, but sometimes some nation states do a better job of uplifting actual people than other nation states do, so in theory at least, being pro-nationX may be instrumental in being pro-people.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
“So at the current rate the relative population shares will be similar in what, about 500 years?”
That sounds about right. And the conflict will go on longer than that. Conflict between cultures can easily last a few thousand years, and this one seems headed for that. The Chinese and Vietnamese have been in conflict since before Chris was born. They’re in a lull now, but they were fighting in my lifetime. And they will surely fight again. Vietnam is the jewel of Asia, and China wants it. Vietnam, of course, wants to keep it. Those two concepts cannot exist without a fight. Hatred, it’s the only thing that lasts.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
#1: Why should you be “pro-” any foreign country?
Why should you be pro- any country? I want the people of Israel and Palestine to prosper, and I want the people of the U.S. to prosper, and I want the people of Canada and France and Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan to prosper. Peace and prosperity are generally positive-sum games, but the positive sum can be distributed differently among different nations. On what basis do you (as a private individual, rather than as a national policy maker) favor one nation over another?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
fostert,
Remember this line from the Balfour Declaration:
“…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”
Of course, it wasn’t held up by the Jewish nationalists.
So although there are other factors involved, one could make a very strong case that the ethnic nationalist component of Zionism is the root cause of this conflict.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I would be for removing both populations from the area, settling them in north and south Texas (nevermind about the Texans, we could split them and keep them in little Gazas), and leaving the so-called holy land to any parties who promise not to disgrace the seat of three world religions with spilled blood.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Seriously, other people above have mentioned it already, but that sub-hed in bold at the top is incredibly misleading.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Of course, it wasn’t held up by the Jewish nationalists.”
Nor by the British. They violated their own resolution. But the Palestinians deserve some blame, too. And the local Arab nations did nothing to help the Palestinians. Although some of them were British colonies that couldn’t do anything because they were in the same situation. I have a hard time blaming the Zionists for taking advantage of a sweet deal. Who wouldn’t? But the British set the whole deal up, and they should have been more sane in their policy. But I guess asking the British to be sane is insane in itself.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“north and south Texas”
Umm, where’s that line? There’s West Texas, the Panhandle, East Texas, Central Texas, the Western Coast, and the Eastern Coast. But north Texas and south Texas? What’s that? Politically, ‘north’ Texas would be the coasts and Central Texas. The ’south’ would be the rest.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
J Street university branch drops “Pro Israel”slogan.
There is nothing like wanting to make members who are not pro-Israel comfortable to show how pro-Israel you are.
Is this the Onion?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The problem with J Street is that it only has one bullet in its gun: the two-state solution. In my opinion, the two-state solution is already a zombie; the consensus in Israel is that the two-state solution is unworkable and there is no point in supporting it except to give lip service. So if Israel and Palestine cannot be “amalgamated into some kind of unworkable binational mush,” what other options are there? I doubt that the Israeli version of apartheid is going to carry the day; it will only enrage Arab neighbors and drive of allies. Perhaps this is the reason that Israel developed the bomb. But please, if this is the direction Israel is going, don’t ask me to be a supporter.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
As for worrying abut the Texans, you’d better worry about them. They’re already fixin’ to leave the US and will fight. And that’s just because we tried to give them money. Try to take a square inch of Texas away from them, and all holy hell will rain down on you.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
So the bullet is a zombie? If you fired the zombie bullet into a real zombie’s brain, would the universe implode?
RE: The Texas plan – Forcing all three groups to live together in Texas sounds like the tenth circle of Hell.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Dropping the “pro-israel” slogan is the right thing to do, especially when what is left is “pro-peace.”
October 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
@27: Yes, but the specific nation-state of Israel has a pretty lousy track record in that regard. There’s basically no evidence that they even want to try to treat goyim the same as Jews, and lots of evidence against it.
So, in fact, it may be that being *anti*-Israel is necessary to being pro-people. Not because you want to kill the people of Israel, but because you want to overthrow the institutions of Israel that hold down the people in, but not of, Israel (and the occupied territories).
Multicultural/multiethnic mush has its detractors (although they don’t normally include Matt, I wonder if that was some kind of sarcasm), but it seems to be working out pretty well. In the long run it seems to be that or ethnic cleansing, pretty much across the board. And I’m definitely against ethnic cleansing — even if that makes me anti-Israel.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
On what basis do you (as a private individual, rather than as a national policy maker) favor one nation over another?
I appreciate the cosmopolitan sentiment, and find it well worth consideration.
I find it appropriate, to some extent to be ‘pro’ my own country to the extent that it is a community of fate. So, my interest in being ‘pro-American’ is the interest in seeing the freedom and prosperity of myself, my, friends, family and loved ones– as well as those traditions and institutions which I have been culturally indoctrinated to regard with affection as ‘my own’. I think it’s a rather strong natural impulse of the human animal to privilege those we are close to, and, at least to the (limited) extent that it does not interfere with our broader obligation to wish well for everyone, I’m not entirely convinced that this impulse is immoral– or, at any rate, worth the significant effort to suppress.
It is no accident that the central commands of Christianity are ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ and ‘love the Lord God above all’; I see these lines as reflecting, to some extent, the tension between communitarian and cosmopolitan ethical impulses.
I suppose this analysis offers an answer to my question to Matthew: why be ‘pro-Israel’; that is, he presumably feels some sense of shared identification with that nation and its people. That’s reasonable and understandable. I suppose the question then becomes should we, as a broader community, be ‘pro-Israel’?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“If you don’t think you are being taxed enough, feel free to donate more money to the government.” That’s a real knee-slapper. Or: “If you don’t think there’s enough money for X, why don’t you just cut them a check?”
The idea that local Arab nations are required to donate something to the cause of the Palestinians is risible.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“The problem with J Street is that it only has one bullet in its gun: the two-state solution.”
Think that’s bad? here’s the only three solutions, and pick which ever one you want:
1) Two independent states.
2) An Apartheid state with Jews in control.
3) A combined state with Arabs in control.
Like any of these? Didn’t think so. And nobody else does, either. So there will be eternal war. Until one side doesn’t exist anymore, there will be war. And hopefully, they’ll kill each other off, and we won’t have to worry about it anymore.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“The idea that local Arab nations are required to donate something to the cause of the Palestinians is risible.”
Oh, I wasn’t saying that. My point was more that they couldn’t do it if they wanted to because they were colonies themselves. I guess I forgot to mention that those countries that weren’t British colonies were French colonies. And the French had the same policy forbidding donations to Palestine. Nobody should be obligated to help Palestine, but nobody should be forbidden to do so. And they were forbidden to do so.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I guess I should note that the colonial authorities of every Arab country gave money to the Jewish settlers using the taxes they took from their Arab subjects. And they gave nothing to the Palestinians. Everyone always notes how much more the Jews were than the Arabs, but nobody talks about who got outside funding and from whom it was taken. Funny about that. If stealing is success, maybe I don’t want to be successful.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
re my Texas solution. First, I’m open to making it an east-west thing, if that would help. As for the possiblility that Texas might leave the union upon hearing of my plan, I say I’m looking forward to any progress we can see in that direction. As for the tenth level of hell, well I think they got pretty close in Gaza this last year, so maybe we better ammend it to the eleventh, just in case (no point in taking unnecessary risks). Given all this, it feels like this could be like killing three birds with one stone, with the added benefit that peaceful Jews and Arabs could visit their holy places in peace.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
There is a significant difference between S.Africa and Israel/Palestine. S. Africa was divided along lines pertaining to people’s appearance. There is nothing about a person’s appearance that intrinsically affects the way they will govern. Religion, on the other hand, has an enormous affect on governance. As long as each side believes the country should be run in a manner consistant with their religious beliefs, peaceful coexistance will be a real longshot.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Suffice it to say, creating Israel was the most insane move in history. But it’s here now, so we all have to live with it now. And five hundred years from now, we’ll still wonder why they can’t get along. And yet, we’ll still fund the Israelis, and the Palestinians will take their weapons off illegal weapons deals we do. For every five AK-47s we illegally send to some country, the Palestinians get one. How do they do it? Well, they broker the deal so it doesn’t look like we’re sending those weapons. And our manufacturers win because they supply both sides. That’s how to win a war. Sell weapons to both sides. And hope they keep fighting.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Fostert is tilting at windmills. We can’t go back in time and change things and even if we could, why stop at Israel?
The Hashimites are the true keepers of Mecca and Medina to name just one example. Israel may not be perfect but they are preferable to the alternative. Hamas or Hezzbollah are not known for their ability to govern nor for their tolerance of non-Arabs. What you’re advocating is the rise of a new Palestine cleansed of Jews and non Arabs. I’m sure you will find support among some here but go sell that to the broader electorate here in the US. The electorate, unlike some here, understands that enabling bad behavior usually means you get more of it. If Hezzbollah and Hamas get rewarded for strapping bombs on their children and sending them off, they will eventually find a new enemy which will likely be us. They will probably not stop to ask your son or daughter if their father was Pro-Palestine before they blow up their school bus.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
As for those weapons sales, it works like this. “Hypothetically”, of course. We hate the Burmese and so do the Karen minority. And the Karen will fight, and fight hard. All they need is weapons, and they don’t care what they are. But we can’t give them American guns because it would look like where financing a rebellion in that country. We are, of course, but it can’t look like that. So the Karen need AK-47s from someplace that doesn’t look like America. So we get Israel to sell us AK-47s they took from the Russians, we sell them to the Palestinians, they take 20% of them, and then they sell the rest to the Karen. And we supply the Karen with the money to buy them. And hey, it’s just the evil Palestinians selling the Karen those weapons, not our deal, right? Dirty is as dirty does. Try that Lifebouy soap, maybe that will get it off your hands. Blood is so damn hard to wash off, isn’t it?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Why should you be pro- any country?
I’m pro-Sweden b/c their ladies are hot. I’m pro-Georgia b/c they’re scrappy and like to fight about their weight class.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I’m going to agree with the majority and say that the sub-headline on your article was horribly written, and gave the impression that the article said the opposite of what it said. The Daily Beast became a huge disappointment not long after it began, and has basically been a playground for discredited conservatives to pretend they matter.
Also, poptarts: “idiots” and “scrappy” are not synonyms.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Fostert is tilting at windmills”
That’s absurd. I’ve mostly said that the situation is impossible and cannot be resolved. And that’s tilting at windmills? I’m doing exactly the opposite. Instead of fighting against the impossible, I admit will will be inevitable: eternal war. I have given in to reality, not come with these crazy ideas of peace. I am surely not Don Quixote, I am very much the opposite. I don’t believe in any idealistic ventures there. They will be at war until we kill them. The only possibility of peace in that region is that no Jew or Arab exists at all. Anywhere. Without the annihilation of both groups, one will still fight the rest of us for what is left from the inevitable destruction of Jerusalem. One culture will stand among the ruins of what used to be Jerusalem, and hopefully, we’ll kill them too. The smart thing to do right now is to just nuke all of Jerusalem. If religions want to fight over the city, let’s turn it into a sea of glass first. Then, there’s nothing to fight over. If you boys can’t play fair, I’m taking the toy away. Sorry. And that’s really how it has to be. We can’t play fair, so just take it away.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Religion, on the other hand, has an enormous affect on governance. As long as each side believes the country should be run in a manner consistant with their religious beliefs, peaceful coexistance will be a real longshot.
Religions change over time. A few hundred years ago you could have been equally pessimistic about the constant religious wars racking Europe, but now Europe is relatively peaceful because in most parts of Europe, people now accept that religion isn’t worth killing over. (Bosnia is an exception to that peacefulness precisely because it’s an exception to the mellowing and/or loss of influence of religion.)
Clearly a two-state solution will work about as well as cuius regio, eius religio — i.e. not at all — but in the long term, the real hope is that people will have something else to live for.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
There is nothing like wanting to make members who are not pro-Israel comfortable to show how pro-Israel you are.
As I’ve said here before, there’s Israel the Middle Eastern state, and there’s “Israel” the American political issue. The two are not the same thing.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Not only is the subtitle inaccurate, but “aliening”? Did Matt write this?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“A few hundred years ago you could have been equally pessimistic about the constant religious wars racking Europe, but now Europe is relatively peaceful because in most parts of Europe, people now accept that religion isn’t worth killing over.”
Partly true, but a lot of people left Europe and came to America because of that war. And the war still burns here. At least someone won in the original war. In America, it still goes on under the surface. So I am pessimistic. That war solved issues in Europe, but not here. We still think religious fanaticism is a wonderful thing. And we’ll kill each other over it for sure. My ancestors had their land taken from them early in the Thirty Years War. The were shipped to Ireland as indentured servants. And they managed to buy their way up to being indentured servants in America. Then, we eventually bought our way out of that to be poor farmers. And then became wealthy farmers. And then we started going to college. It took my family a few hundred years to get out of the hole someone else dug us because of our religion. There’s no way I’d really admit to any religion now. I’ll fake whatever religion you want me to be if it saves my family. Not that there’s much of it left, of course.