As dissenting Jewish voices in America are increasingly being heard, as they have long been heard in Israel, the hawkish, rightwing-oriented establishment epitomized by AIPIC is growing increasingly irrational. A rational discussion is trying to break through, but a rational discussion is the last thing that AIPAC establishment wants. There are demonstrations against Israel's attack on across the country tomorrow, in Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Portland, OR, Sacramento, CA, Urbana, Ill as well as around the world.
Even Time magazine's cover proclaims, "Why Israel Can't Win", while the accompanying cover story asks, "Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza?" As with the Wall Street meltdown, the old ideology has visibly self-destructed, yet it's defenders still fight on, not realizing they've already lost. Unfortunately, in neither instance does that mean that sanity has yet won. But debate is spreading where there was only silence before. And the growing outspokenness of Jewish-American opposition to what is being done in our name--as well as to Israel--is a heartening sign. Some examples:
An article in the New York Jewish Week, "Fresh Rift Emerges Over War Response", emailed out by J Street, discussed the heightened level of controversy that J Street has elicited:
"Other peace groups issued statements, but they're not seen as serious people," said the leader of a major pro-Israel group this week. "But J Street includes serious people with serious connections with the new administration, and people are very worried. They don't have much power now, but there's a feeling that they could gain a lot of influence in the new Congress and with the new administration."
Rosanne Barr, loudmouth Jew extraordinaire, kicked off her new local radio show on KPFK Pacifica with a blistering attack on warmongering and bigotry of all kinds taking primary aim on how she feels her faith has been distorted and abused. (Listen here.) It was truly refreshing to hear a pro-peace, anti-imperialist Jewish voice without one second of defensiveness in a 60-minute program. How soon can they start syndicating her?
On Democracy Now!yesterday, Amy and Juan had Former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on to discuss his new book, Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East. But they also had on Norman Finkelstein, author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah, and Martin Indyk just about had a cow. He was, quite literally, incapable of arguing with Finklestein, and tried to make a virtue of necessity by presenting it as a matter of honor and principle that he would not debate Finklestein. But he lost embarrassingly, anyway. Details--or should I say, morsels--on the flip.
First, we see what an affront it is that an Israeli apologist has to appear with a knowledgeable critic:
AMY GOODMAN: We turn first to Ambassador Indyk. Can you explain why you think Israel began this assault almost two weeks ago now?
MARTIN INDYK: Good morning, Amy. Thanks very much for having me on the show. I feel a little bit sandbagged here. I was not told that I was going to be in some kind of debate with Norman Finkelstein. I'm not interested in doing that. I'm also not here as a spokesman for Israel. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
And then we see why, as Indyk trots out the official narrative of Israeli blamelessness:
I think that what happened here was that there was a ceasefire, an informal ceasefire, between Hamas and Israel that had lasted for about five months. Hamas decided to break that ceasefire with a prolonged series of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in southern Israel. And the Israeli government responded with overwhelming force, designed, as they have said, to try to reestablish deterrence, to prevent Hamas from doing that again, and to try to get a ceasefire in place that would prevent Hamas from smuggling in offensive weapons into Gaza, the better to attack Israel.
And Finkelstein knocks it down:
AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, your assessment of why Israel attacked now?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point--and now I'm quoting the official Israeli website--Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha'aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday's Ha'aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman's language basically means Israel's capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.
Indyk goes on to embellish his story about the endless evil of Hamas:
JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to--Ambassador Indyk, this issue of supporters of Israel say repeatedly that Hamas is still committed to the destruction of Israel. Is your sense that over the last year or so there has been some kind of a change in the viewpoints of the Hamas leaders?
MARTIN INDYK: No, I don't think there's any evidence of that. Hamas is very clear that it will not make peace with Israel; it will not recognize Israel; its intention is to destroy the Jewish state, that it's an abomination in the midst of the Arab heartland, Islamic world, and so on. And I don't see that there's any change in that whatsoever.
I think the change that's taken place is a change on the ground. Hamas, having won the PA elections and then--we don't need to go into the details of that, but essentially what happened was, as a result of a competition between Hamas and Fatah over who would rule, Hamas took control of Gaza by force in what was, in effect, a putsch against the Palestinian Authority. It therefore moved from being a terrorist organization to a terrorist government, responsible for controlling territory in Gaza and responsible for meeting the needs of one-and-a-half million Palestinians in Gaza....
And when it's Finklestein's turn, he calls him on it:
AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I think the problem of Mr. Indyk's presentation is he constantly reverses cause and effect. Just as he said a moment ago that it was Hamas which broke the ceasefire, although he well knows it was Israel that broke the ceasefire on November 4th, he now reverses cause and effect as to how the present impasse came about. In January 2006, as he writes in his book, Hamas came to power in a free and fair election. I think those are his words. He then claims on your program and he claims in his book that Hamas committed a "putsch"--his word--in order to eliminate the Palestinian Authority. And as I'm sure Mr. Indyk well knows and as was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Correct. The problem all along has been that Israel doesn't want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn't want to resolve diplomatically the conflict. Mr. Indyk well knows that both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they're willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it's unambiguously clear.
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question." And every year the vote is the same: it's the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989--in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.
We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That's the problem.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Ambassador Indyk, why doesn't Israel accept this ceasefire?
MARTIN INDYK: Look, Amy, I was invited on to talk about my book and the Gaza situation. I was not invited on to debate with Norman Finkelstein, and I'm not prepared to do that. So if you want to talk about the situation, I'm happy to do that, but I'm not here to be the representative of the government of Israel. You can easily invite somebody on to--
AMY GOODMAN: No, of course not. No, we're asking your opinion. I don't see you as the representative of Israel. But let me get your--
MARTIN INDYK: Well, why don't we focus on some other issues, like the American role in this or something that--
AMY GOODMAN: Very good point.
MARTIN INDYK: --can get us out of this ridiculous debate, in which he's just a propaganda spokesman for Hamas, you know.
So, Finkelstein correcting Indyk's lies makes him "just a propaganda spokesman for Hamas"? Pretty typical of the ad hominem attacks that substitute for sound arguments by Israeli apologists. It really angers them when someone else gets to speak. Is it any wonder they are so opposed to negotiations? So opposed to peace on any terms except utterly crushing the Palestinians?
And is it any wonder that their façade is finally starting to crumble? And even Time magazine starts to notice that there's no there there? Not just no moral there there in killing innocent women and children by the scores. But not even a strategic there there. So much for the "pragmatists," the "hard-nosed realists," the "break a few eggs" crowd.
I conclude with a longer excerpt of the article on J Street and the reaction it has aroused:
Union of Reform Judaism President Eric Yoffie, writing in The Forward, said J Street statements "could find no moral difference between the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who have launched more than 5,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians in the past three years, and the long-delayed response of Israel."
But others say J Street, which has organized an online petition calling for "immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a meaningful cease-fire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza," has prompted such a strong response because the group is seen as having at least the potential of reaching a significant number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill - and the incoming Barack Obama administration - with a message that differs from that of the pro-Israel establishment.
"Other peace groups issued statements, but they're not seen as serious people," said the leader of a major pro-Israel group this week. "But J Street includes serious people with serious connections with the new administration, and people are very worried. They don't have much power now, but there's a feeling that they could gain a lot of influence in the new Congress and with the new administration."
J Street's founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, was unapologetic, saying his group's stance on an immediate cease-fire "has a really massive base of support in the Jewish community. The fallacy here is the argument that a military victory against an insurgent group actually is achievable. ... Even if Israel wipes out every single missile launcher and takes every Hamas activist into captivity, what then? There are whole new generations behind them."
Precisely. Reality is closing in on Versailles. War is not a recipe for peace.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
