The Horror, The Horror

It seems that Barack Obama must remain forever in purgatory as far as Commentary's concerned since he once -- shudder -- called for an "even-handed approach" to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Needless to say, it was a similar formulation that got Howard Dean in so much trouble back during the 2004 cycle.

I also have to say that this strikes me as a curiously nonsensical red line for Israel's false friends to be drawing. After all, supporting an "even-handed approach" sounds like exactly the sort of line someone not utterly steeped in the latest talking points might cross by accident. But on top of that, no matter how much you may believe deep in your heart that Arabs are less human than Jews and therefore less worthy of our consideration, it seems like for tactical purposes you ought to at least pretend to favor an even-handed approach and then just proclaim whichever approach you favor to be the even-handed one. That's just common sense.

Comments

The concern is that 'even handed' is a coded way of saying 'even handed'.

Posted by MattF | January 30, 2008 1:09 PM

it seems like for tactical purposes you ought to at least pretend to favor an even-handed approach and then just proclaim whichever approach you favor to be the even-handed one.

So would you advise anyone to go down to Miami and, for tactical purposes, pretend to favor "an even-handed approach" toward recognizing the Castro regime in Cuba? Just asking...

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | January 30, 2008 1:09 PM

Sadly, common sense ain't so common.

I don't understand, either, though. I thought politics was all about saying one thing while doing another. These guys are actually being honest about being dumbasses. *shrug* Who'da thunk it.

Posted by Captain Noble | January 30, 2008 1:11 PM

If your lobbying power and media connections can get politicians to adopt an extreme position in your issue-area, why settle for anything less?

I like the fact that AIPAC and co. are nervous about Obama.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 1:15 PM

At the end of the day, Israeli nationalism is as banal, close-minded and parochial as any garden variety nationalism is.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 30, 2008 1:21 PM

At the end of the day, Israeli nationalism is as banal, close-minded and parochial as any garden variety nationalism is. - Nick Kaufman

Nu? Isn't this exactly one of the goals of Zionism? That the Jews should be no different than any other nation?

OTOH, the UN in its infinite wisdom has decided to specifically single out Zionism, even though it's no more banal, close-minded or parochial than any other nationalism. And the anti-Zionist types wonder why we Jews, even us liberal ones, are concerned about double standards?

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 1:31 PM

But on top of that, no matter how much you may believe deep in your heart that Arabs are less human than Jews and therefore less worthy of our consideration, it seems like for tactical purposes you ought to at least pretend to favor an even-handed approach and then just proclaim whichever approach you favor to be the even-handed one. That's just common sense.

Uh, why? Is there any special tactical considerations that make it better to call something even-handed when you're actually supporting the good guys? This seems like the tactic we tried in 1939. It failed, and we abandoned it by 1940.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM

DAS, you can't be a liberal and support racist settler colonialism. It's as simple as that. Ethnic chauvinism or liberalism: pick one.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM

Is there any special tactical considerations that make it better to call something even-handed when you're actually supporting the good guys?

Right. From now on, AIPAC should just start demanding that our politicians refer to the Israelis as "The Good Guys" and the Palestinians as "The Bad Guys".

It makes everything much clearer, especially since most Americans are relatively uninformed. For example, they probably don't know what to think about the Palestinian right of return. But, if you ask them: should The Bad Guys have the right to return? Then, even Americans should be able to figure out the right answer.

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 1:42 PM

DAS, you can't be a liberal and support racist settler colonialism. It's as simple as that. Ethnic chauvinism or liberalism: pick one. - otto

Ummm ... which country is not based at some point on ethnic chauvinism and racist settler expansions? It's the height of hypocrisy for those living within the great powers of the world who benefit from a peace established by massive population transfers to then decry the "ethnic chauvinism" of those who were driven out of their native lands and had no-where else to go really anyway.

Certainly, while those who deny the colonialist edge of Zionism are knaves, what kind of person is so happy to empathetic toward this group and empathetic toward that group yet refuses to see Zionism as anything other than a purely colonial enterprise? It isn't as if the Zionists picked Israel at random.

Of course, y'all will point out "but the Zionists were willing to settle Jews in Country X". Nu? If the Zionists settled Jews in Country X, y'all would be saying "what the heck is a Jewish state doing in Country X, at least in Palestine it would make historical sense. I'm no nationalist per se, but tell me -- what should have been done to solve the then termed "Jewish problem"? Saying that everyone should could have had a pony is no answer, is it?

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 1:47 PM

Actually, I think the reason is pretty similar to why courtiers in many absolute monarchies have to scrape their foreheads on the floor whenever they approach within twenty feet of their Divine Ruler.

Among other things, it signals to even the dimmest onlookers about exactly who's in charge of everything...

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 1:50 PM

DAS,

Good point. My position is that the region would have been better off without the creation of Israel, but by now that is ancient history.

Unfortunately, the creation of Israel resulted in lots of conflict. On the other hand, Israel is obviously a dynamic, successful country. The thing to do now is to try to settle the conflict in the most pragmatic way possible, that ensures the well being of people on both sides.

However, since that is a very difficult undertaking, I think the best thing for America is to just wash our hands of the whole thing, and become much less involved. Either way, I don't see the point in arguing about the history, in terms of who was right or who was wrong (or who the good guys or bad guys are).

By the way, what does "nu" mean?

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 1:58 PM

Of course, come to think of it, if parochial ethnocentrism was what Commentary and their ilk were after, they would have helped push Dean into the White House rather than away from it.

Outside of Lieberman (and what was the chance of him getting the Dem. nomination or winning the Presidency if he got it?), Dean was the only candidate in 2004 whose election would have ensured that a Jewish family occupied the White House. ;)

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 1:59 PM

DAS keeps using the word nu.

My dictionary defines nu as the thirteenth word in the Greek alphabet and that is all. Since that meaning doesn't seem to fit the context of anything written in this thread I'm left wondering if DAS didn't pick up some ebonics somewhere along the way.

Posted by ndm | January 30, 2008 2:02 PM

What Commentary and their ilk want is Jewish colonialism and ethnic cleansing of arabs, backed by US imperial power over the middle east in general. They were rightly nervous about Dean on those grounds.

There are many ideologies that use past ethnic cleansings to justify current and future ones, but none of them are "liberal", DAS, and neither are you.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 2:06 PM

Re DAS's comment "It's the height of hypocrisy for those living within the great powers of the world who benefit from a peace established by massive population transfers "
----------
Uh,we didn't TRANSFER the population, exactly.

Try smallpox. Works like a charm.

Posted by Don Williams | January 30, 2008 2:14 PM

By the way, what does "nu" mean? - Jim W

It's meaning and usage as complicated as the Middle East situation. And, at times, as controversial.

Roughly, it means "well", "so?" or "what else can you say?"/"what else could you do?" or sometimes even more along the lines of "eh?" or even as a very flat-affect and resigned way of saying "what? you've got a better idea?".

To illustrate:

Three alter-kockers are sitting around. One asks "nu?" the other responds "oy" ... at which point the third abruptly rises and says "if you don't stop talking politics, I'm leaving".

A common way for one Yiddish speaking Jew to greet another would be "Vos macht a Yid?" ("what does a Jew do?"), to which the response is "nu? a Yid macht a leben" ("what else? a Jew makes a living").

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 2:14 PM

DAS, I would ask why you confuse the 'settlement' of Israel in general, and the specific settlement program referred to specifically, but I'm pretty sure it's intentional. And that's the problem. I perceive you attempting to reconcile two irreconcilable principles: liberalism and Israel's settler policy. The result is just silly contortions.

Posted by mpowell | January 30, 2008 2:18 PM

Although some connaisseurs of Lebensraum prefer Xyklon B over smallpox.

Posted by Don Williams | January 30, 2008 2:19 PM

I'm left wondering if DAS didn't pick up some ebonics somewhere along the way. - ndm

Hebonics actually ;) (actually, though, nu is not Hebraic, it's of Russian origin)

Although if any of y'all know a little about my personal life, I bet y'all would need a new keyboard if y'all were drinking coffee whilst reading ndm's comment.

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 2:21 PM

mpowell,

Much of Israel's settler policy I, as a liberal, do in fact oppose. The question is to which "racist settler colonialism" are Otto, et al., referring? If fail to make what really is a rather arbitrary distinction, I wouldn't be the first one, either on the right or left to fail to do so.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume Otto wasn't specifically referring to certain West Bank settlements that really are unjustified. And if Otto is assuming that I am of the same ilk as Commentary, that is wrong too.

And actually, to be fair, I think people think Israel has more of a policy than they do -- a lot of things have happened simply because there is no policy, not because of some evil plot. Part of the problem is that some Jews are so afraid of seeming weak and so believe the anti-Semitic propaganda that our people are fiendishly clever, they'd just assume convince everyone that Israel has some diabolical plan that could never exist in a country as politically fractured as Israel.

At the very least, though, Otto's original contention was, um, interesting -- "you can't be a liberal and support racist settler colonialism". Isn't being a colonialist settler supporting the enterprise of racist settler colonialism? I wonder where Otto lives and if that land wasn't ages ago swindled or taken from some native group. While Otto is correct to say that past ethnic cleansing doesn't justify current ethnic cleansing, those who benefit from said past ethnic cleansing still, in a sense, support it, wouldn't y'all agree?

Thus, according to Otto, any principled (white) liberal should go back from whence their ancestors came and give their land to a native family.

Posted by DAS | January 30, 2008 2:34 PM

The concern is that 'even handed' is a coded way of saying 'even handed'.

Well, since "anti-semitic" is a coded way of saying "doesn't support right-wing politics in the Middle East," the bar's already been set pretty low.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM

DAS writes:

While Otto is correct to say that past ethnic cleansing doesn't justify current ethnic cleansing, those who benefit from said past ethnic cleansing still, in a sense, support it, wouldn't y'all agree?

It is absurd to claim that Americans "in a sense, support" ethnic cleansing because they continue to live in a place where it once happened. The moral failure does not lie with them but instead with those who use the fact that ethnic cleansing happened a long time ago in America to justify ethnic cleansing in, for example, the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These moral failures ignore the enormous change in the interaction between law and morality that occurred as a consequence of the horrors of WW2.

I presume that people who justify ethnic cleansing on the grounds that everyone used to do it would similarly have no problem with slavery because everyone used to do it or genocide because everyone used to do it.

Posted by ndm | January 30, 2008 3:09 PM

The US should support whatever the left wing of the Israeli Labor Party supports. That would work.

Posted by Rich | January 30, 2008 3:11 PM

otto,

Ethnic chauvinism or liberalism: pick one.

Please. Have you read the Palestinian Constitution? We're not even talking about the Hamas Charter, here.

Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal, the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.

That's alot of ethnic and religious chauvinism. I guess if you're a liberal, you can't support the Palestinians either. So are you a liberal or a supporter of the Palestinians? Pick one.

Or maybe you can "white man's burden" yourself into telling the Palestinians what's best for them, and still consider yourself a liberal. But it's not what they want for themselves. So live up to your ideals and "pick one." Palestinians or liberalism.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 30, 2008 3:31 PM

DAS,

Well, I was under the impression that you were not willing to criticize Israel's settler policy. Maybe I am remembering someone else. And I'll let Otto speak for himself, but for many people in this debate, they're talking about the ongoing settler situation. Of course, there are those that oppose the original creation of the Isreali state, and while they might have some good points about the fairness of that act, it happened long enough ago and with enough support from the international community, that I don't think it does any good to criticize it now.

Posted by mpowell | January 30, 2008 3:39 PM

DAS:

OTOH, the UN in its infinite wisdom has decided to specifically single out Zionism, even though it's no more banal, close-minded or parochial than any other nationalism. And the anti-Zionist types wonder why we Jews, even us liberal ones, are concerned about double standards?

I think here you're really not perceiving the historical weight of European colonialism and how Israel looks to the third world. Just as people have to understand and take seriously the history of merciless persecution of Jews (and are going to misunderstand lots of things in the present if they don't), people also need to understand and take seriously the spectacular murder and theft of European colonialism.

Posted by Jon | January 30, 2008 3:40 PM

The fact that SoCalJustice's quote appears to be utterly benign when French replaces Palestinian brings out the racism implicit in the rest of the comment.

France is part of the European nation. The state of France abides by the charter of the European Union. The French people are part of the European and Christian nations. European unity is a goal, the French people hopes to achieve.

That's a lot of ethnic and religious chauvinism. I guess if you're a liberal, you can't support the French either. So are you a liberal or a supporter of the French? Pick one.

Or maybe you can "white man's burden" yourself into telling the French what's best for them, and still consider yourself a liberal. But it's not what they want for themselves. So live up to your ideals and "pick one." French or liberalism.

Posted by ndm | January 30, 2008 3:46 PM

ndm,

Wow, you really can't see what just happened.

otto, maybe you can help him/her out?

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 30, 2008 4:07 PM

Thanks to the best-selling Carter and Walt-Mearshimer books and the Iraq Study Group's report- the tide has shifted somewhat towards the embrace of a saner and more righteous American Middle East policy. When you hear the'Commentary/Little Green Footballs' crowd disparaging Condi Rice as "that affirmative action piano player' you know things are getting better. The fact is we've approached the time when a Presidential Candidate can accurately state that it's the Joe Liebermans of our country and their surfeit of friends in the media who are more responsible for bringing 9/11 down upon us than anyone. There are far more senior governmental and military officials who recognize that the country can not afford to be Apartheid Israel's ennablers anymore. And, I think Obama unlike Hillary has the guts and good sense to make that case now and AIPAC, JINSA, ZOA, and all their Christian Zionist wackjobes can go to hell where they'll wind up anyway.

Posted by Trevor | January 30, 2008 5:03 PM

Jon,

Isn't it somewhat problematic to try to place Israel in the continuum of European imperialism?

After all, if anyone has a complaint against 19-20th century Caucasian ethnic supremacism, it's the Jews.
Edward Said did his best to shoehorn Zionism in with the more traditional imperialist movement, but it was never a good fit. Zionism rests on Judaism's historical ties to Israel and a the sort of ethnic nationalism (a desire for a Jewish state) similar to the claims advanced by the Bosnians or the Croations in the former Yugoslavia.

This may strike you as an irrelevant point, but I believe it to be an important distinction. Colonialist nations demand control of foreign countries based on military prowess and racial or cultural supremacy. Israel, by contrast, claims Palestine as its homeland. A nation, just like other nations, if you will.

You may reject the legitimacy of Israel's claim (though I think you'd be wrong), or you may object to the means by which that claim is advanced (and Israel, like all nations, has done a lot of questionable things in pursuit of its interests).

But Israel bears no moral burden for the sins of the colonial powers, nor does it deserve to.

Posted by heedless | January 30, 2008 9:24 PM

DAS: "which country is not based at some point on ethnic chauvinism and racist settler expansions?"

See, here's how you identify your typical Zionist troll.

The instant you make a legitimate criticism of Israel, they drag up "Well, everybody else did it, too!"

"We can do apartheid in the occupied territories because South Africa did it! We can brutalize Palestinians because the Nazis did it to us! We can drive people off their lands because the Americans did it to the Indians!"

Blah, blah, blah...

Fucking intellectually dishonest assholes, the lot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 11:07 PM

"Zionism rests on Judaism's historical ties to Israel and a the sort of ethnic nationalism (a desire for a Jewish state) similar to the claims advanced by the Bosnians or the Croations in the former Yugoslavia."

Bullshit.

Zionism is a racist, statist ideology which intended from day one to take over a territory that was currently occupied by persons of a different nationality and religion, and replace them with its own people and establish a state over not only its own people but the current population as well - if any were left.

Several prominent Zionists lost faith in that concept quickly when they learned that Palestine was NOT an "empty desert" with nobody living there. I've guoted those Zionists here in the past.

This has nothing whatever to do with being an ethnic segment of a pre-existing state which desires to, in essence, secede and establish its own state. Neither the Bosnians nor the Croations wanted to take over Yugoslavia and impose their state and religion on the rest of the inhabitants.

Any conflation of the two situations is completely ridiculous.

Zionism was identical in concept to European colonial expansionism, except that instead of an existing state doing the colonization, it was a non-state actor - the Zionist movement - acting with the (limited) assistance of a state - Great Britain.

When Britain decided it could no longer handle the situation due to the violence between the Palestinian resistance and the Zionist terrorists, it turned to the UN to resolve the matter.

The UN in turn tasked a commission to determine whether it had the legal authority to resolve the matter. The conclusion of that commission was that the UN DID NOT have that authority, and had only the authority to implement the Palestinian Mandate of the League of Nations.

Due to the conflict, the UN set aside its own commission's report, and went ahead and partitioned Israel in a ridiculously unfair manner based on the relative populations of Palestinians and Jewish immigrants at the time. Yet even that was not enough for Ben-Gurion, who explicitly said that the partition would be ignored in due time and the rest of Palestine seized for the Jewish state.

This makes Israel an illegal, rogue, terrorist state with no legitimate right to exist. Note that the STATE not having a right to exist does not refer to the Jewish population currently living there.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 11:24 PM

Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but just to clarify, many Israelis ARE arabs--and there are a good number of Christian Arabs as well.

The correct dichotomy is Jew/Muslim

Posted by nana_karina | January 30, 2008 11:40 PM

Not only are "many" Israelis Arabs, they are going to outnumber the Jews in a couple decades based on relative birthrates.

And how Obama is going to square that fact with his "commitment to keep Israel a Jewish state", I don't know. Once the majority population is Arab, how is Israel going to keep itself entirely a Jewish state?

The Israeli right wing already know this isn't going to work, and that's why they are recommending either outright expulsion of Israeli Arabs or some other tricks like "land swaps" with the supposed "Palestinian state" to get rid of the Israeli Arabs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 11:46 PM

One problem with the argument "everybody did it" is that it does not explain why Palestinians should not have a turn at having fun.

Perhaps we should be even-handed after all. Give Palestinians 3 billion dollars worth of military aid (per year) and watch how the best men win. (I am agnostic about the ultimate outcome of such an experiment, but it would provide invaluable lessons in tactics and strategy for years to come). Also, after verifying what is effective and what is not we could safely delete unnecessary deadwood from our military budget, so this modest investment would lead to huge savings over time.

Posted by piotr | January 31, 2008 9:51 AM