A million thanks to FNord for catching this – my life is too fleeting to spend reading the Jerusalem Post — but it would appear that Abe Foxman, that frivolous poltroon, is warning of a new danger rising in the shtetl:
Israel should immediately battle a charge emerging in the US that its actions are endangering the lives of US soldiers, because it is a particularly “pernicious” argument that “smacks of blaming the Jews for everything,” Anti-Defamation League National Chairman Abe Foxman said on Monday.
Foxman, in an interview with The Jerusalem Post, was replying to an emerging theme that has run through the public discussion in the US of the Interior Ministry’s announcement of plans to build 1,600 housing units in northeast Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood: that Israel’s actions could cost the lives of American soldiers.
That sentiment was expressed by such noted antisemites as Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Central Command chief who tried and failed to get Israel, the West Bank and Gaza placed under his area of responsibility. At the risk of concern-trollery, allow me to offer some free advice to my shtetlmate Foxman: Do not fuck with David Petraeus. Do not come within a football field of implying he is an antisemite. Do not formulate any construction, no matter how weaselly and crass and insulting to the intelligence, that leaves the slightest, faintest, remotest indication that he has any animus at all to Israel or the Jewish people.
Indeed, let’s take a look at what that weasel word was. We cannot discuss the security implications for the United States of Israeli actions, Foxman instructs, because that “smacks of blaming the Jews.” Yes, it “smacks.” It leaves a bad taste in Foxman’s sour mouth. Something is “smacking” Foxman’s delicate sensibilities, and it’s the prospect of a grown-up argument about what Israel does and what that means to the United States.
The truth is that nothing in this complex and variated world is monocausal, and it’s rare that you can find any one action in the security sphere that directly and exclusively leads to an equal and opposite reaction. Such is true of Israel and the United States. But it would be equally foolish and immature to rule out of analytic consideration that what Israel does contributes to the insecurity of the region and, when U.S. troops are in the region, contributes to their jeopardy. You can find this when Moqtada Sadr freaks out in Iraq because of the Israeli invasion and bombardment of Lebanon. Or when a sick fuck like al-Qaeda’s Khost bomber claims to have his radicalism strengthened by Operation Cast Lead. Or when Usama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, seeing that their hold on the Muslim mind is weak, attempts to appropriate Muslim bitterness over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to bolster their support. In none of these cases can you say Had Israel Not Done This, Then That Wouldn’t Have Happened, because the counterfactual conditional makes for sloppy reasoning. But you also can’t say it had no effect when the ripple effects of Israeli actions on American security are so obvious and manifested. Recognizing that doesn’t remotely make you a Blame-The-Jews guy. It makes you a minimally informed and thoughtful observer of the Middle East.
The fact that Foxman wants to keep that consideration out of bounds demonstrates how insecure he is about winning a mature argument. And so he’s willing to intimate in a circus-huckster manner that Gen. Petraeus and other members of the Obama administration have something against the Jews. I’ll tell you what I’d like to smack.
Keeping Petraeus and Gates is turning out to be a pretty shrewd move on Obama’s part in its effectiveness of defending his right flank with little to know effort.
Some people can’t see the forest for the trees:
The day Palestianians living in the Greater Israeli Reich demand the right to vote in Israeli elections, and the Israeli government says no, is the day that you could call the beginning of the end of the state of Israel. The two-state solution is in everyone’s best interest.
Petraeus’ complaint, as I understand it based on what I’ve read, is that, as a result of certain Israeli actions (such as announcing building-plans for East Jerusalem), a perception was generated (strengthened?) in the minds of Arab leaders that US is weak. And it is that perception of US weakness that puts US troops in the region at increased danger: Israel’s action generates the perception; the perception gives rise to the increased danger to US troops; hence Israel is responsible.
But Foxman is right that this smacks of blaming the Jews for everything. For Israel is in no way responsible for the Arab perception of US weakness (assuming such a perception exists). The US is. Arab leaders would view the US as weak following Israeli actions/decisions to which the Arabs objected only if the Arabs had reason to believe that the US tried to prevent such Israeli actions but failed. For what else in an Israeli action might indicate US weakness?
But to have reason to believe the US would try to change Israel’s mind, the Arabs would have to have been given reason. By whom? Presumably the US assured Arab leaders that they would try to persuade Israel to abandon the “objectionable” plans, etc. But then that’s what’s responsible for causing the Arabs’ perception of weakness when the US failed to persuade Israel, not the fact that Israel disagreed with the US’s position. The US should have quietly worked out understandings with Israel on the relevant issues before promising the Arabs that they would bring Israel around on East Jerusalem (or whatever). Had the US done that, no promises to the Arabs that the US couldn’t deliver on would have been made, and consequently the US wouldn’t look weak to the Arabs when Israel disagreed with the US position.
The problem is not that Israel disagreed with the US position. Israel is fully within its moral rights to do so. The problem is that the US recklessly gave the Arabs the impression that they would deliver on something they couldn’t. Had those responsible for planting that expectation in the Arabs minds first worked to reach an understanding with Israel (a close ally) on the relevant issues, no perception of weakness would have been generated, and consequently no increased risk for US troops either (assuming there in fact is such an increased risk).
If anyone is putting anyone else at increased risk of danger here, it seems to me that is Petraeus’ outrageous charge that is putting the State of Israel and the Jewish people at increased risk.
In the Foxman/AIPAC/Jeffrey Goldberg/Wieseltier/others of their ilk world, EVERYTHING smacks of anti-Semitism. Something about crying wolf…
Great post Spence.
Thanks,
C
Thanks for the mention, Spencer. You really should drop by to read the Jerusalem Post now and then, it sets things into a perspective. Todays edition featrures an interview with Nethanyahus brother in law claiming Obama is a anti-semite and his brother in law is perfectly aware of it. Earlier this week we had Caroline Glick writing that Obama represents the merging of the two anti-semite cults, the red and the green (communism and Iran), you have Dershowitz making open fun of the concept of international law. ANd the comments are like a raw sewage-stream of open anti-arab racism. They ve been anti-Obama since before he took powers, following the Sarah Palin line.
It seems that hasbara in the last year has taken a brutal turn, where the only “explanation” is antisemitism (or in your case, preferring Trotsky to the torah/self-hate). They are building a echo-chamber, and those are always dangerous if they get too big. And Jerusalem Post is prettty big, they are not a extremist rag.
Oh, and the smearing has begun…
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=21512#more-21512
Abe Foxman is of course a ridiculous and embarrassing blowhard, and the idea that Israel’s actions have security implications for the US is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion. Unfortunately, I find most of the arguments to be very shallow, with Israel antagonists generally claiming, without much analysis, that US support for Israel is bad for US national security and Israel supporters responding that such a claim is an example of “blaming the victim” or worse, antisemitism.
I have argued in the past that the truth is somewhat more complicated.
First, I believe the countries and cultures of the Middle East are fundamentally dysfunctional, and it is that dysfunction which creates conflict with the West. Simply put, if Israel goes away, the deep antipathy towards the US, and the terrorism that goes with it, will remain.
If this is so, then one should see Israel as less of an irritant in the Middle East that stirs up trouble for us, and more as a lightning rod that deflects trouble away from us.
Second, Israel can be used as a weapon to be wielded against our enemies, as well as our putative friends. I don’t want to stretch the analogy to the point it becomes offensive, since I have great respect for the Israeli people, but Israel has tremendous value to the US as an attack dog that we threaten to unleash from time to time.
Finally, I’ll note that the US and Israel share many common values, and if the US were to abandon Israel because of concerns for our own security, it would create an impression of cowardice and lack of resolve in the face of terrorist threats. This would only serve to embolden the extremists and hurt our security in the long-term. It is far better to stand firm now and keep our lightning/punishment rod, than to stand firm later when we don’t have one.
esm: I agree with you. But to mark a little beef, I tried communicating a different perspective on hezbollah at Michael Tottens page, and there u have to weather accusations of anti-semitism if you dont agree with Israel. Its a disease. I have scars from fighting nazis in Europe, im an old anti-fa. I served in the army, and Ive been communicating with US veterans a long time now. But I think some of the police methods Israel use are counter productive, Petraeusw: Money is ammunition that works.
PS: I have friends from ramallah.
RE – “Foxman: Do not fuck with David Petraeus.”
MY COMMENT: OMG! OMG! OMG! I knew this would happen, sooner or later. You’re becoming Marty “Macho Man” Peretz!
GLEN GREENWALD – http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/12/28/peretz