Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
I saw the Forward editorial The Wages of Indecision on Friday and passed it on to Phil Weiss, who addressed it in a blog entry entitled The Klein Effect; 'The Forward' 'Jokes' that Zionist Neocons Pushed Iraq War for Israel
The most interesting points made by the Forward are the following. (The column can be found at the end of this blog entry because this sort of Jewishly-embarrassing item has a history of vanishing from the online archives of the Forward -- "A Skeleton in the Jewish Family Closet" -- and the New York Jewish Week -- "Modern Orthodoxy under Attack".)
- Blaming the Jews for the world's troubles is one of the oldest of spectator sports.
In other words, we should not point any accusatory fingers at the Israeli government, American Israeli advocacy groups, or groups within the organized Jewish community for threatening or lobbying for an Iran attack, whose mere mention tends to send oil prices into the stratosphere and whose harm to international relations would last for decades.
- In March 2003 came the few dozen Zionist neocons who finagled the Bush administration into invading Iraq for Israel's benefit.
In other words, the web of American Zionist political economic oligarchs, Zionist think tanks, Israeli Advocacy organizations, Zionist academics, and Jewish communal groups really was not involved in manipulating the US government into causing massive death, destruction and dislocation in Iraq for no reason whatsoever, and we should not be discussing issues of law and justice in dealing with a massive number of Jewish Zionist malefactors and conspirators, who remain in positions of power and influence within the USA.
- Rivers of ink have been spilled examining Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire Las Vegas gaming mogul, who has spent millions in the past two years to hobble Olmert and boost the pro-settler right.
In other words, there is apparently too much scrutiny of Adelson's attempts to manipulate US politics and to control the Israeli government.
- The sentiment that seems to come out of some quarters in Israel is that Diaspora Jews can and should speak out on the affairs of every country, except the one they care about most deeply.
In other words, the Forward may point out that far too many politically influential American Jews conceal their primary loyalty to State of Israel, but if non-Jews wonder about Jewish tribalism, they are anti-Semites.
- Good-government types in Jerusalem take pride in the American-style reforms already enacted. One was the introduction in 1988 of party primaries, replacing backroom nominating committees. Primaries forced candidates for public office to raise big money to reach voters. Ever since, Israel has been plagued by a never-ending series of political finance scandals.
In other words, going back to backroom selection would be preferable to fixing the primary system either in the USA or in the State of Israel. Obviously in the US case, the influence of Jewish political organizers, contributors, and fund-raisers would increase tremendously.
- What drives otherwise sober Israelis to concoct such hare-brained schemes and silly theories? Simply put, most can't face the depressing fact that they are hopelessly divided, making consensual democracy elusive.
In other words, there should be a dictator or political decisions should be left in the hands of Jewish plutocrats or Zionist Jewish oligarchs. The Forward has duplicated much of the anti-democratic reasoning of La doctrina del fascismo of Mussolini.
I know that the new English-language Forward probably mostly reflects the views of Michael Steinhardt, who is the major investor, but after spending so much time in archival research of the Yiddish Forverts (פֿאָרװערטס), I am depressed at the complete abandonment of such a rich tradition of socialism, Yiddishism and Americanism to serve the interests of Jewish plutocrats that the founding editor, Abraham Cahan, would have despised
Yet, I have to admit that in the 1920s Cahan became enmeshed in American Zionism and may have helped plant the seeds for today's Forward.
Talansky is the reluctant star of Israel's latest political crisis, the impending downfall of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The generous New Yorker riveted Israelis in May testimony describing how he handed envelopes stuffed with the cash to the prime minister's aides. That deposition was the tipping point in Olmert's losing battle ag ainst corruption charges.
Journalists and academics have responded with breathless debates over the role of Diaspora Jews, particularly rich American Jews, in Israeli decision-making. Talansky isn't alone in the dock. Rivers of ink have been spilled examining Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire Las Vegas gaming mogul, who has spent millions in the past two years to hobble Olmert and boost the pro-settler right. Others have come before, including Australian mining magnate Joseph Gutnick, a backer of Benjamin Netanyahu , and Florida physician Irving Moscowitz, who funds settler institutions.
The smart Israel-watchers say these Diaspora Jews play an outsized and perhaps illegitimate role in Israeli politics, that foreigners have no business interfering in other countries' internal politics. They often add that hawks are more likely than doves to play the game, forgetting that wealthy liberals like Edgar Bronfman and S. Daniel Abraham were the bogeymen of earlier decades.
Israelis are more blunt. More than a few say that Jews in the Diaspora have little right to weigh in on Israeli policy decisions because they don't live in Israel and bear the consequences.
But foreigners step into other countries' politics all around the world. They donate to political parties in South Africa and Taiwan, launch human rights groups in Poland and Hungary, march for policy changes in Russia, Sudan and Iran. Sometimes they simply invade.
The sentiment that seems to come out of some quarters in Israel is that Diaspora Jews can and should speak out on the affairs of every country, except the one they care about most deeply.
Israelis have been complaining about government dysfunction since the state was born, as though creating a new nation, winning five wars and absorbing two million immigrants all happened by accident. They blame the failures on a system paralyzed by structural flaws. The solution is usually something like the American system, with its incorruptible presidency, efficient Congress and immunity from special interests and fundamentalist religious pressure groups.
Good-government types in Jerusalem take pride in the American-style reforms already enacted. One was the introduction in 1988 of party primaries, replacing backroom nominating committees. Primaries forced candidates for public office to raise big money to reach voters. Ever since, Israel has been plagued by a never-ending series of political finance scandals.
The other reform was the personal election of the prime minister, enacted in 1992. Under the old system, the largest party in parliament assembled a governing coalition and named the prime minister. The reform was supposed to strengthen the executive and make the fractious parliament more tractable. Instead, it freed Israelis from pressure to vote for one of the big parties that would pick the prime minister. Voters could use their second, parliamentary ballot as a form of personal expression. As a result, the Knesset imploded into a jungle of tiny parties. The job of assembling enough factions to create and preserve a governing coalition became all but hopeless. The reform was rescinded in 2003, but to no avail. Since 1992, not one Israeli government has survived a full term.
What drives otherwise sober Israelis to concoct such hare-brained schemes and silly theories? Simply put, most can't face the depressing fact that they are hopelessly divided, making consensual democracy elusive. Half the country wants to keep the West Bank and half wants to withdraw, and each side thinks the other threatens Israel's survival. The stakes are enormous, civility in short supply. Still, trying to sidestep the debate by tinkering with the rules — or trying to silence their friends — only makes things worse. Israelis need to decide, for their own sakes.
