Calling on Fred Hiatt and Donald Graham: I am NOT an Israel-Basher and Protest Jennifer Rubin’s Charge

-

hiattweb.jpgI have known Fred Hiatt for years — not closely but in a professional and friendly sense; we have both been deeply dipped in Japan stuff. It’s not a secret that many observers believe that the combined team of Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post have brought an edge to foreign policy editorials that tilts towards the values-spear carriers in these debates while not investing in the realist-tilting wings of the national security establishment.
That’s OK. Not where I am — and I don’t think Hiatt and Diehl agree with the characterization, but they run the show at the Post and stand by their team.
Nonetheless, I have had exchanges with Fred Hiatt on these trends and won’t report them as they are confidential, and to his credit, he has always responded fairly and constructively. I have tried to do the same.
jennifer rubin.jpgBut Hiatt’s latest hire, Jennifer Rubin, has a tendency to engage in short-cut sliming rather than engaging in the same constructive tone and spirit that my exchanges with Hiatt have had. This is unacceptable — and undermines the brand of the Washington Post. (photo credit: Daniel Sieradski)
In an op-ed she wrote today at the Post, Rubin refers to a letter that I organized of policy practitioners, academics, former government officials, and some journalists — both Republicans and Democrats — in the following way:

The usual crowd of Israel bashers has sent the president a letter urging him to go along with a U.N. resolution condemning Israel for its settlements (emphasis added)

At least Ben Smith at Politico had the decency to note that the roster I had assembled included both “usual suspects” and “unusual suspects.”
But without a call from her — without inquiry — the letter I helped organize and draft, which I have sent out making a key point that makes clear in it the following statement:

While a UNSC resolution will not resolve the issue of settlements or prevent further Israeli construction activity in the Occupied Territory, it is an appropriate venue for addressing these issues and for putting all sides on notice that the continued flouting of international legality will not be treated with impunity. Nor would such a resolution be incompatible with or challenge the need for future negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, and it would in no way deviate from our strong commitment to Israel’s security. (emphasis added)

This letter is fully consistent — in every dimension I can think of — with administration policy. The difference with the administration exists not in content but in the administration’s preference for “venues” in which the current standoff is discussed and debated. Who is in the pot of Israel bashers? Everyone in the Obama administration?
I would like to know from Jennifer Rubin and from her editor — and from the Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post — what I have ever said, what I have ever written, what I have ever organized that deserves the characterization I received from Jennifer Rubin today at the Washington Post. What does she consider makes me an Israel-basher?
I believe that she and I have a serious disagreement about what Israel’s interests are — and I believe that the Netanyahu wing of the Israeli political establishment regularly places short term interests over long to mid-term interests. But I don’t call those who support Netanyahu Israel-bashers even though I believe that as patriotic as they may be as Israelis or as pro-Israel as they may be as Americans they are harming Israel’s interests. That could be a constructive debate — something where both sides could learn something, perhaps.
Calling someone as Israel-basher is akin to calling them an anti-Semite or a bigot, and that can’t go without response. I’m a strong believer in Israel and want a healthy and constructive relationship between Israel and the United States. I have traveled to Israel, have met people from nearly every political party in the Knesset, and love the place and people.
This kind of insidious character attack is irresponsible — and beneath the Washington Post. I think Rubin is smart and informed — but has a way with her writing that slimes recklessly. I hope she tacks in new directions. David Brooks would be someone for her to consider emulating.
I want to debate Rubin — or at least have my time with the editors of the Post to discuss this matter and our letter. I think that the least that the Post can do to balance the attack that Rubin made is to hear the side of those who sent to President Obama the letter she considered Israel-Bashing.
I look forward to hearing from Fred Hiatt and/or Rubin or Don Graham, but this is really unacceptable.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

90 comments on “Calling on Fred Hiatt and Donald Graham: I am NOT an Israel-Basher and Protest Jennifer Rubin’s Charge

  1. Tridant says:

    Steve,
    Israel, like Apartheid South Africa, is a settler-colonialist (i.e., racist) state. The label “Israel basher” is a true badge of honor for anyone with human decency.
    For decades, the USG has been the true enabler (financially, diplomatically, and militarily) behind the Zionist settler-colonialist project, called Israel, and sadly this makes all of us indirectly complicit in continuing crimes against humanity.
    Israel: We

    Reply

  2. samuelburke says:

    Phil Weiss weighs in on Jennifah Rubin.
    Hello Newman!!
    “Though, trying to be reasonable in the face of this journalistic
    abdication, I would comfort the trembling and say that if you are an
    Israel basher, you don’t lose your career. Anymore.”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/washington-post-administers-
    loyalty-oath.html#more-34208

    Reply

  3. Bill Pearlman says:

    Ah Warren, there is the conundrum for people like you. Lets take this scenario. Israel withdraws from the west bank, Golan, whatever. The Arabs make a move. ( fairly likely wouldn’t you say ) Israel responds. Then the Warren Metzlers of theworld swing into action, “over the top” disproportionate” “zionazi”. the UN gets into, the Europeans. A guy like Steve Clemons starts talking about body counts. Its happened since 1948. Why shouldn’t it happen again. Except now Israels strategic sucks. so, I ask you, whats the attraction.

    Reply

  4. rc says:

    Seems relevant.
    Israel: The ugly truth
    As it slides further into open and violent racism, Israel offers the Western world a reflection of itself. Mya Guarnieri, 22 Jan 2011
    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/2011121175420298767.html

    Reply

  5. DonsBlog says:

    I think it’s time to take a new tack. Call for free and open (though inspected) trade for all of Palestine. It’s time they were able to stand on their own two feet, and only by being allowed to import building materials and build productive companies will they be able to support themselves and set a footprint in the ground to stop the constant Israeli incursion.
    As far as observing the “Jewishness” of Israel, the Palestinians would be turning their backs on Arab citizens of Israel if they did. It won’t and shouldn’t happen. How can we support a country that is intolerant of religious freedom?

    Reply

  6. nadine says:

    Israel captured Gaza in 1967; and kept it in terribly oppressive conditions, which in the late 1980′s lead to the Intifada part one.
    Utter rot. Egypt kept Gaza under terribly oppressive conditions: they kept it under martial law. Israel developed Gaza, supplied it with water and electricity (which it had scarcely had before), supplied it jobs and markets – tens of thousands of Gazans worked in Israel before 1987. Gazan living standards soared compared to pre 1967.
    Israeli rule was far more prosperous and free than Egyptian rule. The reasons for the intifada were not economic, but religious and political. The nature of Israeli oppression is not that it is actually so oppressive, but that the Israelis are Jews and not Muslims.
    You are just making stuff up from ideology and ignorance, and that’s being charitable.

    Reply

  7. Warren Metzler says:

    Bill Pearlman, I have to respond to your latest argument, because it is about the most egregious nonsense ever heard. I hope you aren’t Jewish, because if you are you are doing great work to further anti-Jewish sentiment. In your 11:54 post you basically claim that one of the moral elements of a country’s border is sufficient no man’s land to guarantee that unsophisticated armaments from an adjoining country can’t reach that country’s major cities. Which is utter nonsense. Only Israel gets to have that argument. No other country in the world has that argument. All other countries in the world recognize that a rational basis for inter-country relationships is to sit down and talk and come to a agreement on how to live in peace.
    Israel never does this. It certainly never, as far as my information is correct, publicly announces this is its intention. It only publishes that it will ensure its protection by having such a large military and a ferocious fighting force, that other countries will cower in fear and do nothing.
    Israel unrepentant apologists on this blog like you, wigwag and Nadine, always use the same arguments: the Arabs are blood-thirsty, unredeemable savages, our ancesters got slaughtered during WWII so there are no sins we can now commit, and we are moral and never act in an unreasonable manner.
    Let’s take Hamas. Israel captured Gaza in 1967; and kept it in terribly oppressive conditions, which in the late 1980′s lead to the Intifada part one. Israeli intelligence encouraged the beginning of Hamas, knowing it was a Moslem brotherhood type of organization; an Islamic jihadist organization if there ever was one; (doing so under the now obviously stupid idea it would through competition keep the PLO in check). Israel signs an agreement in Oslo, and then does everything it can to ensure those accords were never carried out. And in the late 1990′s, out of frustration suicide bombers begin, fitting well into the Muslim jihad martyr concept, which Israel responds to in way over the top means (such as destroying the house of the family from whom a bomber came, even when there is no evidence the family knew of the bomber’s intention, often with just a few hours notice to remove personal property; a true example of how much Israel practices the rule of law).
    As time progresses Hamas moves toward more violence; by the way, Jews didn’t act in that manner, with the British and Palestine’s Arab leadership, prior to Independence in 1948 did they? (nah, the Stern Gang and Irgun were tree planting activists); and with each Hamas move Israel replies way in excess; Lebanon and Cast Lead being typical examples.
    Hamas is nothing more than another example, of which many exist in history (including 9/11 in the US), of the chickens come home to roost.
    I hope you realize, Israel’s insanity and structural aversion to pursuing peace is progressively eroding support for itself. And so-called supporters are doing the same. It won’t belong before all the world’s governments, including the US will move to demand UN resolutions are kept, eliminate all official aid, and there you will be, using Haldeman’s and Ehrlichman’s favorite metaphors “twisting and blowing in the wind”.
    It is travesty that obviously intelligent persons like yourself so significantly misuse your thinking capacities.

    Reply

  8. Bill Pearlman says:

    And Don, things are just going back to the way they have always been. There was a period after WW2 where the world let up a little. Has that generation dies off things are just going back to the normal level of Jew baiting. We’re used to it. Look at Steve Clemons. On the surface he is a liberal. Except when it comes to Israel. Its really kind o0f fascinating.

    Reply

  9. Bill Pearlman says:

    Ok, another comment on your brilliant plan. Jordan is a majority palestinian country. According to the Dan plan. Again lets leave carroll and RC behind. They are just sorry they missed those good old days in 1942. but I digress. So, Israel pulls everybody back to the green line. Back to the 1967 lines. That puts the entire population centers of the coast under direct threat. You don’t even need artillery. Some long range mortars would do it. And a couple of well placed machine guns would close down Ben Gurion airport. So, what you advocate is putting Hamas, backed by Iran, in a position to paralyze the country. And this is after tearing the social fabric by moving a half a million people. And again they don’t get the pretense of a peace treaty. Not that peace treaties mean much of there. After all Mohammed was the first guy in Islam to break treaties. You say, well they can retaliate. Israel relies on calling up the reserves first. they need some sort of strategic depth that’s longer than nine miles. And second, when they struck back in Lebanon and Gaza. The world, including Steve Clemons btw went nuts. So explain to the average Israeli where the benefit is here.

    Reply

  10. DonS says:

    More reading: the times they are a’changing:
    “Recently, a Seattle-based grassroots group called the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign purchased ads on the side of a dozen public buses in the King County, Seattle bus system. The ads featured the image of a destroyed Palestinian home along with the words

    Reply

  11. Cee says:

    Some reading:
    MARGARET WARNER: During World War II, as Germany and Italy stepped up their persecution of Jews in Europe, what was the fate of the half-million Jews living in regions the Axis powers controlled in North Africa and the Middle East?
    That question intrigued Robert Satloff, an historian and Arabic-speaking Washington policy analyst. He took leave from his job as head of the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy and moved to Morocco for his research. The result is his new book, “Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands.”
    And, Robert Satloff, welcome.
    ROBERT SATLOFF, Author, “Among the Righteous”: Thank you.
    MARGARET WARNER: So what attracted you to this story and inspired you to write this book?
    ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, I was drawn to the story because of my sense that denial of the Holocaust in many parts of the Arab world is the tip of the iceberg of what divides Arab societies from Western societies.
    And I tried to find a way to provide Arabs of goodwill a new approach to access and understand the Holocaust, to make it an Arab story. And I came up with the idea of asking the question: Did any Arabs ever save any Jews during the Holocaust?
    Because, if you are proud of that story, then you have to accept the context that there was something to save Jews from, and, hence, my search for the Arab “righteous” of the title.
    MARGARET WARNER: Now, give us some context geographically. Which Arab lands were most involved?
    ROBERT SATLOFF: The part of the Arab world that is most under Axis control for the longest period of time is in North Africa, in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya.
    Other parts of the Arab world had some domination by Axis countries, Vichy France, for example, and Syria and Lebanon, but that was brief.
    And for the three years, though, from spring of 1940 until the spring of 1943, North Africa, Morocco to Libya, was under the control, first of Vichy France in Morocco and Algeria and Tunisia, under Italian fascism in Libya. And then, for six months, the only Arab country to have a full-fledged Nazi occupation was Tunisia.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec06/satloff_12-26.html

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Did someone ask what Daniel Levy’s opinion was?…doesn’t sound much different then Steve’s.
    From the Cable:
    “Clemons has been leading a drive among foreign policy professionals in Washington to convince the Obama administration not to veto the resolution.
    “If the proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies, then deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict,” read his letter to President Obama, which was signed by several other foreign policy professionals.
    Daniel Levy, the co-director of the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force, explained that Abbas is under intense pressure domestically to show strength vis-

    Reply

  13. WigWag says:

    Steve Clemons objects to the fact that Fred Hiatt would allow Jennifer Rubin to make this statement on real estate belonging to the Washington Post,
    “The usual crowd of Israel bashers has sent the president a letter urging him to go along with a U.N. resolution condemning Israel for its settlements…”
    But just seven posts down from this one, on real estate belonging to Steve Clemons, speaking of Cuba, Anya Landau-French made this statement,
    “When reports first surfaced last summer that new rules were in the offing, Hard-line darlings Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Albio Sires (both Democrats, and dedicated fundraisers for their party) reported their advice to the White House – Cuba policy reforms would hurt the Democrats’ chances in the November election.”
    Pretending to be offended by the term “Israel-bashers,” Steve asks in a huff (actually a pretend huff)
    “I would like to know from Jennifer Rubin and from her editor — and from the Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post — what I have ever said, what I have ever written, what I have ever organized that deserves the characterization I received from Jennifer Rubin today at the Washington Post. What does she consider makes me an Israel-basher?”
    Couldn’t Debbie Wasserman-Schultz indignantly ask the same question of Steve Clemons and Anya Landau-French? Couldn’t she say,
    “I would like to know from Anya Landau-French and from Steve Clemons of the Washington Note and from Steve Coll, President of the New America Foundation and from Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the New America Foundation what I have ever said, what I have ever written, what I have ever organized that deserves the characterization that I received today from Anya Landau-French today at the Washington Note. What does she consider makes me a hard-liner, what does she consider makes me a darling and what does she consider makes me a hard-line darling?”
    If Steve expects a certain level of behavior from Jennifer Rubin and Fred Hiatt, doesn’t he think that Anya Landau-French and he are obligated to live up to the same standards?

    Reply

  14. rc says:

    “Look, I know where Carroll and RC are coming. the Jews are the new nazi’s, worse really.”(Pearlman, Jan 21 2011, 9:36PM)
    Look, I gave up cult busting years ago. If you knew where I was coming from then you would understand these comments I made here are simple ‘anthropology 101′ and pointed at specific people behaving in specific ways in a specific context (i.e. Israeli governments and some citizens and by extension their zealous supporters). If the cap fits then wear it!
    It is your thinking pathology that makes these simple comments into gross generalizations about all ‘X’ at all times!
    It has nothing to do with being Jewish or Chinese or Arab or British or American: it has everything to do with being aggressive, hypocritical, jerks who cannot see their own cognitive dissonance at work. And it seems cannot easily live at peace with their neighbors.
    I dislike making generalizations. The only concession here is when I see cultural factors at work corrupting the young into perpetuating the cult-party line. And this is regardless of whether it is North Koreans, Mormons, wacko-Christians or science blinded atheists.
    You make too many assumptions and you expose yourself accordingly. There is a missing link (or three) in your bold statements for anyone to see who wishes. Please take more care in quoting others.
    If you do not like the ugly faces displayed by the Nazis or the South African Apartheid state then you are not alone. If you think the Israeli treatment of the indigenous Palestinian population (and majority) is any less ugly then here is some news for you: it is just as ugly to fair minded and ethical people! If you do not like the criticism then change the behavior.
    Brute force and propaganda spin may get Israel some tactical ‘wins’ — but they cannot silence the strategic conversations that continue to eat away at public credibility for such an obnoxious regime in a peaceful world.
    Israel is at serious risk of being judged an unacceptable public nuisance. Whatever links there may be between this situation of concern and Judaism itself is an issue related to capacity for self governance. But that should not cloud thinking on pragmatic solutions towards real world peace and harmony.
    Believe whatever you like about ‘reality’ but please leave personal faith-based opinion out of public policy and good governance systems designed for all the inhabitants and citizens of a locality. There is no room for a ‘Jones Town’ in the South American jungles, nor on the Middle Eastern beaches. Israel is becoming a brutish jackboot society and that should concern many fair minded people — including many Jews I suspect.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    “The lady doth protest too much methinks.” (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2)
    This post by Steve is remarkably facile; Steve isn’t annoyed by Jennifer Rubin’s op-ed, he’s thrilled by it. After all, he authored the letter about the U.N. resolution not to influence the President and his team; if that had been his intention he would have refrained from including signatures of people he knew the Administration couldn’t associate itself with. His real purpose was to stir up a little controversy; have a little fun and generate some good copy for his blog and the blogs of other commentators. Actually, in a way, Steve is in league with Ms Rubin; his letter gave them both something to write about in their blogs and columns. Ms Rubin did Steve a big favor and I am sure that in his heart of hearts he knows it. She gave his letter “legs,” which is precisely what he was hoping for.
    Steve is just about as shocked and appalled that Fred Hiatt would allow Jennifer Rubin to publish her little op-ed as Renault was to find out that Rick allowed gambling in his little establishment in Casablanca. What’s really bizarre is that the people who have commented on this thread including Taylor Marsh were in too much of a stupor to see it.
    Jennifer Rubin’s op-ed was remarkably tame; certainly it was tamer than many posts authored by Steve Clemons at the Washington Note. About the most incendiary thing Rubin did was refer to the signers collectively as “Israel-bashers”; she didn’t single out anyone in particular and she didn’t call Steve Clemons an “Israel basher” personally.
    Does anyone remember the post where Steve Clemons practically called Senator Schumer a traitor for criticizing President Obama’s Middle East policy? Was that really less incendiary than what Rubin said in her op-ed?
    What about his recent post where Steve suggested converting Jonathan Pollard from a convicted prisoner into a hostage to secure the type of resolution to the Israel-Palestinian imbroglio that he personally favors? Was that proposal so much less provocative than Rubin’s characterization of the signers as Israel bashers?
    It is actually self-evident that some but not all of the signatories to the letter are Israel-bashers; some are far worse than that.
    Perhaps Steve Clemons himself isn’t an Israel basher but he is clearly a relentless Israel critic. And he is remarkably gentle when commenting about Palestinian behavior; to prove it, all one has to do is count the number of posts on his blog criticizing the Israelis versus the number of posts on his blog criticizing the Palestinians. There are several other severe critics of Israel who have signed the letter as well. That’s fine.
    But I think Ms Rubin was remarkably restrained in her characterization of several of the signers of the letter. Steve Walt is widely viewed not only as an Israel-basher but a Jew hater. Steve Clemons may not think so but a very large number of people do. The same is true of Chas Freeman who has become increasingly strident in his remarks since his love of autocrats and his animosity towards Israel was uncovered thus derailing his appointment to the NSC. Whatever Steve Clemons may think of Chas Freeman, the Obama Administration must have concluded that at best Freeman was an Israel-basher; after all, they pulled his nomination (something Steve assured us in one of his posts would never happen). Is Andrew Sullivan an Israel-basher? Well he’s certainly arguably an anti-Semite. When your language is so severe that the question of whether or not you hate Jews becomes the major topic in the blogosphere for weeks on end, something at the very least is seriously wrong. Rubin was too polite to mention any of this in her article.
    Nor did she mention some of the other signers whose moral grounding and even sanity is up for question. Perhaps its guilt by association, but Bill Quandt’s wife Helena Cobban is so over the top in her criticism of Israel that at the very least she straddles the line between Israel-basher and Jew hater. How a Quaker could be so full of hate is an interesting question; I guess Ms Cobban is a Richard Nixon kind of Quaker (Nixon didn’t like Jews too much either). I know love is blind, but if Quandt shares the views of his wife, than referring to him as an Israel-basher is not only appropriate, it

    Reply

  16. davidy says:

    Steve,
    While I admire your passion on this issue and find myself in the uncomfortable position of disliking so much Israeli government policy, I have trouble finding alot of sympathy for many on the other side in this space given the acrimony and finger-pointing and nastiness I observe. Kudos for your wonderful piece on Colorado Springs.
    But this piece can not not elicit some of the nastiness that someone alerted you to not so long ago which prompted your warnings. So congrats on bringing this out in your fray :).
    I suppose in a world in which you maintain that Bill Clinton is “the one” after spending the first 21 months of this Administration’s tenure bashing three of his most prominent operatives, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and Rahm Emanuel (if you prefer another adjective, fine, and no I’m not calling you a bigot or slurring you but merely pointing out your three favorite non-Obama targets) on a regular basis, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by your comporting “Israel-bashing” with “anti-semitism” and bigotry. But, sorry, for someone to suggest that Obama’s dealings with Netanyahu should match Kennedy’s with Khruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis and be shocked shocked shocked to be labeled an “Israel-basher” is a bit silly (not to mention so many other posts). And whether or not this characterization is fair, I don’t know what makes it so potent. Are those who some might criticize as “France-bashers” also bigoted against the French by implication? Are “Ireland-bashers” bigoted against the Irish? My guess is that there are lots of American and Israel “bashers” outside of this country but its a rather long leap to call them bigoted against the US or anti-semitic.
    And as some elsewhere have pointed out, just because others use that vile approach of calling critics of Israel “anti-semites” hardly means that someone calling another an “Israel-basher” is the same as calling them an “anti-semite” or a bigot. I haven’t heard many good things about this new Washington Post blogger, but can’t you go after some of the policy pronouncements she makes rather then suggest she said / implied something she did not. And parenthetically, I am not a fan of the term “basher” and used it for want of a better illustration with the Clinton influencers of Obama economic policy.
    Thanks Steve. Cheers.

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    “Would you take this deal?–get off all Palestine land, mind your own business within your own re-adjusted wall on your own legal parcel and quit interferring in any of your neighbor’s business and no one will bother you.” (Carroll)
    Israel would take the deal in a minute, Carroll.
    Who said no in 2000, 2001, 2008? The problem is the Palestinians demand the giveback but refuse to sign the deal. They want to be free to continue to interfere in Israel’s business, in order to destroy it.

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    “What so many Jewish people today cannot acknowledge is the profound tragedy that has been visited on the Palestinian people by the misguided (albeit well-intentioned) creation of the Jewish state that was made possible by decisions made after WWI by the victorious powers.” (RWH)
    The profound tragedy was visited on the Arabs of Palestine (it’s ahistorical to call them Palestinians before 1967 since they didn’t call themselves that yet) was done a) by the decision of the Arabs to destroy Israel by war, and b) the decision of the Arabs to keep the Arab refugees of Palestine as generational refugees, grist for the mill of eternal war.
    A similar tragedy was visited on the Jews of the Arab lands, who outnumbered the Arab refugees of Palestine, but who became Israeli citizens, while the Arab refugees have deliberately been prevented from resettling anywhere (except Jordan). In this they are indeed in more tragic circumstances than the Jewish refugees, or the 14 million (& descendants) who became refugees at the partition of India and Pakistan, but this is not Israel’s fault. The Arab countries did this.
    “Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1968:

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    Posted by Bill Pearlman, Jan 21 2011, 9:36PM – Link >>>>>>>
    I realize this is hopeless but I have some time to kill.
    Bill, first, if Israel quit making enemies with it’s agression and greed and constant shit stirring it wouldn’t have to worry about it’s borders being defensible.
    Would you take this deal?–get off all Palestine land, mind your own business within your own re-adjusted wall on your own legal parcel and quit interferring in any of your neighbor’s business and no one will bother you.
    That’s the deal…you want it or not?

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    Sad news for some here: MSNBC has just ended Keith Olbermann’s contract. Howard Kurtz tweeted it about an hour ago http://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/status/28632892972212226

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    “Opposing Zionism does not make a person anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. It makes one anti-Zionist. And it includes a lot of Jews. ”
    What is Zionism? It is Jewish nationalism; it is the force that created Israel. Israel has existed now for over 60 years; by every economic and cultural measure, it is an extremely successful state. It is a democracy whose human rights record, if imperfect, is vastly better than that of any of its autocratic neighbors. The one chief failure of Israel is that it has failed to secure peace with its neighbors, who have attacked it repeatedly and tried to destroy it, even though Israel has made many attempts to negotiate and offered substantial territorial concessions. But when it comes to peace, it takes two to tango, a bit of common sense that seems to be utterly lost on today’s progressives.
    Now, when I hear that you are anti-Zionist, i.e. that you think Israel should be destroyed – not North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Congo, or any of the other hellholes and basket cases of the Earth, but only small, vibrant, successful Israel, I notice that you are singling out the only Jewish state on the planet for this dire treatment and falling in line with its Arab enemies.
    And I say sorry, the time to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish was BEFORE Israel’s creation. To be anti-Zionist NOW is to desire the death, deportation or oppression of 6 million Jews (funny, the echoes one hears in numbers). They alone out of 6 billion humans deserve this fate.
    And that is anti-Semitism, whether you admit it or not. Just like Martin Luther King said it was.

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    “Bargaining chips for what exactly, Bill?” (Dan Kervick)
    For getting a peace treaty from the Muslim world, Dan. You keep saying “oh the international community recognizes Israel” but that is simply an outright lie. The Arab world (apart from treaties with Jordan and Egypt) does not; nor does Iran; Turkey under Erdogan has effectively rescinded recognition and openly threatens to go to war to defend Hamas. Not to mention al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizbullah, who are ideologically committed to destroying Israel and massacring the Jews.
    Yet you pretend this is nothing Israel should be worried about; Israel can defend itself just fine, you say; though the next time Israel has to do so, you will be first in line to believe every claim Hamas makes about “innocent dead civilians” even if Israel pulls off strikes of surgical precision – and heaven help them if they actually do kill any civilians while aiming at terrorist HQs hidden in apartment buildings, schools, mosques and hospitals.
    You have done everything in your power to stack the deck for a Hamas/Hizbullah/PLO victory, and to complete the job you demand Israel complete the job by withdrawing to indefensible truce lines and deporting half a million of its own citizens (but never one Arab! no, no, only Jews are deportable people; while Arabs are people with rights).
    Just answer me this one question, Dan: if Israel withdrawing to the Green Line were really any kind of peace formula, how come there was no peace BEFORE 1967? Didn’t the “international community” recognize Israel back then too?

    Reply

  23. Bill Pearlman says:

    Look, I know where Carroll and RC are coming. the Jews are the new nazi’s, worse really. And therefore must be eradicated like a cancer. After all that would be a “final solution” But Dan here goes. Let me take one part of your “plan”. You can see all of northern Israel from the Golan Heights. And if you go back to the June 4th 1967 lines it puts the Syrians on the shores of lake kinneret. So, what your saying is that Israel withdraws from the heights. And destroys thriving agricultural industries that were not there before. And undergoes social upheaval. And gives up a listening post on Syrian military activities. Assad is a minority dictator who is really just an adjunct of Iran. Now while I understand the Syrian military is active in swallowing up Lebanon right now what happens when he dies. Or is overthrow. Or for that matter changes his mind about peace. Not that peace is what is being offered. So what your saying is that Israel should render the northern part of the country vulnerable to Syrian artillery. Allow its water supply to be threatened. Allow the northern panhandle to be enveloped. And to put itself at the mercy of a minority dictator who might not even be the real power. And they don’t even get a piece of paper out of it. Would you take that deal?

    Reply

  24. RWH says:

    “RWH – Jen Rubin is not a progressive Jew, but an actual conservative, the first hired to blog for the WaPo”
    OK, I was wrong about that. It was an assumption since I have witnessed many otherwise progressive Jews who fall into a kneejerk ‘Israel can do no wrong’ stance when the I/P subject comes up. It grieves me to have lost the friendship of many of these people with whom I worked in the 1980s on nuclear disarmament issues and against the Reagan cold war policies.
    Opposing Zionism does not make a person anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. It makes one anti-Zionist. And it includes a lot of Jews.
    What so many Jewish people today cannot acknowledge is the profound tragedy that has been visited on the Palestinian people by the misguided (albeit well-intentioned) creation of the Jewish state that was made possible by decisions made after WWI by the victorious powers.
    Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1968:

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    Posted by Warren Metzler, Jan 21 2011, 7:54PM – Link >>>>
    Sign me up.

    Reply

  26. Carroll says:

    Posted by Warren Metzler, Jan 21 2011, 7:54PM – Link >>>>
    Sign me up.

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    Posted by rc, Jan 21 2011, 7:01PM – Link
    “And what nazi tactics are in operation against the palestinians. Please elaborate.” (Pealman, Jan 21 2011, 4:29PM)

    Reply

  28. Warren Metzler says:

    I am starting a new group and want to advertise on this site for prospective members. It is called “The Society of (Country) Bashers” (SOB for short). We will regular call on the carpet any country that doesn’t practice real democracy: which we define as a country that practices free and open elections; that has a constitution that can’t be changed at the drop of a hat, and a judicial system that regularly outlaws laws that don’t fit within the limits of that constitution; that has a bill of rights in the constitution that protect all valid human rights of all humans; that considers all ethnic groups to be qualified to be citizens; that promotes free enterprise; that has a rational foreign policy (one that treats all countries alike, and judges each country by how close it comes to a viable democracy); that never ever mistreats any ethnic group over which it obviously has political control; that provides for ALL its citizens the infrastructure necessary for a viable lifestyle; and that is relatively corruption free.
    Countries that are being put on the list of outlaws are China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, (we’ve just removed Tunisia), Sudan, Turkey and let’s not forget Israel, and others. And we soon having a plenary session to consider putting the US on that list, given that much of its recent behavior is quite egregious.
    Long live SOB’s. Long live those who recognize that scoundrels are scoundrels because they engage in immoral behavior. Scoundrels are not scoundrels because of how much they were mistreated in past ages.

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    “I’m sick of all the aimless yammering.”
    Indeed–have been for years.
    That is why I advocate the measures I do to settle it once and for all.

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    Posted by esther heyman, Jan 21 2011, 6:46PM – Link >>>>>>>>>>
    Well esther or nadine or wig or whichever–Steve is perfectly right and correct to question US politicians who make decisions for this country based on what is good for a foreign country.
    Many Jewish and non Jewish politicians have been very blatant about their loyalty to Israel and some even stating that is their major reason for seeking office…to promote and protect Israeli interest.
    You don’t seem able to comprehend that this country’s citizens, like citizens of any country, expects it’s officials and it’s citizens too btw, to give their first loyalty, and when circumstances demand it, their ‘only’ loyalty to this country–not to a foreign country.
    As more Americans realize the extent of this Israel loyalty aberration in our government more are objecting to it…so railing against what is fundmental and natural for a country and people is another losing argument.

    Reply

  31. Dan Kervick says:

    I believe you left out that the international fund should include all the Palestine refugees originally displaced by Israel now living in camps in Jordon and Lebanon…and a return or compensation for their property.
    I left that out on purpose, Carroll. The Palestinians and their supporters can organize a separate fund for that purpose. I just want the Israelis and their Jewish supporters around the world just to take care of Israel’s business, and Israel’s obligations under international law. And that just means getting out of Palestine and going home to Israel.
    The international community effectively gave Israel to the Zionist settlers in 1948. Good deal or bad deal, it’s a done deal. It’s law. So if someone owes the Palestinians for lost assets, it is the international community. We’ll all have to cough up the compensation for our global scale eminent domain seizure.
    But no more of these freaking peace processes, based on pie-in-the sky negotiations, and talks, and agreements, and talks, and intermediaries and emissaries, and hand-holding, and big speeches and Zones A, B, X, Z and whatever. I’m sick of all the aimless yammering.

    Reply

  32. rc says:

    “And what nazi tactics are in operation against the palestinians. Please elaborate.” (Pealman, Jan 21 2011, 4:29PM)

    Reply

  33. Dan Kervick says:

    Bargaining chips for what exactly, Bill?
    Israel just needs to get on its side of the line and stay there. And of course they can retaliate if attacked, just like any other country. Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world and a population ever-willing to fight. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves and the pre-1967 line against the likes of the Hamas and Hizbollah militias. If Israleis feel insecure, they can built their damn security barrier higher, or build more helicopters and attack planes.
    But just go home!
    You guys are so obsessed with “the other side”. I can’t believe all the kvetching I read about the desire to be “recognized” by the Palestinians, or “recognized as a Jewish state” or whatever. Who cares? Those are only words. Just get inside your own damn state and defend it. Maybe more Palestinians will recognize you. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they will recognize you in 50 years, or 100 years, or 200 hundred. It doesn’t matter.
    There is nothing to negotiate. There is no peace process to process. Just stop stealing land and then inventing every lame excuse in the book for your pathetic kleptomania.
    Israel has already been recognized by the international community, ages ago. The international community’s expectations about the occupation were also made known ages ago. The Israelis don’t have to negotiate the possession of the land that has already been assigned to Israel. Similarly, the Palestinians shouldn’t have to “negotiate” the terms of their own self-determination with a bunch of Israeli occupiers. Just give them their chuck of occupied land bank and leave it to them to either make a government out of it or fuck it up. you are perfectly capable of keeping them walled out of Israel. The only reason you don’t want to let the world see that capability is because moving in that direction will require you to relinquish your greedy hunger for more territory that doesn’t belong to you.

    Reply

  34. samuelburke says:

    If Obama saw what white phosphorus did to the kids

    Reply

  35. esther heyman says:

    Rubin was being excessively diplomatic.
    Clemons accuses Jews of dual loyalty time
    (“Schumer’s screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate.”)
    after time
    (“Any US Congressperson or Senator who actually explicitly withdrew or withheld support for health care reform because of loyalty first to Israel and its needs would invite serious questions about his or her patriotism and oath to the US Constitution and American people.”).
    Throw in his support of the genocidal anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas, and what we have here is the illegitimate spawn of Pat Buchanan and Helen Thomas.
    He hasn’t yet descended into Carroll-style psychosis by calling the Jews “Nazis” and the Jew killers “victims”, but just give him time…

    Reply

  36. Bill Pearlman says:

    Last but not least. We were the only group in Eastern Europe that
    got it from all sides. Read Bloodlands, great book.

    Reply

  37. Carroll says:

    The thing is Bill you can’t defend any of this. Do acts like this occasionally happen in other armed forces?…yes….but in Israel they are the rule, they are government and military policy, not the exception. That karma Israel is building up for itself is going to be one vicious bitch if peace doesn’t come.
    ‘A 2009 article in the UK Telegraph entitled

    Reply

  38. Bill Pearlman says:

    Carroll, Your the one that said Israel is like the nazi’s. Worse really.
    I guess that would make the palestinians the Jews in your scenario.
    Which makes sense since pre-1948 when you said palestinian you
    were talking about JEWS. The united palestine appeal. The palestine
    post. Jewish institutions.

    Reply

  39. Bill Pearlman says:

    About all the property that confiscated from jews in Iraq, Egypt,
    Syria, etc. Doesn’t that count. And can’t the gulf states handle
    things. It might cut into their hooker and gambling budgets but it
    might be worth it.
    By the way, I asked what you would do if you were the PM of Israel.
    Not what you would do if you were king of the world.

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    Posted by Dan Kervick, Jan 21 2011, 5:29PM – Link
    I believe you left out that the international fund should include all the Palestine refugees originally displaced by Israel now living in camps in Jordon and Lebanon…and a return or compensation for their property.

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    “All right Carroll I get it. Jews are worse then Hitler and the SS. You
    might get an argument about that from the 1.5 million kids that
    got knocked off. You might even get an argument from the people
    that were killed by the Bosnian SS MOSLEM division. But since their
    dead I guess you can’t. And I know compared to gaza the Warsaw
    ghetto was a paradise. At least until they put them on the traisn to
    Treblinka.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You didn’t ask me about Bosnian Muslims you asked me about Israel.
    But decide who you hate the most–the nazis for jewish ghettos? the Arabs? the Europeans?..or all equally?
    Your revenge and enemies list is too long…and illogical.

    Reply

  42. Carroll says:

    Posted by Bill Pearlman, Jan 21 2011, 4:56PM – Link
    Pardon me if I have a little suspicion of the “world” has you call it. Outside of the United States its been pretty crappy for us. And when it comes to Europe, and that includes Russia. I think they owe a debt.
    But put that aside for a second. Let me come at this from another angle. Say you were PM of Israel and wanted the country to continue. ( A big intellectual leap for some like you but go with it ) And since you obviously believe that the whole situation is Israels fault then it follows that this whole thing can be wound up by Monday morning. OK, whats your move, whats the plan. I really would like to know
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well first I have to say that I don’t think you have accurate knowledge of real history and the history of the Jews if you think that Jews were the only groups persecuted in Europe, or Russia in particular, and if you did you might not have the view that Jews were owed any more than some other groups of people. But that’s too long a discussion.
    I believe the solution to Israel and I/P is to withdraw US financial and UN support for Israel. Only then will Israel be forced to a realistic assesment of what they alone, without backup by the US, need to do to survive.
    They can choose to adapt to their regional realities and the world’s standards and be accepted, or they can continue to flout their belief in their exceptionalism and be excluded.
    I don’t expect that to happen soon but I don’t expect US support for Israel to last forever either.
    So if I were the PM of Israel I would wake up and smell the coffee perking around the rest of the world before that day comes.

    Reply

  43. Stacy says:

    Steve- you are to be applauded for your reasonable response to Rubin’s hit-piece but keep in mind that Rubin’s posts are geared towards generating controversy and seeing every issue, and in particular anything having to do with Israel, through her neoconservative lens- everything is oversimplified and dumbed-down. She is not interested in nuance but rather just tossing red meat to her right wing fans.
    Rubin posts frequently about Israel and she mocks, derides and misrepresents the views of anyone who disagrees with her on issues impacting the Middle East and Israel. She spews nothing but bumper sticker talking points and quotes her friends at hawkish think tanks as though that settles the issue. She misrepresented Hannah Rosenthal (of the State Dept.) earlier in the week and doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to post a correction or an apology despite Rosenthal herself saying she was misrepresented.
    In other words, don’t expect to hear from Rubin any time soon.

    Reply

  44. Bill Pearlman says:

    Brilliant Dan, but what about the other side. You know the Arabs.
    Any security assurances at all. Any thoughts to the ability to
    retaliate in the event of a terrorist attack. What about Jewish
    religious sites. Something that the Arabs trash has a matter of
    routine. What about the right of return. Hamas, Hezbollah. So
    basically you think that Israel should give up all the bargaining
    chips has a sign of good faith. Then what?
    All right Carroll I get it. Jews are worse then Hitler and the SS. You
    might get an argument about that from the 1.5 million kids that
    got knocked off. You might even get an argument from the people
    that were killed by the Bosnian SS MOSLEM division. But since their
    dead I guess you can’t. And I know compared to gaza the Warsaw
    ghetto was a paradise. At least until they put them on the traisn to
    Treblinka.

    Reply

  45. Dan Kervick says:

    “I really would like to know.”
    1. Unilateral withdrawal from all occupied territories, including the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.
    2. Unilateral declaration of all borders at the pre-1967 locations, including an internal border in Jerusalem, but with free transit within Jerusalem for all East and West Jerusalem residents.
    3. Relocation of the security wall to the newly declared border.
    4. Tell the world, “Israel has now fully complied with all UN resolutions governing our conflict with the Palestinian people. The government and people of Israel disclaim any territorial aspirations beyond the borders we have declared. The legal aspect of this conflict is over. Israel remains fully prepared and determined to defend its people and territory against assault, but looks forward to peaceful side-by-side co-existence with our Palestinian neighbors, including the establishment of diplomatic relations with any state the Palestinian people choose to form on their territory.”
    5. Request a UN resolution recognizing the newly declared borders.
    6. Establish a international fund for the resettlement of Jewish people living outside the newly defined borders of the state of Israel to resettle in Israel. Establish a phased two-year schedule for the gradual withdrawal of all state services and support to Jewish settlers living outside Israel in Palestine.
    7. Petition for membership in Nato.

    Reply

  46. Carroll says:

    Posted by Bill Pealman, Jan 21 2011, 4:29PM – Link
    And what nazi tactics are in operation against the palestinians. Please elaborate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Do I really need to?
    Should I begin with 1948 and the Jews not being content with the land given them by UN created 800,000 Palestine refugees by making them flee for their lives.
    Or the settlements ruled illegal by the UN the ICC and considered illegal by the world and officially considered illegal by the US even though it has never acted on it’s own official policy?
    Or can I fast forward to the 800 out of 2400 dead Palestine children shot point blank in the head by the IDF?
    Or the theft of Palestine land and resources?
    Or the blockades that cause food shortages and 70% poverty?
    Or the imprisoment of Palestine’s without evidence or proof of wrongdoing?
    Or the policy of IDF killings of Palestines with impunity?
    Or the destruction of Palestine homes and crops and livihoods?
    Or the wall that encroched on more Palestine land ruled illegal by the ICC?
    Or the shooting of unarmed protestors and UN observer personel and US peace activist?
    Or the Israeli withholding of taxes they collected that Palestine was legally entitled to?
    Or the outright murders on the Gaza freedom boat?
    Or extrajudicial assassinations by Israel thruout the world using some other countries passports?
    Or the destruction without compensation of Arab Israeli homes inside Israel?
    Or the publications of government payroll Rabbis inside Israel justifying and advocating the killing of all non jews?
    Or imprisoning Israeli who speak out against the state occupation of Palestine?
    Or the Rabbi edicts that jews must not rent to Arabs?
    Or the US Jews for Israel who try to poison the US discourse by demonizing all Muslims?
    Do I need to go further?
    These are all nazis tactics used in Germany against Jews and other nazi dissenters…dehumanization, demonizing, deportation, confiscation, theft, murders, imprisonment, starvation.

    Reply

  47. Bill Pearlman says:

    Pardon me if I have a little suspicion of the “world” has you call it. Outside of the United States its been pretty crappy for us. And when it comes to Europe, and that includes Russia. I think they owe a debt.
    But put that aside for a second. Let me come at this from another angle. Say you were PM of Israel and wanted the country to continue. ( A big intellectual leap for some like you but go with it ) And since you obviously believe that the whole situation is Israels fault then it follows that this whole thing can be wound up by Monday morning. OK, whats your move, whats the plan. I really would like to know.

    Reply

  48. Carroll says:

    Posted by Bill Pearlman, Jan 21 2011, 4:14PM – Link >>>>>>>>>>
    What I also find most strange about positions like yours is that you believe that somehow the US and the world should be eternally responsible for the condition and future of the Jews regardless of their own actions that might adversely affect them.
    That is a very faulty assumption and demand. And despite decades of zionism promoting this idea it is being rejected in most of the world and increasingly in the US.
    The world, as similar to Steve’s letter, is urging Israel to consider that the ‘self determination’ of the Jews that Israel claims as a right needs to take a different attitude and route if they do indeed want to survive as a state.
    Self determination means you also accept the outcomes of the decisions you make.

    Reply

  49. Bill Pealman says:

    And what nazi tactics are in operation against the palestinians. Please elaborate.

    Reply

  50. Carroll says:

    Posted by Bill Pearlman, Jan 21 2011, 2:35PM – Link
    I’ve seen multiple columns here that expounded at great lengths on the evils of Israel. I have seen no writings that in any way was critical at all of hamas, hezbollah, the al-aksa martyrs brigades, egypt, syria, Iran, or anybody on the other side. None. That would seem to qualify him has an “Israel basher”. I don’t mind what he writes. I mind the hypocrisy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    How funny you should say that…the hypocrisy of Israel, a state existing because of the holocaust and now employing many of the same tactics used against Jews in Germany, is the hypocrisy of the Jewish State we critics so frequently point out.
    It also goes with the absurd claim that people have a double standard in regard to Israel, when obviously the double standard is yours and theirs.

    Reply

  51. Bill Pearlman says:

    John I guess nuance is lost on you. Ok, I have never seen STEVE
    CLEMONS write anything critical about hamas, hezbollah, and
    Iran. I have seen multiple columns on the evils of Israel. Not to
    mention the LOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!. Now does that qualify him has an
    Israel basher. I would think so. And let me address the old “I’m
    not anti-semitic, I just hate Israel”. argument. Post holocaust, (
    and yes I’m am bringing that Up ) Israel is the central enterprise
    of the Jewish people. All the eggs are in one basket now. And if
    Iran drops a nuke, or even puts a proxy army on the west bank
    ridge line. then we’re done. I don’t care how much spin you give
    it. If your against the existence of Israel your against the Jewish
    people. Some people care, some people are neutral. And some
    think that would be a good thing. And I put the signers of this
    letter among them. Come Come on Chas Freeman, John
    Espositio. Phil ( Hitler sshouold have finished the job ) Weiss. Its
    a great line up. You think we haven’t seen this before, we have.
    Its come in many forms. And will always be with us.

    Reply

  52. questions says:

    Hey, Neo, I was just wondering regarding the spelling of your name –
    is it Neo Con Troll
    Or Neocon Troll
    Or Neo Control[l]?
    Just wondering….

    Reply

  53. Neo Controll says:

    “Which is worse, being called an Israel-basher or an instigator of mass murder?”
    . . . and have you stopped beating your partner.
    Quick, look over here!
    Pretty weak tea for having all day to come up with a rejoinder, the best nadine can do is join the chorus in doubling down on calling names. Neocon innovation lacking. But it’s pretty hard to piss all over a guy, though she does it all the time, who is quite well thought of in establishment circles. Perhaps Rubin has bitten off more than she can chew.
    Oh yeah, and being called and “Israel basher” is arguably a whole to worse than being called an “instigator of mass murder”, not to mention being an actual instigator (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., do it all the time; think its cute)

    Reply

  54. nadine says:

    RWH – Jen Rubin is not a progressive Jew, but an actual conservative, the first hired to blog for the WaPo. Before her, they had a faux conservative named Dave Weigel, who would pretend to be a conservative in his posts, but was actually a liberal Journolister who boasted how much he hated conservatives to his fellow liberal journalists.
    drew – Jen Rubin is not an intern but has built a long track record of astute and witty political blogging at Commentary Magazines Contentions blog, which is what recommended her to the WaPo when they decided to hire an actual conservative. Her use of name-calling seems quite within normal bounds for bloggers to me, mostly as a short-hand rather than a substitute for argument. You can’t lay out the whole argument in every paragraph-long blog post.
    Mark R – nice post. Steve Clemons posts frequently on I/P and his criticism of the Israelis can be measured by the ton while his criticism of the Palestinians can be measured by the teaspoon. The idea that the deep Palestinian desire to see Israel destroyed could be a hindrance to peace does not appear in any of his posts. It’s always Israel’s fault, whatever the issue. Steve has worked hard to earn the name of “Israel-basher,” little as he might like it. Criticism is one thing, incessant, one-sided criticism unmoored to conditions on the ground at some point must become bias and bashing.
    I must say there is an amusing aspect to Steve’s protest, coming as it does just a couple of weeks after he joined the digital chorus howling about Sarah Palin’s “hateful, violent rhetoric” because she put cross-hairs on a district target map in her campaign literature a year ago. This supposedly made her responsible for a lunatic’s rampage.
    Which is worse, being called an Israel-basher or an instigator of mass murder?

    Reply

  55. JohnH says:

    Pearlman says, “I have seen no writings that in any way was critical at all of hamas, hezbollah…”
    Guess Pearlman must have stopped reading newspapers, listing to politicians, reading Nadine or Wig.
    Nor have I ever seen Pearlman ever criticize any Israeli behavior, no matter how cruel or inhuman. I, too, mind the hypocrisy.

    Reply

  56. Carroll says:

    “This kind of insidious character attack is irresponsible..”
    Yes it is…but it’s typical and you are in good company with Carter, Tutu and others who have been called anti semites and Israel bashers for simply telling the truth and trying to be fair.
    I disagree somewhat that advocating a objective view of Israel and Palestine is detrimental to one’s career,that might have been the case before the Rubin types over did their character attacks, but it has lost it’s power now. It’s a mud slinging fight but without any potency.
    People have noticed that these attacks have concentrated on influential bloggers for some time now. It’s all about the fact that they open up a discussion on Israel and I/P at all and Israel’s position is losing in the debate.
    Refer back to the post on TWN by our friend Walt last year–”Surviving while grabbing the third rail.”
    There is no reason to have to defend yourself or explain what is self evident about the I/P issue. Reacting to the absurd in any way other than being politely dismissive of it as nonsense only gives the Rubins a way to continue to bait and chatter.

    Reply

  57. Bill Pearlman says:

    I’ve seen multiple columns here that expounded at great lengths on the evils of Israel. I have seen no writings that in any way was critical at all of hamas, hezbollah, the al-aksa martyrs brigades, egypt, syria, Iran, or anybody on the other side. None. That would seem to qualify him has an “Israel basher”. I don’t mind what he writes. I mind the hypocrisy.

    Reply

  58. DonS says:

    Geeez, Judo, you guys ain’t got no sense of humor. I’m so used to being call all sorts of names in comments that I just assumed you would be familiar with the drill, and jumped right to the punch line. My bad. For the record, I don’t know whether you got a memo — I doubt it — but some may have . . .
    You’ve got to realize that the level of tension surrounding issues of I/P on this blog, and what you allude to as “paranoid imagination”, and I might reframe as “mutual projection”, runs quite high at times.
    see my response to mark r @ 1:38
    But your “Sorry to break it to you but I just happen disagree with you and think you are completely full of it” line is not very persuasive and hurts my feelings ; – BTW, “disagreeing” and “being full of it” don’t really coexist very well in an honest discussion. One is mind based, the other emotional. You might want to read Clemons more frequently; he sticks with the fact based stuff, and is very respectful; some might say to a fault.

    Reply

  59. Paul Norheim says:

    Here is what Steve Clemons actually said above:
    “Calling someone as Israel-basher is akin to calling them an anti-Semite or a bigot”.
    “Akin to”… Which of course is true in the current, polarized climate.
    Which planet are you guys living on?
    Here is an excerpt from another comment on this blog, the first comment (from
    “WigWag”) on a thread about those signing the same letter – just to give you an
    example of the tone – and the actual example is much more polite than the usual
    straight forward accusations. And no, the poster doesn’t accuse anyone of anti-
    Semitism directly here (but she has accused several of the mentioned people of that
    elsewhere before, several times). But have a look at the tone of this prose – it provides,
    in a polite and civilized form, a perfect example of the poisonous climate:
    “Chas Freeman and Steve Walt are now widely considered in Washington to be anti-
    Semitic bomb throwers. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the validity of that
    characterization, their names are poison in Congress and no one in the Administration
    wants to be associated with them. Adding their names to the letter makes it far less
    influential, not more influential. The same can be said about Andrew Sullivan; he is
    widely viewed as an entertainer who produces a popular blog; no one in government
    takes him seriously as a respectable expert on foreign policy. Just a few short months
    ago highly respected newsmagazines and other journalistic enterprises were engaged
    in a serious debate about whether he had a special dislike for Jews.”
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/01/matlock_grove_w/#comments
    So what is “WigWag” actually saying here?
    “…widely considered…anti-Semitic bomb throwers…highly respected newsmagazines…
    a special dislike for Jews”
    No, mind you, no one is accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic; you must be paranoid,
    oversensitive, or willing to employ “pro-Palestinian propaganda trick # 1″ to suggest
    anything going in that direction – right?

    Reply

  60. Marc R says:

    I am sorry that commenters on the internet accuse
    Clemons of being anti-semitic. In my experience,
    anonymous commenters are pretty fast and loose with
    accusations.
    But that still doesn’t suggest that Rubin, who
    actually signs her name to her writings, made that
    accusation.

    Reply

  61. Judo says:

    That is perfect.
    First Clemons uses well known pro-Palestinian propaganda trick # 1, which is to falsely lie about being accused of anitsemeitsm, followed up by this guy DonS who uses the well known pro-Palestinian propaganda trick # 2, which is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them that they got a supposed

    Reply

  62. DonS says:

    mark r
    not literally

    Reply

  63. Paul Norheim says:

    “I think it’s because people who criticize Israel
    like to consider it taboo, rather than simply
    unpopular, so they claim that it is some sort of
    brave act that subjects them to outrageous slurs. ”
    Sorry Marc, but this is doesn’t make much sense.
    Have you read any of the recent discussions on these
    threads, say, since january 1?
    Did you see the comment Steve deleted today – accusing
    him of hating the Jews – just minutes before he posted the
    article above?
    Or the half dozen homophobic posts he also deleted, that
    also accusing him of being in bed with the Jew haters?
    Or the many comments he didn’t delete, accusing him of
    the same, during the last months?
    This happens on a weekly, if not daily basis. And it reflects
    the broader national discourse in America, a country
    where ex-President Jimmy Carter among broad pro-Israel
    crowds is considered an anti-Semite.

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    Dear People Who Don’t Usually Post Here,
    Steve Clemons is not an “Israel Basher”.
    Steve Clemons is not an “anti-Semite”.
    Steve Clemons thinks through international relations issues from a particular strategic vantage that suggests that the Israel settlements are profoundly problematic for US interests.
    It’s a thing to think through.
    I’m not convinced on the interests front, but I am definitely convinced on the moral front. The settlements are deeply problematic land grabs that do not add to Israeli security, though they may well add some bargaining power by making it harder and harder for the Palestinians to find metaphorical and literal space in which to function.
    The settlements appeal to the worst part of people’s souls, they are overly supported by government incentivization, and they really should be pulled back.
    I don’t consider any thinking like this to be “Israel bashing” any more than I think it’s “anti-American” to wonder how the hell we’ve ended up in so many wars lately, or why the hell we’ve become an oligarchy, or where the hell our civil rights have gone, or why the hell DADT took so long to be gotten rid of, or why the hell one chamber of Congress thinks it’s a great idea to repeal ACA unilaterally.
    Steve Clemons’s position is a reasonable one to debate, and indeed it should be debated as a position rather than as a source of inflammation.
    So those of you who are name calling and appearing here for the first time, and who will disappear into the ether, try making an argument instead of spouting nonsense.

    Reply

  65. Marc R says:

    Yep, I received the marching orders. They were
    distributed at our meeting.
    Are you serious?

    Reply

  66. DonS says:

    You know Mark R, I’ve wasted enough words on you already, but I see by your response, and “Judo” above that you got the memo, and the marching orders are to take the de minimis approach, i.e, Steve Clemons is a liar because Rubin died not specifically call him and anti-Semite, and Clemons had the audacity to note that in the real world rhetoric wars “Israel basher = anti Semite”, “akin” in Steve’s own nuanced language. Have at it; it’s all too familiar. By the way, I back Steve’s approach. But I’m Jewish on mother’s side. What to do?

    Reply

  67. Marc R says:

    Neither of you stated where either Ms. Rubin (or I,
    of course) called ANYBODY an anti-semite. Nor is
    there any implication by her or by me.
    But still there is this enthusiasm about being the
    victim of such a charge, such that it must be
    “implicit” in any description of someone being anti-
    Israel.
    I think it’s because people who criticize Israel
    like to consider it taboo, rather than simply
    unpopular, so they claim that it is some sort of
    brave act that subjects them to outrageous slurs.
    When those slurs simply are not there, they must be
    invented. Or, as you put it, implied.

    Reply

  68. Judo says:

    You organized a one sided, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian letter urging the Obama administration to vote in favor of a UN resolution which takes the Palestinian side on every issue up for negotiation. The letter you wrote said Israel was completely in the wrong on all issues and has no case what so ever. Jennifer Rubin called you an Israel basher in response, meaning Rubin feels you have a consistently strong record of opposing the postilions of the

    Reply

  69. DonS says:

    “It is YOU who are conflating the allegation of being anti-Israel with anti-semitism. I know that
    others share this belief that criticism of Israel
    is inherently anti-Semitic, but for you (and
    several other commenters above) to acknowledge
    that it has validity is surprising.”
    Mark R you are tying yourself, and attempting to tie us as well, in dishonest rhetorical knots.
    What would you suggest? ,a long treatise trying to convince propagandists that their lies just don’t have merit? When this inaccurate syllogism is the very essence underlying the radical right’s blackmail tactics?
    How is it not honest to bring out into the open the underlying accusations that such rabble rousing calls as “Israel basher” infer head on.
    Can’t really have it both ways Mark. Call me an anti Semite; imply I’m and anti Semite. But scream bloody murder when I notice you’ve been doing this all along, uh, except in this one instance.

    Reply

  70. Paul Norheim says:

    Marc R said:
    “I know that others share this belief that criticism of Israel
    is inherently anti-Semitic, but for you (and
    several other commenters above) to acknowledge
    that it has validity is surprising.”
    I don’t know you, Marc R., nor do I know if you’re feigning
    ignorance here. But On the comment sections at The
    Washington Note in the hours before this post – and for
    months, years now… – certain pro-Israeli commenters
    here have accused Steve Clemons of being an anti-Semite.
    Why? Because he is “bashing Israel”. This is part of the
    language, both among these partisans on this blog, and
    also within the American public as a whole, and you know
    that.
    Steve “acknowledges” that Jennifer Rubin is using a dirty
    semantic trick – and now you have the temerity to accuse
    him, and us, of accepting the claim?!
    Nice try, Marc! But “Israel-basher” ALWAYS preludes “anti’-
    Semite” in the rhetorical fever swamp of the crowd who is
    attacking Steve at the moment.

    Reply

  71. DonS says:

    Cato, I understand your position regarding Steve’s apparent (and real I would like to think) good nature and positive disposition unless pushed beyond the limits of decency.
    And I would be lying if I didn’t say that Steve may be in the bubble to some extent. But I do not believe that he is unselfconsciously in the bubble, if that makes sense. His work is at the intersection of several worlds: academics; think tanks; politics, and more for all I know. He is nobody’s fool. On the blog, what are you gonna do with jerks: you can ban just so many, until the next time they find another IP and come at you again? So it pays to be receptive and open, initially, unless you can afford a whole staff to tightly control the trolls and bomb throwers. So the impetus for reasonable conversation is perhaps worth the risk.
    Even this post, this pushback to a really cheap shot and easy characterization/demonization, as drew delineates, I see as part of a process, and not a knee jerk reaction to an adolescent libel. (by the way, “rhetorical libel” in a blog comment is one thing; from a columnist in a supposed world class newspaper quite something else again, and requires strong response). You and I, drew, had an exchanges about this tactic not too many days ago, so I think we are both uncomfortable with the tactic; it’s crosses the lines of reason into emotional manipulation too easily. Not that there aren’t other logical and rhetorical tactics that are similarly . . . just rhetorical. Questions could list most of them; and Paul N. has in the past gone to lengths to protest dishonest argumentation. It happens.
    Steve is not going to make all of us happy all the time. It’s pretty certain he is not going to make the radical right wing ever happy.
    But I must disagree, drew, that “argumentation by libel” is more a mainstay of the left. Perhaps, since 911, and even before, the whole cottage industry of developing the “soft on crime, soft on terror” easy cliches, you name it, are as good an example of libel from the right. But you may think they are accurate descriptions. Somehow the progressives attempt to brand the maleficent “national security state” excesses hasn’t met with such wide currency. What is it about easy appeals to so-called patriotism that most just nod their heads and don’t consider critically?
    Just because the ‘masses’ aren’t clamoring to line up behind a apparently logical, well thought out argument — like Israel needs to get it hands out of our pockets and politics, for the sake of America’s own best interest, and in the long run, theirs — doesn’t mean it is without merit. Likewise, as calling for real progress in the evolution of American policy in the ME is not “Israel bashing”, doesn’t mean one is not going to be attacked with easy calumny. Steve is right to call it out.

    Reply

  72. Paul Norheim says:

    “It’s really boring, all this namecalling.”
    Much worse then that, drew. As for discussions about Israel,
    accusing someone of being an anti-Semite blocks any
    attempt to discuss this complex issue on a rational level.
    As for namecalling and ad hominem, I’m not claiming that
    the left is better then the right – this blog included. But the
    Israel-Palestine issue transcends the traditional left-right
    axis, both in the US and in Europe.

    Reply

  73. Marc R says:

    Mr. Clemons,
    As an initial matter, nowhere in Ms. Rubin’s post
    does she state or suggest that you or any other
    signatory to the letter is anti-semitic. It is
    YOU who are conflating the allegation of being
    anti-Israel with anti-semitism. I know that
    others share this belief that criticism of Israel
    is inherently anti-Semitic, but for you (and
    several other commenters above) to acknowledge
    that it has validity is surprising.
    Also as a preliminary matter, do you feel it is
    much worse to be labeled an Israel basher than
    part of the “Israel-zero-sum” crowd? The latter
    implies that its purported members have greater
    loyalty to Israel than to the U.S., not just that
    they disagree with you about what the best policy
    vis-a-vis Israel is.
    Now as to the question of whether you have
    satisfied being called an “Israel basher.” (By
    the way, Ms. Rubin made this statement about the
    signatories in a blog post, not an op-ed. If you
    don’t feel there’s a difference, many bloggers
    will be thrilled by their newly enhanced stature.)
    Isn’t it true that you have written or stated the
    following:
    (1) Israel’s separation barrier, which was
    erected in response to suicide bombings and has
    been successful enough in reducing those bombings
    that the Israeli checkpoint presence in the West
    Bank has reduced to pre-1987 (First Intifada)
    levels, has created an “enormous hemorrhage” in
    the region. What other country’s self-defense
    measures have you criticized in those terms?
    (2) Don’t you subscribe to the belief in linkage:
    That is, that the failure for there to be a
    Palestinian state on the West Bank, etc., is a
    leading cause of anti-American sentiment in the
    Middle East (post-1967, of course, since there was
    no agitation for a Palestinian state there until
    Israel controlled the territory)? And your
    writings on the subject blame Israel alone for
    this predicament. I did a search of your
    writings, and forgive me if I omitted something,
    but I saw no mention, much less criticism, of any
    Palestinian intransigence (or any Palestinian
    actions) notwithstanding, e.g., the refusals in
    2000 and 2008. Now, you are of course free to
    take the Palestinian side when it comes to the
    conflict.
    But when an individual continually, and to my
    observation uniformly, takes only one side in a
    dispute, I think it’s fair to describe that
    individual as a “basher” of the other side. It’s
    therefore not unreasonable to describe you as an
    “Israel basher,” notwithstanding your wish not to
    be described as such.

    Reply

  74. drew says:

    Paul,
    The “hardcore Zionists” haven’t tricked anyone or mind-melded
    anyone. It’s the same thing that happens if someone criticizes
    the NAACP: that person is immediately labelled a “racist”. If you
    criticize Israel, some lightweight will call you an anti-semite. If
    you criticize Palestine, some lightweight will call you some other
    name. It’s really boring, all this namecalling.
    I’m proud of the USA’s support for Israel, though. There is
    profoundly deep, profoundly thoughtful support amongst the
    Christian community for a people that they consider their
    progenitors, and a truly democratic polity that we consider
    essential.
    Watch: somebody will now call me names. They can’t help
    themselves.

    Reply

  75. drew says:

    I thought your letter was pretty cool; I didn’t agree with any of it,
    but big deal. Rubin, based on her profile, is starting her second
    career as a pontificator, and so, after having a real writing job for
    less than two months, she lobbed a rock through your picture
    window. I’m not sure why you are bothering to get worked up
    about it; your letter and its signatories speak for itself, and she is
    the journalistic equivalent of a 25 year-old. She should be
    proofreading and fetching coffee for a few more years. I think
    you’re getting angry over the immature typing (there’s little
    thought here by Rubin) of an intern who happens to have a law
    degree.
    I would like to point out that this is a very common rhetorical
    device on this blog and throughout the public sphere: a linch-
    pin of her casual opinion is the name-calling: “Israel-basher”.
    That’s what set you off. That is because it is the cheapest form
    of argument: argument by libel. Both the publisher and the
    responders here use this approach to ‘win’ arguments.
    An example: I know that if I disagree with DADT, based on my
    background, military history, etc., I will immediately be labeled a
    troglodyte bigot, and worse, long before anyone asks me how
    many bunks are stacked on high in the foc’sle of the Missouri, or
    even bother to inquire why I might think that, or inquire about
    any aspect of my thinking. Argument by libel has been very
    effectively used by the left to manage the conflict with the right
    for decades and it’s all over this blog. So perhaps an effort to
    avoid argument by libel, so disturbing to you today, can be
    applied to a variety of subjects — and a variety of policy
    opponents.
    If you need the ghost of Katherine Graham to apologize to you,
    fine, but your letter speaks for itself, name-calling has replaced
    thought in too many cubicles, and perhaps the best response is
    Tom Brady’s: “I’ve been called worse. That’s it? That’s all you
    got?”

    Reply

  76. Bill says:

    I think your record demonstrates perfectly well that you are not an “Israel-basher,” and “anti-semite,” or anything of the kind. Nonetheless, as I’m sure you know, this is a standard tactic in any discussion re: Israel. You push back well enough in your own defense, and your letter is very well written, but it would be nice to see some pushback on the larger tactic of demonizing EVERYONE who criticizes Israel’s policies with the various labels.

    Reply

  77. Phil Perspective says:

    Cato the Censor:
    “Bobo” Brooks writes for the NYT. You did leave out(whom you shouldn’t have) George Will, Michael Gerson, David Ignatius, Marc Thiessen and the king of them all, David “Dean” Broder.

    Reply

  78. Phil Perspective says:

    Steve:
    You are surprised by this? I know you read Glenn Greenwald. He’s documented, time and again, Fred Hiatt’s perfidy. I guess the question I should ask is why are you surprised.

    Reply

  79. Cato the Censor says:

    You really are too nice a fellow for your own good, Mr. Clemons. Why on earth does it surprise you that a reactionary hack like Fred Hiatt should hire a fellow-traveler like Jennifer Rubin? The Washington Post’s editorial page is a refuge for some of the most egregious Neanderthals in the country: Krauthammer, who delights in diagnosing any opponent as mentally ill, Richard Cohen, a token “liberal” who provides cover for perfectly vile policies, and David Brooks, the foremost expert is sugar coating loathsome, regressive prescriptions for increasing the misery of the American people. The fact that you cite the last as an example of reasoned discourse simply demonstrates yet again how deeply trapped you are in the Beltway Bubble.
    You’re silly not to have anticipated being smeared in the Washington Post for making an effort at being reasonable about Israel and the Middle East. You’re a sap if you think your letter will have any influence on Israel or any important American decision maker. I’m sorry to write so harshly, but I’m continually flabbergasted by your naivete. Do you actually think people of good will really exist in Washington, DC, or the rest of the world? No, they don’t and they just play guys like you to advance their agendas. Please wise up for your own good.

    Reply

  80. Taylor Marsh says:

    You obviously deserve a lot better, Steve. I’ve heard your support of Israel in forums many times, so the charge is baseless.
    I was prodded to call Rubin out lately on her post about the State Dept., so the only question I have is why you’re surprised about the Post. That is at least you sound surprised by Rubin’s regurgitation of the conventional stupidity that follows anyone talking about “equilibrium,” to use a word you invoked in 2009 at a NAF. Rubin is from the status quo crowd. She was hired so she could land punches from posts, which bolster the op-ed page.
    I don’t know if you have seen the letter by Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand and signed by 17 senators, trumpeted on AIPAC’s site, but it illustrates why Rubin and the Post feel very comfortable in their unwarranted harangues.
    http://www.taylormarsh.com/2011/01/21/will-pres-obama-support-the-u-n-resolution-condemning-israeli-settlements/

    Reply

  81. JohnH says:

    Great to see that the central issue is becoming the use of offensive labels like “anti-Semite” to stifle debate on the real issues.
    It looks like we’re making progress towards a real debate on the rights and responsibilities of Israel in its illegal occupation,

    Reply

  82. Paul Norheim says:

    As I see it, the core issue in this debate boils down to one
    question: How did the hardcore Zionists in Israel and
    America manage to convince a majority of the public that
    “anti-Semitism” essentially refers to criticism of the Israeli
    government, and not – as in the historical meaning of that
    word – to prejudices against Jews?
    This is tactically clever – perhaps even admirable – but
    strategically, it will backfire, both for Israel and for Jews
    outside Israel.
    In the long run, no state or government on the globe can
    credibly guard itself against criticism from the outside
    world with reference to horrible tragedies in the past. By
    monopolizing the concept, they also create an unbearable
    burden upon Jews living outside Israel, by choice or by
    destiny.
    I’m glad you take this fight, Steve. As you said: “But I don’t
    call those who support Netanyahu Israel-bashers even
    though I believe that as patriotic as they may be as Israelis
    or as pro-Israel as they may be as Americans they are
    harming Israel’s interests. That could be a constructive
    debate — ”
    And as DonS said on another thread, referring to some
    commenters on this blog who do not hesitate to accuse
    anyone who criticizes Israel of being Jew-haters:
    “These propagandists have no other purpose commenting
    here but to take pot shots at Steve and commenters who
    seems reasonalby united in desiring a rational policy in the
    Mideast. That rationality precludes the extreme positions
    of the zionist right.”

    Reply

  83. RWH says:

    Steve, I rarely post here but regularly visit your site. The Rubin response is totally predictable. She is typical of so many progressive American Jews who have a blind spot when it comes to Israel. I have worked harmoniously with many of them in the past on other issues but the subject of Israel can be toxic and even a wrecker of friendships. You are not alone in experiencing this type of attack over having expressed an honest and compassionate assessment of this tragic situation in the ME.
    These people cannot objectively perceive reality.

    Reply

  84. samuelburke says:

    Philip Weiss, investigative journalist and author of the blog
    MondoWeiss, discusses the mounting pressure on the US to
    refrain from vetoing a UN resolution critical of Israel

    Reply

  85. Steve Clemons says:

    David — thanks for your note. Daniel Levy is the co-director of our Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and while we don’t see eye to eye on everything — particularly my preference for a moderate Republican approach to most things. I won’t speak for Daniel regarding his views on my letter but he’d be pounding me right now if he thought it was completely out of line — and he’s not. Maybe he’ll post his own comment when he see this here. But then again, I’m in Colorado Springs now and out of reach of his pounding.
    Bill Pearlman – thanks for the note!
    All best, steve clemons

    Reply

  86. David C. Guy says:

    Steve – I agree that the use of the term “Israel
    bashers” was inappropriate in this case.
    However, I am curious – What does Dan Levy of your
    foundation think about your letter?
    Thank you.

    Reply

  87. samuelburke says:

    Steve, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
    The establishment is powerful and getting tagged as an israel
    basher by those who wield power can be detrimental to one’s
    career as many others have found.
    If they do happen to pin the ribbon ( we will just call it israel
    basher ribbon for now) on you, wear it proudly, history will
    absolve you, to quote Fidel.

    Reply

  88. Karin says:

    Steve, Your letter is fantastic, precisely because it includes new voices whose credentials are unassailable. Based on my experience, once you do what you did (especially if it lends any credibility to a UN action of such magnitude), you have grabbed the third rail and will be subject to the treatment meted out to those who dare to see things as they really are and try to urge a change of course in US policy on this issue. Good for you. And hope you get a satisfactory response from WaPo. Not holding my breath. Best, Karin

    Reply

  89. DonS says:

    I don’t know Jennifer Rubin’s pedigree. But I do know that she winds up being quoted and referred to by commenters on this blog who are apologists for the very far right radical Israeli establishment. Indeed, that seems to be their sole purpose for commenting.
    Having read some of Ms Rubin’s columns I, too, wonder why the Post ever put her on staff or perhaps, where did pressure come from, at this crucial time in the mideast, to engage an obvious neocon bomb thrower?
    I understand the so-called ‘culture wars’ continue alive and well, perhaps increasingly so, in the US. The force behind this confrontation of values, on the right, is aligned with the “Israel Firsters” to a large extent. Perhaps it sells newspapers to give exposure to bomb throwers, but it detracts from having a serious discussion and focus on foreign affairs. Might as well sign up Pam Geller while they’re at it.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *