Ezra Klein: The Anti-Palestinian Lobby

« "War Is Not The Instrument He Thought It Was" | Main | Something Bush hasn't (yet) been able to ruin »

March 04, 2007

The Anti-Palestinian Lobby

This post by Matt reminds me of something he'd probably want me to say -- we've got to come up with a better term for people who want to push Israel into violent conflict with its neighbors than the "Israel lobby." The strange use of the phrase "Pro-Israel" is especially problematic. I want the folks who live in Israel now to stay there and live happy lives untroubled by violence. I think that peace agreements, like the agreement of the late 1970s that has ended war between Israel and Egypt, are the only way to achieve this. Compare me to the Texas megachurch pastor who endorses Israeli military action as the best means for covering the region in a "sea of human blood drained from the veins of those who have followed Satan." The term "pro-Israel" should not be applied to his view. Yet NPR bestows the "pro-Israel" appellation on him, even while noting that most Israelis reject his position. Suggestions for reforming the discourse are welcome.

March 4, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"Likudnik."

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 4, 2007 6:45:23 PM

What he said. There's a pefectly good term for it already.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 4, 2007 6:52:02 PM

The media won't use likudnik, because it sounds like Bolshevik, which is an epithet, although archaic.
Its a neoconservative lobby. What else do you have to say?

Posted by: crestwo | Mar 4, 2007 8:10:13 PM

Is likudnik the term the left uses when they really want to say a fucking dirty Jew?

Posted by: mik | Mar 4, 2007 8:44:03 PM

What he said. There's a pefectly good term for it already.

Right... except that in Israel, people way left of Likud, including Labor and Meretz/Peace Now, support getting more aggressive with Iran. In the US, an AIPAC member who advocates supporting the settlements is probably a Likudnik; an AIPAC member who advocates war with Iran, which is the hot Israel-related issue of the day, need not be.

Yet NPR bestows the "pro-Israel" appellation on him, even while noting that most Israelis reject his position. Suggestions for reforming the discourse are welcome.

You can try defining "pro-Israeli" to mean what most Israelis believe. But that won't be that different from how the term is defined today. The median Israeli voter supports peace with Palestine and withdrawal from the territories in the indefinite future, much like the white moderate of the 1950s and early 60s' US supported civil rights. That voter has a fairly religious outlook at the conflict, and believes that attacks on Israel from outsiders are equivalent to anti-Semitism.

You can argue over what political grouping exactly the term "pro-Israel" should refer to - I favor Kadima, the median party in Israel - but you're trying to say it should be Fatah, which is indefensible.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Mar 4, 2007 9:04:56 PM

Is likudnik the term the left uses when they really want to say a fucking dirty Jew?

No.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 4, 2007 9:16:24 PM

Pro-settler? Supporter of Jewish chauvinism?
Likudnik works fine, as long as you realise that there's a lot of Likud in the left-wing parties, just as left-wing parties in France are pretty Gaullist.

Posted by: otto | Mar 4, 2007 9:35:36 PM

That was a valiant effort at covering for me Sanpete, but it's pretty clear that Mik has cracked my secret leftist code of prejudice. Is he tapping my phone? Does he know that Republican is code for dirty little piece of shit? Does he know that when I say I'm going volunteer, I really mean I'm plotting the revolution? He must have figured out that when I said I supported John Kerry, I really meant I was a Stalinist. My cover is totally blown. The leftist/anti-semitic/Stalinist/Kerry conspiracy has been completely revealed!

Posted by: Sam L. | Mar 4, 2007 9:38:08 PM

You can try defining "pro-Israeli" to mean what most Israelis believe.

I think this is a misguided way to look at it, though. Israelis, quite rightly, seek to further the interests of Israel, and to take what actions they believe will have that end. I'm not sure it's necessary for Americans to (a) believe that Israelis have properly judged what is the best course of action, even for Israel, or (b) deny that there may be times when Israel's interests and American interests are not coextensive, in order to be "pro-Israel." I take "pro-Israel" to mean "supportive of the continued existence of Israel as a defensible, viable, Jewish-majority state." That, I think, describes most Americans, and most Dem bloggers. Everyone, probably even a majority of Republicans, is, by that standard, pro-Israel. The various distinctions come after this.

And I'm not sure that beliefs about the appropriate behavior towards Iran at this time are determinative, either. Really, what Niel seems to be trying to get at (or maybe not) is the distinction between almost everyone and the people who believe in hyper-aggressive policy motivated by virulent Arab-hatred and a comic book sensibility about the way the world works. That is, all the Americans likely to think that Netanyahu is a super cool dude. "Likudnik" would seem to work toward that end.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 4, 2007 9:47:39 PM

"supportive of the continued existence of Israel as a defensible, viable, Jewish-majority state."

There are some caveats even to that statement. For example, I would not support the expulsion of any of the current Arab citizens of Israel, now or in the future, to secure a 'Jewish majority'.

Posted by: otto | Mar 4, 2007 10:04:52 PM

Yeah, I like Likudnik, which I'd heard before but forgotten. I don't think it's likely to become the preferred major media term, though, which is the big prize here.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Mar 4, 2007 10:06:26 PM

Tim, that's just an ingenuous abuse of language. Yes, you can define the term "pro-Israel" out of Israel, just like Republicans can argue that they're pro-black but black people just don't know what's best for them. But a good rule of thumb is that if a view is shared virtually unanimously, it doesn't need a term. The terms "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" are meaningful now precisely because like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" they related to two oppositional views. You can of course redefine being pro-Israeli to include the majority of Palestinians, but that's just like telling someone that if he doesn't support any number of absurd invasions of bodily autonomy, such as raping women and forcing them to carry to term, he's pro-choice.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Mar 4, 2007 10:19:01 PM

Well, it looks like terminology fails to unite (per normal).

Lidudnik is as obsolete as Bolshevik. Neo-conservative doesn't work either, but it is better.

Israeli politics are more than unscrutable, they are far worse than French-post WWII or Italian-post WWII era.

In my mind there are those who would grant Palestine recognition as a state - free of all Israeli settlements and back to post 1967 borders, and then there are a whole spectrum to the right of that that ends up with the Palestinians being evicted from all land in British Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan River. It is impossible to place a name on this spectrum of rightists.

But, if forced to, I'd choose neoconservative wingnuts.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 4, 2007 10:25:28 PM

Tim, that's just an ingenuous abuse of language.

Thanks. I'm not sure that's true. I think the distinction to be made is between "pro-Israel" and "pro-Israelis." I take the former to mean a commitment to a notion of Israel that existed even prior to the establishment of the nation; I take the latter to mean a commitment to satisfy the desires of Israelis. I can't believe you mean to say that "pro-Israel" means the latter.

You mentioned African-Americans, who I believe supported Democrats to the tune of 85% of their votes in '04. I cannot believe you mean that the only "pro-Israel" candidate is one who will support and let his Middle East policy be led by anything that 85% of Israelis (or Jewish Israelis, if I read your conception correctly) believe is appropriate. That's crazy talk; it's the sort of thing that, if someone is arguing against Israel and argues that such is the definition, is considered a tell that he's a total conspiracy whack-job anti-Semite. If that's really what is it means to be "pro-Israel," not only should we not be electing "pro-Israel" candidates, we should be making every effort to make sure they lose. No nation should happily acquiesce to letting its foreign policy be set by citizens of another nation, even a close ally (though, obviously, sometimes you have to give way).

There's just no way you mean that, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 4, 2007 11:01:07 PM

Tim, you're assuming that Israel is the paramount interest here. It's entirely possible for someone to support the black civil rights agenda without subordinating what's good for everyone to what's good specifically for blacks. Likewise, it's possible for someone to believe that Israel's political interests largely coincide with the United States'.

A good analogy is feminism. Feminists agitate for 50-50 female representation in the sciences. Anti-feminists then respond that they'd rather have equal representation than meritocratic one even if women were innately worse at math then men. But, you know, no serious feminist says that; instead, feminists say that in fact women and men can succeed equally given the opportunity.

It's the same with Israel. Obama (for example) doesn't think what's most important is what Israelis want; he thinks what's most important is what Americans want. He just happens to believe the interests of the two nations coincide. Why shouldn't he say so, in so many words, to a political group that does prioritize Israel's interests?

Posted by: Alon Levy | Mar 4, 2007 11:08:39 PM

He just happens to believe the interests of the two nations coincide. Why shouldn't he say so, in so many words, to a political group that does prioritize Israel's interests?

Now I'm entirely lost. No one is saying he shouldn't say that if he thinks that; at most, they're saying that he shouldn't think that. I have no idea how that relates to the issue at hand, though. Do you think there's anyone in America who would describe Obama as a Likudnik?

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 5, 2007 12:18:10 AM

No; I was going to use Clinton and Giuliani as examples, but their primary concern is their own power rather than the good of the country. It just happens that no Presidential candidate is a really good example of this, but there are certainly a lot of right-wing pro-Israeli politicians in the US who support Israel simply because they think what's good for the US happens to be good for Israel.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Mar 5, 2007 2:53:04 AM

Alon, nobody really believes our interest coincide. They don't coincide at all. When some people say our interest coincide, they say it because they know Israel can't exist on it's own. It's not a viable country without US aid. Others say it because saying "We support you because we want Jesus to come down and turn you all into piles of salt" is considered really rude. Still others do it because they want money, and jewish money is important early in democratic primaries (no racism accusation, not unless you think Jewish Weekly is an anti-semetic publication). You're problem is that you seem to think politicians say what they mean, rather than whatever they think they have to.

Posted by: soullite | Mar 5, 2007 8:36:13 AM

, but there are certainly a lot of right-wing pro-Israeli politicians in the US who support Israel simply because they think what's good for the US happens to be good for Israel.

First, this--"support Israel simply because they think what's good for the US happens to be good for Israel"--sounds as if you're saying they believe that support for Israel, independent of any specific policy implementation, is good for the US. As above, I don't know what that means. Second, if these "pro-Israeli" politicians are sufficiently right-wing and militaristic, they're nutters and likely fall into the category of "Likudnik." I don't think anything I've said implies that American Likudniks consciously favor the interests of Israel over the US. I don't think it says that because I don't believe that.

Your objections seem to be jumping around. I can't make out what they are.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 5, 2007 9:55:19 AM

As others above have noted, the term "pro-Israel" includes several different groups operating from different motives, including "people who want to bomb the crap out of all the Muslim countries in the Middle East because they think that will make Israel safer" and "people who want to start World War Three in the Middle East so they can bring on the Rapture".

I agree these two groups shouldn't really be called "pro-Israel", but the fact is, they've declared themselves to be "pro-Israel", and the media have accepted that self-description, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Posted by: Newport 9 | Mar 5, 2007 2:44:49 PM

"nobody really believes our interest coincide. They don't coincide at all."

How could they?

Interests of the state of dirty Jews cannot possibly coincide with interests of Progressive America.

Interests of Progressive America coincide with progressive anti-imperialist Kim Been Ill and Mahmoud No-Holocaust Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: mik | Mar 5, 2007 2:52:08 PM

It's just like how the term "pro-choice" includes libertarians who think the government has no business interfering with any medical act, liberals who think people should have the right to control their own bodies, and radical feminists and allies who think women's bodies are sacred. What unites all of them is support for legalizd abortion.

Likewise, all pro-Israeli people are united by siding with Israel over the Arabs and Persians in general and the Palestinians in particular. It doesn't matter what the actual justification is, nor is it warranted to try arguing that being pro-Israeli is some fringe position that seeks to subvert the USA's purity of essence.

If you want a good agree/disagree proposition that distinguishes the two, take "The grievances of Israel should take priority over those of the Palestinians" - just like the agree/disagree proposition that separates pro-choicers from pro-lifers is "Abortion should be available on demand."

Posted by: Alon Levy | Mar 5, 2007 3:30:46 PM

Except that in civilized countries, "pro-life" doesn't really exist. certainly not in the oh-so backward Muslim countries where abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy has always been legal since the Koran allows it. "Pro-Life" is a Taliban position, really. Too bad, too bad.

Oh America, how could you ever become hijacked by the religious fascists like that? No spine to stand up to the medieval bigots and racists.

Posted by: anonymous | Mar 8, 2007 9:18:12 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘