You are here: Home » General » Selfhaters
Obviously former Mossad director Efraim Halevy is a self-hating Jew like the large majority of American Jews who vote for the Democrats. Otherwise why would he write an op-ed for the Times exposing the truth that Democrats have traditionally been greater friends of the Israeli state than Republicans. I don’t think the true Jew-lovers in this country–Pat Robertson let’s say–are going to approve of this.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
GOP POV:
What do Jewish people know about Israel’s interests?
Only Evangelical Christians can be trusted with Israel’a interests.
Or, even “Israel’s” interests!
Y kent oui haz “Edit,” pleeze, sew morans lyak mee ken korect hourselfez?
Israel ISREAL?
ZOMG!!!
SO IS SASQUATCH!!!!!
Ya know, sometimes I miss Teh Donald DouglASS.
I was just thinking about this the other night after reading this:
Given that I have seen these kinds of poll numbers from numerous places, that Israelis largely favor a 2-state solution, is it not fair to ask Mitt why people of his ilk refuse to listen to the wishes of the people who actually live there.
Of course I’m under no illusion that anyone would ever dare ask such a question. Just as I know he will never be asked about what kind of influence the Mormon church will have on the White House if he were elected:
Israelis largely favor a 2-state solution
It would be helpful if they elected a government that also thought that way. Netanyahu is not a dictator, he is in power because Likud won an election.
He’s in power because Likud was able to form a government.
Likud polled behind Kadima, YB (the Russian immigrant party, fascists in yarmulkes, not that they wear them) polled third and Labour fourth.
Together, Likud and YB combined control one more seat than Kadima/Labour (putting aside factional issues between the two) so they form the government.
Wikilinking: I fails at it!
There are also an assortment of religious nuts in the current coalition but they’re pretty much just single-issue voters.
I heard recently that UTJ (one of the primary religious parties) might be on the verge of splitting up but I can’t find the link right now.
The Israeli two state solution is not really two states. It is one Jewish state and a fragmented Palestinian Bantustan with less real political autonomy than South Africa gave to Transkei. In terms of economic viability the Palestinian Bantustan does not look any better either.
There seems to be a very broad spectrum of security issues on which Nethanyahu is out of step with Israel’s professional security/military guys. President Obama seems to have made an end run around the PM, and appealed directly to them, while Romney is right in line with the Likudniks.
Also, did anyone else find it really, really, really annoying that everyone at the debate kept referring to him as “Bibi,” as if they’d grown up with him in a tenement in Brooklyn? “Bibi? Sure, I know Bibi!”
I’m not saying you’re wrong about this, joe, as I too have gotten the impression that the professional military apparatus in Israel regards, say, attacking Iran to be… premature at best, but this article by itself doesn’t provide much evidence either way, I don’t think.
Honestly, the article annoyed me a bit. The gist I got from it is “Take it from someone who knows and was there, Democrats are WAY more willing to subordinate their own policy preferences to Israel’s than Republicans are.”
Well it was a Democrat that covered up the nature of the attack on the USS Liberty so he might have a point.
The truth is there is an elite bipartisan consensus that Israel is to be treated as the 51st state and supported no matter what. There was hardly a blip of criticism when Israel engaged in their folly of an attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and when the Israelis killed 9 Gaza activists on the humanitarian flotilla, it was hardly even noted that one of them was a US citizen.
Israel is treated a lot better than a 51st state by the US Federal Government. If it were actually a state it would have only 2 Senators and not 100. It would also have to abide by US laws such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibit racial discrimination. No US state government today could get away with treating African-Americans or Mexican Americans the way Israel treats its Palestinian citizens. That type of blatant legal racial discrimination went out of style in the 1960s in the US. But, it is still practiced daily in Israel.
Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem (and related Palestinian areas controlled Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967), have been offered Israeli citizenship — but they have refused, because they don’t wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. It’s fairly reasonable not to give people full political rights if they don’t recognize the country as their country or, heck, even as a country entitled to exist. Under Israeli law, they are considered permanent residents, with most protection. They are entitled to municipal services and have municipal voting rights.
Other Arab Israeli citizens have full citizenship rights — vote in all elections in large numbers (without suppression efforts, ahem), have generals in the IDF, substantial membership in Parliament, some (few) members in the Cabinet AND a member on the Israeli Supreme Court. Arab Israelis who recognize Israel get almost* full participation in the country, imagine that!!
– by a reform Jew who bitterly hates the Orthodoxy’s influence throughout Israel.
*recognizing that they don’t get participation in governmental Jewish bodies.
It’s fairly reasonable not to give people full political rights if they don’t recognize the country as their country
If the US were called the White States of Jesus, and had a flag and national iconography to match, how many minorities would swear allegiance to it or consider it legitimate? Would you think it was totally fair to deny them civil rights because of their objections?
You can’t be an ethnic/religious supremacist state and a legitimate democracy at the same time.
Not sure I agree. There was another piece by Halevy quoted at TPM a couple of days ago, making a similar, but not identical argument.
Long story short, he accused Romney of trying to sabotage any chance for a peaceful resolution of the situation with Iran, and called Obama “courageous” for his attempts to find a peaceful resolution.
Don’t have the link handy at the moment, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find it there, I think it ran within the last 4-5 days.
This was definitely true in the past. It was Eisenhower that opposed the Israeli assault on the Suez Canal. The Republican Party has unfortunately become as beholden as the Democrats to Israel now. But, the real hard core supporters of everything Israel have traditionally been the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. In particular the delegations from NY and CA have been Israel can do no wrong types.
Yeah, I wish this article had been “Actually dovishness is not the same thing as being anti-Israel” instead of “Dems are totally more hawkish than you give them credit for.”
It certainly provides evidence that (at least some of) the military brass are not on board with the PM’s little jihad against Obama.
I think the major problem with the Republicans’ attempted cynical cultivation of the Jewsish vote is that it is one of the most skeptical voting groups in the country.
In fact the only group that can be consistently manipulated is median earning religiously Protestant white people.
This isn’t really about the Jewish vote. It is about (1) the evangelical vote and (2) some rich Jewish donors. But “Obama is bad for Israel” did seem to impact the special election in NY-9 and might move some votes in Miami.
I don’t get this article, or why we should take it seriously as a discussion of anything.
In the first place, is the argument being made that the George W. Bush administration’s “road map for peace” was a significant concession to the Palestinians that was horrible for Israel? And how can you write an article claiming that Republicans are worse for Israel without mentioning anything about either Carter or Clinton’s Middle East policies? I mean, I’m sure you could make an argument that Carter and Clinton were actually more pro-Israel than the Republican presidents around them, but you have to, you know, actually make the argument, not just throw out some out of context points about times Republican presidents did things Israel didn’t like.
Overall, I don’t understand the argument that Halevy is making, and I strongly, strongly doubt that he is making it in good faith. I have no idea what game he is playing, but I refuse to put any stock into anything a former Mossad guy says about American politics.
I mean, I’m sure you could make an argument that Carter and Clinton were actually more pro-Israel than the Republican presidents around them…
Carter mediated the Egypt-Israel agreement of 1979. In that agreement, the country that up until then had been Israel’s most powerful enemy recognized Israel’s right to exist. Lasting peace ensued. No President before or since has done as much for Israel as Carter.
Indeed he did.
And yet, in contemporary discourse, that would not be considered “pro-Israel.”
Is the purpose of this article to make me not hate George W. Bush as much as I did?
Pressuring Israelis to pursue peace with the Palestinians while you level one of their antagonistic neighbors doesn’t seem like “Throwing Israel under the bus”, and I would like to think that Obama would have successfully sought similar concessions.
The point is that Obama and Bush 2 have sought similar things, and that Bush 2 was in some ways much more hostile to (the current policy preferences of the current Government of the State of) Israel.
Also that Bush 2 is not criticised for any of this by those who now criticise Obama for much less.
I thought the point was that Bush was demonstrably worse.
The point is that “Obama has thrown Israel under a bus” is, in absolute and in historically comparative terms, untrue and that those who advance this line never mention the policies pursued by previous administrations of a Republican complexion.
TLDR: The ECI are a bunch of partisan hacks whose only concern are the wellbeing of Republican and Likud parties, not the long-term survival of the state of Israel.
Of course, since their primary funders are wealthy evangelicals, the “Long-term survival” of Israel is something of a contradiction in terms. Israel (and Jews more generally) only have instrumental value to Christians in that they think we have have something to do with kicking off their bizarre little eschatological circlejerk.
What’s the matter with Jews?
Obviously, Jewish-Americans are induced to vote against Israel’s interests by the Dems exploitation of social issues.
Out here in NYC the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the left, to the left, further to the left. Strip today’s UpperWestSiders of Israeli security, and they head out to become registered Democrats. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they’re protesting in front of Fox News. Squander their taxes on Fannie Mae, and there’s a good chance they’ll join the ACLU.
This attempt at equivalence to “What’s the matter with Kansas?” fails, and the reasons it fails are worth noting.
First, Israel’s interest and the interest of American Jews are not the same thing. “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” asks why blue-collar Kansans vote against their own interest.
Second, today’s Upper West Siders already vote Democrat and hate Fox News.
Joe, I’m impressed…you actually made enough sense of Manju’s comment to come up with a counter-argument. Are you a codebreaker in your spare time, by any chance?
Good points, Joe. I’ll add a 3rd. Jewish-Americans actually vote against Republicans.
The White Working Class voting against Dems? Not so much…particularly if you control for income and do not write racial politics out of the original pre-64 partisan alignment.
Yes, why don’t Jewish-Americans vote on the interests of a foreign state? Very interesting…
Being a left-wing Jewish American, I would love to argue with your comment, but I have no idea what your second paragraph even means (and can’t even tell whether your comment is supposed to be serious or some sort of humorous parody).
I took a wiki-featured paragraph from What’s the Matter with Kansas and adjusted it for Jewish-Americans.
Xenophobic stereotypes sure are fun!
Also the find and replace job was poorly done.
I give it a D-, circled with “Please see me after class” in red on it.
(Damn grade inflation, I blame teachers unions…)