When J Street attacked Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) for his one-stateism, I said that the ad was exactly what I wanted to see in theory, but noted a few problems in the execution. Basically, I didn't think it was aggressive enough in hammering home that one-state = anti-Israel.
This is more like it.
The ad still isn't perfect on execution. At a full minute it runs a little long, and takes some time to get its wheels spinning. I think the beginning can be trimmed considerably, and I think the Adelson reference can be cut (not because Adelson isn't being a putz about this, but I'm not sure why his involvement makes things worse). I also think adding quotes from other Jewish organizations saying "one state = anti-Israel" would pack some punch.
But nitpicking aside, the message is loud and clear: The one-state solution stands in opposition to Israel's Jewish, democratic character. It is an obstacle to a true peace that respects the rights and security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Ergo, anything less than support of a two-state solution isn't pro-Israel. J Street is saying nothing more than what every other mainstream Jewish organization has been saying for years but now seems too cowardly to stand up for. So I'm glad that at least one pro-Israel group has the balls to take on the rising one-state tide head on.
Showing posts with label Joe Walsh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Walsh. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Joe Walsh Should Be Pro-Israel PAC's Public Enemy #1
There is one member of Congress who is a loud-and-proud supporter of a one-state solution. His name is Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), a Tea Party extremist who came to Washington on the crest of the 2010 GOP wave. His opponent is decorated war hero Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs in combat (Walsh is sick of hearing about that).
Walsh's extremist views have made Israel a surprisingly large issue in his suburban Illinois race. Walsh's district isn't very Jewish (good thing too, because he views most Jews with contempt), but by being so clear in opposing one of the bedrock principles of American pro-Israel advocacy, he has put himself in the crosshairs.
Or he should be. I've already noted the deafening silence that has met the rise of one-stateism on the American right. And as The Forward reports, many of the middle-of-the-road pro-Israel groups are ducking this race entirely (Walsh is getting support from some fringe right-wing groups and is under heavy fire from J Street).
As de Talleyrand famously put it: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder." We'll put aside the part where pro-Israel groups should oppose Walsh because Walsh's views are fundamentally dangerous for Israel by the terms of these own groups' statements. Taking out Walsh is in these groups' best interest on a host of levels.
First of all, if Walsh stays in Congress he is showing that one can defy the American pro-Israel consensus with impunity. Obviously, part of being an effective advocate is showing that opposition comes with political costs -- a reputation that takes a hit when a first-term Congressman appears to have the big bad Israel Lobby running scared. And in a sense, Walsh is more dangerous to the pro-Israel establishment than most because he's at the vanguard of a movement seeking to strip "pro-Israel" away from mainstream Jewish groups and turn it into an evangelical Christian construct which doesn't care a whit about Jewish lives or Jewish values. Does anyone think Walsh actually has a use for groups like AJC in directing the future of pro-Israel? Of course not. The more the power of people like Walsh waxes, the more that of the mainstream Jewish community wanes.
Second, a critical element of the pro-Israel community's Washington strategy is to maintain support for Israel as a bipartisan value. Yet that image is increasingly under threat as the heavy pro-Israel hitters are beginning to be seen as essentially arms of the right. There are left-wing politicians they will attack for insufficient support of Israel (sometimes rightly, sometimes not), but there is no way one can be anti-Israel from the right (save Pat Buchanan-esque crpyto-conservatism). Given that, liberal organizations are naturally going to wonder if the supposed bipartisanship of the pro-Israel community, really is. Taking on Congressman Walsh -- demonstrating that they're willing to police their right flank as well as their left one -- would do much to reestablish the fraying centrist credibility of these groups.
And finally -- taking on Walsh is likely a freebie. Walsh is a far, far right-wing Republican who was elected in a wave year and whose seat got even more liberal in redistricting. Most prognosticators think he's going down anyway. So why not line up on the winning side? Even if one is misguided enough to think Walsh is anything other than a massive liability, there's no reason to not jump on the bandwagon here, given the benefits outlined above. If pro-Israel groups can't challenge right-wing Republicans even when the odds are stacked in their favor, what good are they?
Joe Walsh is, almost without a doubt, the single most anti-Israel Congressman serving in Washington today. He needs to be taken down, and hard. And it is a disappointing commentary on the state of the American pro-Israel lobby that they seem unable to muster the balls to take him on.
Walsh's extremist views have made Israel a surprisingly large issue in his suburban Illinois race. Walsh's district isn't very Jewish (good thing too, because he views most Jews with contempt), but by being so clear in opposing one of the bedrock principles of American pro-Israel advocacy, he has put himself in the crosshairs.
Or he should be. I've already noted the deafening silence that has met the rise of one-stateism on the American right. And as The Forward reports, many of the middle-of-the-road pro-Israel groups are ducking this race entirely (Walsh is getting support from some fringe right-wing groups and is under heavy fire from J Street).
As de Talleyrand famously put it: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder." We'll put aside the part where pro-Israel groups should oppose Walsh because Walsh's views are fundamentally dangerous for Israel by the terms of these own groups' statements. Taking out Walsh is in these groups' best interest on a host of levels.
First of all, if Walsh stays in Congress he is showing that one can defy the American pro-Israel consensus with impunity. Obviously, part of being an effective advocate is showing that opposition comes with political costs -- a reputation that takes a hit when a first-term Congressman appears to have the big bad Israel Lobby running scared. And in a sense, Walsh is more dangerous to the pro-Israel establishment than most because he's at the vanguard of a movement seeking to strip "pro-Israel" away from mainstream Jewish groups and turn it into an evangelical Christian construct which doesn't care a whit about Jewish lives or Jewish values. Does anyone think Walsh actually has a use for groups like AJC in directing the future of pro-Israel? Of course not. The more the power of people like Walsh waxes, the more that of the mainstream Jewish community wanes.
Second, a critical element of the pro-Israel community's Washington strategy is to maintain support for Israel as a bipartisan value. Yet that image is increasingly under threat as the heavy pro-Israel hitters are beginning to be seen as essentially arms of the right. There are left-wing politicians they will attack for insufficient support of Israel (sometimes rightly, sometimes not), but there is no way one can be anti-Israel from the right (save Pat Buchanan-esque crpyto-conservatism). Given that, liberal organizations are naturally going to wonder if the supposed bipartisanship of the pro-Israel community, really is. Taking on Congressman Walsh -- demonstrating that they're willing to police their right flank as well as their left one -- would do much to reestablish the fraying centrist credibility of these groups.
And finally -- taking on Walsh is likely a freebie. Walsh is a far, far right-wing Republican who was elected in a wave year and whose seat got even more liberal in redistricting. Most prognosticators think he's going down anyway. So why not line up on the winning side? Even if one is misguided enough to think Walsh is anything other than a massive liability, there's no reason to not jump on the bandwagon here, given the benefits outlined above. If pro-Israel groups can't challenge right-wing Republicans even when the odds are stacked in their favor, what good are they?
Joe Walsh is, almost without a doubt, the single most anti-Israel Congressman serving in Washington today. He needs to be taken down, and hard. And it is a disappointing commentary on the state of the American pro-Israel lobby that they seem unable to muster the balls to take him on.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
J Street Attacks Walsh's One-Stateism
J Street has released ads attacking Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) for supporting a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (apparently parallel ads are up attacking Rep. Allen West as well). This is a tactic I've been urging for some time now. But while I like the concept, I think the execution needs work -- as the ad language is still too defensive for my tastes.
I don't think the ad emphasizes enough the consensus view amongst mainstream Jews that such plan means the end of Israel -- not a bigger Israel. And at the end, when it says that supporting one state "isn’t pro-Israel", I'd instead have said "is anti-Israel". In general, I think political rhetoric is strongest when it takes as a given the point it is trying to make, rather than make it seem like the point of controversy. The ad here should have acted as if it is simply accepted that to be a one-stater is to be anti-Israel (easy to do, given the plethora of quotes by respected Jewish groups saying just that), and then flambé Rep. Walsh for his anti-Israel views.
Part of the problem is that J Street has been framing this campaign as trying to cut against the norm of "Israel right or wrong". But good project or not, here the Israeli government isn't wrong -- as the ad points out, the Israeli government has consistently stated that the two-state solution is the solution it wants. It's Walsh who has decided to stake out a position critical of the Israeli government and most Israelis and Jews, so why shouldn't he get the (mostly fabled, but still) "classic" treatment that people "critical of Israel" are said to get?
This ad hits Republicans on Israel "from the left", and that's important. But it could have been more visceral about hitting Republicans for being anti-Israel from the left -- thus helping bring back a form of genuine progressive pro-Israel politics as well as documenting the way in which conservative Republican stances on Israel are hostile to many of Israel's core values and security concerns.
I don't think the ad emphasizes enough the consensus view amongst mainstream Jews that such plan means the end of Israel -- not a bigger Israel. And at the end, when it says that supporting one state "isn’t pro-Israel", I'd instead have said "is anti-Israel". In general, I think political rhetoric is strongest when it takes as a given the point it is trying to make, rather than make it seem like the point of controversy. The ad here should have acted as if it is simply accepted that to be a one-stater is to be anti-Israel (easy to do, given the plethora of quotes by respected Jewish groups saying just that), and then flambé Rep. Walsh for his anti-Israel views.
Part of the problem is that J Street has been framing this campaign as trying to cut against the norm of "Israel right or wrong". But good project or not, here the Israeli government isn't wrong -- as the ad points out, the Israeli government has consistently stated that the two-state solution is the solution it wants. It's Walsh who has decided to stake out a position critical of the Israeli government and most Israelis and Jews, so why shouldn't he get the (mostly fabled, but still) "classic" treatment that people "critical of Israel" are said to get?
This ad hits Republicans on Israel "from the left", and that's important. But it could have been more visceral about hitting Republicans for being anti-Israel from the left -- thus helping bring back a form of genuine progressive pro-Israel politics as well as documenting the way in which conservative Republican stances on Israel are hostile to many of Israel's core values and security concerns.
Monday, May 07, 2012
More Deafening Silence from "Pro-Israel" Stalwarts
Back in March, I noted my growing frustration that mainline pro-Israel groups were staying silent as one-staterism grows in influence and respectability, particularly amongst the American right. Endorsements by the RNC, two state legislatures, and several high-profile Republicans have been met with nothing but a blank page from groups like the AJC, ADL, JCPA, and others.
The other day, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) took to the Washington Times to explicitly say what many on the right are thinking -- no to a two-state solution. Israel should annex the West Bank outright. Recognizing that this would force Israel to choose between being a full democracy or a Jewish state, Walsh elects for the latter, and reduces Palestinians to only a limited degree of political rights. It is equally obvious to the rest of us that this is unsustainable, and while Walsh is already sacrificing Israel's democratic character, he'd likely end up sacrificing its Jewish nature as well. Either way, it's the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish, democratic homeland in Israel.
Walsh is certainly not as high-profile as, say, Rick Santorum. He has also not been a friend to Israel or Jews. But in dedicating a column explicitly to supporting a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Walsh immediately has made one of the highest-profile gestures towards mainstreaming that position in American politics.
Over the last few days, I've been searching in vain to see Jewish, pro-Israel groups denounce Walsh's dangerous proposal. J Street has a tweet up (update: and now a full post). And ... that's it. ADL? Nothing. AJC? Nothing. JCPA? Nothing. We Are For Israel? Nope.
All of these groups purport to denounce one-stateism. And they'll do it, when the promoters are some fringe academics or lunatic activists. But none of them have the guts to take it on when it presents itself as an actual threat -- from U.S. Congressmen, from major political players, from folks with money and power and influence. In other words, none of them are ready to defend Israel when it matters. It's pathetic.
The other day, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) took to the Washington Times to explicitly say what many on the right are thinking -- no to a two-state solution. Israel should annex the West Bank outright. Recognizing that this would force Israel to choose between being a full democracy or a Jewish state, Walsh elects for the latter, and reduces Palestinians to only a limited degree of political rights. It is equally obvious to the rest of us that this is unsustainable, and while Walsh is already sacrificing Israel's democratic character, he'd likely end up sacrificing its Jewish nature as well. Either way, it's the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish, democratic homeland in Israel.
Walsh is certainly not as high-profile as, say, Rick Santorum. He has also not been a friend to Israel or Jews. But in dedicating a column explicitly to supporting a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Walsh immediately has made one of the highest-profile gestures towards mainstreaming that position in American politics.
Over the last few days, I've been searching in vain to see Jewish, pro-Israel groups denounce Walsh's dangerous proposal. J Street has a tweet up (update: and now a full post). And ... that's it. ADL? Nothing. AJC? Nothing. JCPA? Nothing. We Are For Israel? Nope.
All of these groups purport to denounce one-stateism. And they'll do it, when the promoters are some fringe academics or lunatic activists. But none of them have the guts to take it on when it presents itself as an actual threat -- from U.S. Congressmen, from major political players, from folks with money and power and influence. In other words, none of them are ready to defend Israel when it matters. It's pathetic.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Iowa Reveals the GOP's Anti-Israel Slant
For the past few years, Republicans have incessantly attempted to argue that Barack Obama -- one of the most authentically Zionist politicians America has ever seen -- is "anti-Israel". It was always a laughable claim. But it's more so given the three Republican candidates who finished in an essential dead-heat for first place amongst Iowa Caucus voters: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. None of them can lay a strong claim to being "pro-Israel", and two of them I think have to be considered actively antagonistic to Israel's perpetuation as a Jewish, democratic state.
Start with Mitt Romney. Romney famously declared that Obama "threw Israel under the bus" because he said a peace agreement should be based on 1967 borders. I remain baffled by what other basis there might be for a two-state solution (The partition plan? Drawing straws?), and I doubt Romney has any better idea, because I doubt Romney actually knows or cares that much about Israel's longevity.
But you know what? Spot them Romney. Let's just look at Paul and Santorum. Paul is an easy case -- his own aides admit he's been anti-Israel, and belated efforts to describe his isolationist foreign policy as the most pro-Israel act of all notwithstanding, few in the Jewish community see him as a friend.
That leaves Santorum, who is filling the niche of this year's Mike Huckabee. And like Huckabee, Santorum has come out as a one-stater, proclaiming that everyone currently residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is an "Israeli" and thus the West Bank should be part of Israel, permanently. Since all Israelis must presumably be given equal rights of suffrage (among other things), this will render Israel's Jewish majority precarious at best and likely lead to its demise as a Jewish state.
He joins folks like Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) as part of the Hamas wing of the Republican Party, as the radical one-state policies they espouse bear far more in common with the ambitions of the Islamist terrorist movement than they do those of any Israeli government or serious political party. And what we've seen is that, amongst Republican voters, this sort of outlook -- one that is fundamentally apathetic, at best, towards Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state -- is overwhelmingly popular.
Start with Mitt Romney. Romney famously declared that Obama "threw Israel under the bus" because he said a peace agreement should be based on 1967 borders. I remain baffled by what other basis there might be for a two-state solution (The partition plan? Drawing straws?), and I doubt Romney has any better idea, because I doubt Romney actually knows or cares that much about Israel's longevity.
But you know what? Spot them Romney. Let's just look at Paul and Santorum. Paul is an easy case -- his own aides admit he's been anti-Israel, and belated efforts to describe his isolationist foreign policy as the most pro-Israel act of all notwithstanding, few in the Jewish community see him as a friend.
That leaves Santorum, who is filling the niche of this year's Mike Huckabee. And like Huckabee, Santorum has come out as a one-stater, proclaiming that everyone currently residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is an "Israeli" and thus the West Bank should be part of Israel, permanently. Since all Israelis must presumably be given equal rights of suffrage (among other things), this will render Israel's Jewish majority precarious at best and likely lead to its demise as a Jewish state.
He joins folks like Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) as part of the Hamas wing of the Republican Party, as the radical one-state policies they espouse bear far more in common with the ambitions of the Islamist terrorist movement than they do those of any Israeli government or serious political party. And what we've seen is that, amongst Republican voters, this sort of outlook -- one that is fundamentally apathetic, at best, towards Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state -- is overwhelmingly popular.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Hamas)
Freshman Republican Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has introduced a resolution endorsing any Israeli annexation of the West Bank. In doing so, he explicitly promoted a "one state" solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
Hamas could scarcely say it better. A one-state solution ends up with a huge Palestinian minority; likely an eventual Palestinian majority. At which point they vote to rename "Israel" "Palestine", abolish the state's Jewish character, and in all probability inaugurate all sorts of illiberal and discriminatory legislation against Jewish residents.
I've noted before that Walsh is no friend of Israel or the Jews. And here we see proof of that. Walsh is advocating nothing less than the end of Israel, the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish democratic homeland. It renders him arguably the most overtly anti-Israel Congressman since Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), and the Jewish community should let him hear it.
Walsh asserted that "there is no such thing as a two-state solution, and no such thing as land for peace. The ultimate peace is going to come through annexation, through Israel having sovereignity over the whole land, from the Mediterranean to Jordan."
Hamas could scarcely say it better. A one-state solution ends up with a huge Palestinian minority; likely an eventual Palestinian majority. At which point they vote to rename "Israel" "Palestine", abolish the state's Jewish character, and in all probability inaugurate all sorts of illiberal and discriminatory legislation against Jewish residents.
I've noted before that Walsh is no friend of Israel or the Jews. And here we see proof of that. Walsh is advocating nothing less than the end of Israel, the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish democratic homeland. It renders him arguably the most overtly anti-Israel Congressman since Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), and the Jewish community should let him hear it.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
All Teed Up
Dear Anderson Cooper,
I know it was an eventful night what with the Republican Party being massive fuck-ups, but you can't interview Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and not ask him whether he's massively delinquent on child support. I mean that story just broke! Do you think that if the Democrats anointed Rep. David Wu (OR) to speak for them tonight, folks wouldn't ask about his alleged sexual assault? Trick question -- David Wu would never take on the voice of a leading Democrat right now.
Meanwhile, my dad says that if Boehner can't rustle up the votes for this plan, he's got to resign as Speaker. Not in the "out of shame" sense (though sure), but in the "he clearly doesn't have the ability to control his own caucus anymore" sense.
I know it was an eventful night what with the Republican Party being massive fuck-ups, but you can't interview Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and not ask him whether he's massively delinquent on child support. I mean that story just broke! Do you think that if the Democrats anointed Rep. David Wu (OR) to speak for them tonight, folks wouldn't ask about his alleged sexual assault? Trick question -- David Wu would never take on the voice of a leading Democrat right now.
Meanwhile, my dad says that if Boehner can't rustle up the votes for this plan, he's got to resign as Speaker. Not in the "out of shame" sense (though sure), but in the "he clearly doesn't have the ability to control his own caucus anymore" sense.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Joe Walsh is not a Friend of Israel (or Jews)
Chalk up another installment in my ongoing series: Christians lecturing Jews on why they're bad at being Jewish.
As I've said before, if you're a Christian legislator who observes that most American Jews have a particular framework by which they view the conflict -- one in which ending the occupation and getting a deal signed are crucial to maintaining Israel's long-term security and status as a Jewish democratic homeland -- one reaction is to say "hey, maybe that perspective has something to it!" But Walsh, of course, prefers to lecture Jews for being insane.
As I argued yesterday, it is people like Rep. Walsh who aren't "pro-Israel" in any meaningful sense. Read his piece -- I defy you to find a workable strategy for securing Israel that carries with it any more sophistication than a Michael Bay movie. There is no indication at all that he has any understanding of Israeli political dynamics, Palestinian political dynamics, the questions which are the major sticking points in negotiations, or even a basic framework of justice that could provide a future framework for piece. It's just macho bluster that could be put in bullet point form. It's embarrassing to read.
President Obama has effectively abandoned the 50-year-old U.S. alliance with Israel.
So, where is the outrage from the American Jewish community? Don’t they understand that the president is not pro-Israel? Aren’t they troubled by his history of pro-Palestinian writings, speeches, and actions? The short answer is that most American Jews are liberal, and most American liberals side with the Palestinians and vague notions of “peace” instead of with Israel’s wellbeing and security. Like the president, the U.N., and most of Europe, too many American Jews aren’t as pro-Israel as they should be and too many share his belief that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli occupation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I've said before, if you're a Christian legislator who observes that most American Jews have a particular framework by which they view the conflict -- one in which ending the occupation and getting a deal signed are crucial to maintaining Israel's long-term security and status as a Jewish democratic homeland -- one reaction is to say "hey, maybe that perspective has something to it!" But Walsh, of course, prefers to lecture Jews for being insane.
As I argued yesterday, it is people like Rep. Walsh who aren't "pro-Israel" in any meaningful sense. Read his piece -- I defy you to find a workable strategy for securing Israel that carries with it any more sophistication than a Michael Bay movie. There is no indication at all that he has any understanding of Israeli political dynamics, Palestinian political dynamics, the questions which are the major sticking points in negotiations, or even a basic framework of justice that could provide a future framework for piece. It's just macho bluster that could be put in bullet point form. It's embarrassing to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
