American Jewish leader like to give the impression of being vaguely centrist and pro-Israel. Nisht ahin, nisht aher, (“not too much of this, nor too much of that”) as they say in Yiddish. But every once in a while the hopelessly compromised rightward slant of their views is illuminated like a lightning flash. That’s happened in James Besser’s latest Jewish Week story on the reception Yvet is getting among the American Jewish leadership. Certainly no one expected a rapturous reception and he’s not getting one. But what IS surprising is the “live and let live” attitude adopted by some of the more prominent Israel lobby organizations.
When confronted with the ugly face of Israeli racism and fascism, the AJC’s David Harris confronts the issue squarely and firmly and…attacks J Street! That’s right. The problem isn’t Yvet, it’s those no good anti-Semit’n who pass themselves off as Jews.
J Street, you see, really took the bull by the horns and posted a hard-hitting video which laid out Lieberman’s views for all the world to see and, has v’halila, distributed it on Youtube, thus washing Jewish dirty linen in one of the most popular web venues in the world. Not nice, and just not done by groups that truly love Israel—like the AJC, of course. So this is Harris’ response:
“It doesn’t help Israel,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “[Instead of J Street attacks on Lieberman] we need much more focus on the eight ball; what does demonizing the new foreign minister get you?”
…“I’m not sure what they accomplished…He was portrayed in the worst possible way; the images seemed chosen to portray him as a dark, almost demonic figure. He’s there, give him a chance, judge him not by what he says by what this government does.”
“A dark, almost demonic figure…” Gee, maybe that’s because it’s what Lieberman IS. Arabs certainly see him that way. Even American Jews see him that way. He had only a 27% approval rating in the recent J Street poll. Israeli voters aren’t much more positive in the latest Haaretz poll. The Israeli and American Jewish mainstream has a distinct distaste for Lieberman’s hatemongering. The only ones pleading for patience on Yvet’s behalf are the leadership elites like Harris and a few others.
Another one of the pro-Israel elites stumping for the Yisrael Beitenu leader is Jennifer Mizrahi, chief ideologue for the Israel Project. Her comments were even more telling than Harris’:
Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of The Israel Project, conceded that Lieberman, dramatically different from the suave, Americanized Netanyahu, is a lightning rod for many American Jews.
“Different can be scary,” said Laszlo Mizrahi, whose group works with media to present Israel favorably. “There were people who thought Barack Hussein Obama was scary because of his middle name.”
But ultimately, the issue is “Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what his new government stands for and what it will deliver in terms of peace and security for Israel and its neighbors.”
Now that IS rich. Lieberman is merely ‘different.’ Not aberrant mind you. Not pathological. Not racist. Not violent. Not corrupt. Just “different.” That must be the reason he scores so poorly in the polls I mentioned. People just don’t like his accent.
Also rich, is Mizrahi’s comparison of Lieberman and Obama, as if Lieberman’s Russian name Yevgeny, like Obama’s middle name Hussein, is what puts people off. Considering that Mizrahi was likely one of those neocon Jews who was circulating the Obama smears noting his middle name and accusing him of being anti-Israel and a Muslim, it’s quite humorous to see her try to anesthetize American Jewish hostility to Lieberman by telling us we don’t like him–not because of what he stands for–but because he’s a little different than what we’re used to.
Instead of worrying about Lieberman, she said, Jewish groups should be focusing on “the fact this prime minister wants to create a better economic future for the Palestinians, which is tough to do at a time when Israel itself is experiencing massive unemployment.”
Here again Mizrahi takes us for rubes by passing off Bibi’s avowed aim of bringing economic betterment to Palestinians in place of political freedom, as something substantive. It’s as if she’s saying our fear of Lieberman is merely the fear of the bogeyman, while what’s real and important is Netanyahu’s economic plan. The truth is precisely the opposite: what is real is Lieberman’s racism; what is fake is the new prime minister’s “plan” to improve Palestinians’ lives.
She echoed another theme of mainstream pro-Israel groups: Lieberman isn’t the radical firebrand portrayed in the press.
“I think one of his most significant quotes was that if there’s a sustainable peace, he would give up his own home. How many political leaders can say something like that?”
More importantly, how many political leaders would you BELIEVE when they say something like that? And if you’d believe Lieberman then you’re probably the proud owner of a certain New York City bridge and some beautiful swampland in Florida.
Mizrahi doesn’t understand that with Israeli pols, talk is cheap. It means nothing. Lies mean nothing. Actions speak louder. Inaction speaks louder still. And a frozen status quo practically screams.
If David Harris and Jennifer Mizrahi want to pimp for Lieberman that’s their perogative. But as a character says in Hester Street, “you can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.” Everyone else in this country knows the true Lieberman and “won’t be fooled again.”
That is a good hard hitting piece, Richard. I hope it will come to one of those characters’ attention.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25310897-7583,00.html
Heaven’s it must have been this week’s hasbara sheet. Look at this piece in the Australian today. Sheridan pretends to be a foreign correspondent but unlike most the only place he ever seems to go is for free trips to Israel paid for by the AIJAC mob, those like Harris who think Israel can do no wrong.
I wish they understood how much harm it does to everyone. Here is Australia we have the most fantastic Jewish lawyers who work for strangers on death row in Singapore, pro bono. They work to reveal the atrocities committed against refugees in our disgusting concentration camp and in Sydney and Melbourne they started a brilliant group called “Jews for Refugees” and the visited mostly muslims and hindus in our concentration camps on weekends and after work.
Some of the children of people who survived the German concentration camps have been the most vociferous for the rights of refugees, they write books and articles, they tour and give talks and raise money.
And then we have the Greg Sheridan’s of the world who just don’t get the point that Israel is doing wrong, that they are committing egregious crimes against humanity and they don’t need to.
As Jeff Halper pointed out, over 50% of the population of Israel are Arabs anyway, their faces are the majority in the region and they certainly do not need child beating thugs like Lieberman to represent them.
It really is a terrible shame – lest anyone dare to tell me I hate Israel or Jews – that so few have managed to poison the well for the rest with their ugly, racist brutality.
“Netanyahu leads the Likud Party, which has been Israel’s main centre-right party for decades. Under Menachem Begin in the 1970s, a Likud government gave up the whole of the Sinai desert in a land-for-peace deal with Egypt. Netanyahu, who has held many portoflios in previous governments, has as part of his coalition the left-of-centre Israeli Labour Party.”
I mean to say, look at this lunacy by Sheridan about Bibi and even daring to claim the Labour party in Israel are centre-left. They are all far right of Ghenghis Khan as far as I can tell from books like 1967, Ethnic Cleansing and Lords of the Land, with one goal only in mind.
Getting the land without dirty arabs on it.
Richard, it is people like you who restore the faith and lead atheist’s like me back to look at the civilians in these places instead of the lunatic leaders.
Thanks Marilyn. I think it’s important, as you note, to distinguish between Jews who live in Israel and may pursue policies you & I both find reprehensible, and other Jews, some of whom also live in Israel, or in Australia or anywhere in the Diaspora, who do important work on behalf of human rights and oppose the Occupation and degradation of the Palestinian people. I thank you for making that distinction.
One big stumbling block in resolving this conflict is the PEP (Progressive Except Palestine_ phenomena, where otherwise humanist individuals turn a blind eye to the representable policies of the Israeli government.
Hey Richard, my greatest claim to fame is bringing down my own neocon government in 2007 when I discovered that we had locked up or deported hundreds of Australian citizens in our concentration camps and covered it up.
One more woman’s plight sealed their fate. She was deported after an accident that left her crippled and with amnesia. Some vicious thug in the immigration department decided she was a Filipina sex slave and dumped her in the Manila airport half dead.
She was found by chance more than 4 years later when I went spying on the department over something else.
I feel such satisfaction that she was awarded $4.5 million and a fantastic young Jewish lawyer was her advocate and another Jewish lawyer was her barrister and former human rights commissioner.
Of course, it didn’t occur to me at the time that they were Jewish as it made not a jot of difference. They were just wonderful people doing the right thing for a lady who had been treated abominably.
You can google her “Vivian Alvarez Solon”, see what Australia’s neocons do to those we don’t like the look of.
Off topic, but try googling “Norman Finkelstein” at google. His site doesn’t appear anymore. His website is still there
link
but google doesn’t seem to know about it.
My link didn’t work. Anyway, Norman’s site is still there, but one can’t find it through google.
Hi D. J.:
the Google access to Finkelstein’s web page is still up:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
Excellent analysis. That some were going to try and whitewash Lieberman was inevitable. Your deconstruction of those efforts and the JStreet video are much needed counter-voices. Thank you!
Harris is just upset that J Street used his criticism of Lieberman in the ad.
Oh the shame. Caught on camera criticizing a fellow Jewish rightwinger.
So, what can Harris do?
Bash J Street.
Their ad was brilliant. His response was too, but in a different sense of the word!
Have I missed something? Did Obama anywhere endorse the Arab peace plan or UNSC Resolution 242 for that matter? That would involve Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
What if Netanyahu’s present show of intransigence about a two state solution is a ploy and ere long a plan that involves Lieberman’s ‘land transfer’ (i.e. cutting off bits of Israel with a predominantly Arab population such as Wadi Ara in return for keeping most of the settlements) is presented as a ‘concession’?
Marilyns, your continuous talk about “concentration camps” in Australia makes me think of that part of Gabriel Ash’s outline of hasbara strategy that has the heading “Everything sucks”:
“War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It’s
the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!”
That said I agree that Greg Sheridan is an objectionable clown, always looking for some repressive right wing regime he can defend. I haven’t forgotten his attempts to justify Indonesia’s horror regime in East Timor.
Marilyns. about Vivian Alvarez Solon, you wrote:
“She was found by chance more than 4 years later when I went spying on the department over something else.”
Marilyns, you create the impression that you played a vital role in that affair. If so, you should update the Wiki about it because that relates, perhaps mistakenly, that it was her ex- Australian husband’s persistent questioning, plus the appointment of a new Minister for immigration, Amanda Vanstone, who ordered an inquiry that led to the ‘discovery (of which some subordinate officials in that department knew years earlier) that an Australian citizen had been deported. Her whereabouts in the Philippines was finally indicated by an Australian priest there who recognised her from an Australian missing persons program.
And what is this bit about you bringing down our ‘neocon’ government in 2007 ? I voted in that election, against our ‘neocon’ government to be sure, knowing nothing about your role – tell me about it. The main reason for that government’s defeat I assumed was, on the personal level, Howard’s increasing unpopularity (as you know he even lost his own seat to a newcomer) and, as far as policy is concerned, the even greater unpopularity of that government’s industrial relations legislation so misleadingly called ‘work choices’.
I agree. Marilyn’s claims seemed a bit grandiose to me too. If you consider that hundreds of thousands or millions voted out Howard, it seems a bit presumptuous for her to take all the credit for ousting the neocon government.
There’s plenty of Finklestein to be had, even if his site is down.
You can’t keep a good man down!
The democracy now site leaves one wondering if it isn’t time to hit the shooting range, learn how to control automated weaponry and lay in supplies, just in case the right-wing decides to be a bad loser!
Richard, I hope that isn’t considered beyond the pale; I keep remembering Jimmi Hendricks, and thinking the world has changed a lot since the good ole’ days.
RE: “Mizrahi doesn’t understand that with Israeli pols, talk is cheap. It means nothing. Lies mean nothing. Actions speak louder.”
MY COMMENT: I think she is probably very aware of that.
SEE: “Focus Grouping War with Iran” – by Laura Rozen, 11/20/07
“…Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project, contacted Mother Jones and said that her group had commissioned the focus group and that it was designed by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm…Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom’s Watch share a common interest in “thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism” and in “dealing with the threat of Iran.” …
…”Of all the focus groups I’ve ever been to,” Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email … “I’ve never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants.” The gist of the event was “anti-Iranian,” says Sonnenmark…Sonnenmark left the session wondering if foreign policy hawks would soon be pushing publicly for military action against Iran using language that had been tested on her…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/focus-grouping-war-iran
It is unclear to me from this video clip about what it is that J-Street is advocating. I could understand it if it was put out by someone like MERETZ-USA who try to influence the Israeli political system from within Israel. But J-Street is an American lobby that tries to influence AMERICAN policy. So are they trying to get the US gov’t to boycott Lieberman? That doesn’t make sense because if Ehud Barak’s Labor Party and the Livni/Olmert Kadim Party have no problem with Lieberman (recall that Livni tried to lure him to support her bid to become Prime Minister after the last election) then how can the US do something like that. And J-Street itself support the US upgrading relations with totalitarian states like Cuba, Syria and Iran whose leaders have views far more odious than those of Lieberman so they would end up in a ridiculous situation. So what is it that J-Street wants?
J Street is advocating an intense U.S. commitment to resolving the I-P conflict. Lieberman is clearly a huge barrier to that happening. J Street is bringing that fact to the attention of American Jews & Washington policymakers. Now do you understand what J Street is advocating??
Say what? Cuba? What are you smokin’ buddy? I’d dare you to provide any evidence J Street has said a word on the subject.
“Far more odious?” I don’t know about that. Lieberman’s views are plenty odious and can certainly give Assad and Ahmedinejad a run for their money in the odious sweepstakes.
So then what exactly is J-Street advocating regarding Lieberman?
There must be an echo here. Go back to my last comment I wrote in which I answered the question. If that doesn’t suffice I suggest you write Jeremy Ben Ami yrself. He’ll even answer you though I doubt anything he’d write would satisfy you.
I must be pretty dense because I don’t see any actual proposals J-Street is making in the comment you wrote about what the US should do about Lieberman. All you said is that they view him as a obstacle to peace. Are they saying the US should refuse to talk to him personally, or that they should boycott the Israeli gov’t just as they boycott the HAMAS regime?
J Street seeks to discredit Lieberman as a danger to any U.S. effort to promote I-P peace. The U.S. should consider him irrelevant to the process and deal w. him as little as possible. It should also make clear to Netanyahu that any retreat fr. a 2 state solution is unacceptable & that in fact Obama intends to reach a peace settlement bet. the parties by the end of his first or second term.
I’m not privy to what J Street’s intentions are, but those might be at least some of their goals and intentions.
“J Street is advocating an intense U.S. commitment to resolving the I-P conflict. Lieberman is clearly a huge barrier to that happening.” Says who ? Lieberman stays from day One for a 2-State-Solution. He wants an exchange of territory
otherwise we would get one “judenrein” Palestine and one
half-Arab Israel. That’s why “Lieberman’s views are plenty odious and can certainly give Assad and Ahmedinejad a run for their money in the odious sweepstakes” ? That’s why the
whole hate-campaign against Lieberman? Richard, think twice
before you write and as far as J-Street is concerning, it’s
maybe a pro-peace-lobby, but neither Jewish nor pro-Israel.
I see I am behind the times here, but the opportunity is such that I will ask anyway: Norman, do you ever question the premise of defining what is and is not Jewish?