In the Arena

Paranoia Strikes Deep

Along the way to a scurrilous conclusion about the President, Marty Peretz of the New Republic makes a good point: Israel should have been mentioned among those countries that have made extraordinary efforts to help in Haiti. Peretz’s notion that Israel was purposefully left off the list because there was no equivalent Arab assistance to Haiti to mention seems quite loony to me. The omission was, most likely, just an oversight.

I’d argue that it’s the sort of oversight the Administration can’t afford: Israel needs all the good publicity it can get, especially in those countries–like Saudi Arabia–that should be moving toward recognition of the Jewish state. I’d also argue that it is long past time for the President to reach out to the people of Israel, to communicate with them as avidly as he’s communicated with their Arab neighbors. For months, Obama aides have been telling me that the President has intended to do interviews with Israel television networks–but it just hasn’t happened. It should.

One Obama aide told me: “What he did in Cairo–saying that our alliance with Israel is unbreakable–is far more important than appearing on a couple of TV shows.” True, but what’s the downside of appearing on TV? Some tough questions? The President should welcome that. And he’s certainly going to have to improve his image in Israel if he wants to play a significant peace-making role there.

Peretz posits a near-pathological need for Obama to appear “balanced” in the Middle East. I don’t see anything wrong with balance. It’s a needed corrective after the extreme pro-Israel imbalance of the Bush Administration (indeed, Obama has to work harder, in Israel, to dispel any notion that he’s imbalanced in the opposite direction). But it’s laughably picky–a philo-semitic caricature–to propose that pro-balance “pathology” caused the President to omit Israel from the list of heroes in the Haiti recovery operation.

Update: Several commenters have pointed out that Peretz’s post was ridiculously trivial. They’re right: the sheer triviality of it is one of the reasons I decided to comment on it–but then I neglected to mention it. Meanwhile, it’s not only trivial, but also inaccurate and obnoxious: the worst part id where Peretz slags Arabs as “amateurs” when it comes to disaster relief. Tell that to the Saudis, who–according to the UN–are the country that has contributed the third largest amount of money to Haitian earthquake relief.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Severe

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Craig Warga / NY Daily News via Getty Images

    Birth Control Debate: Why Catholic Bishops Have Lost Their Grip on U.S. Politics—and Their Flock

    The clash with the White House over birth control is a reminder of just how much influence the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost in the 10 years since the child sex abuse crisis erupted in America.

  • nflfoghorn

    If you’re doing the right thing, isn’t it of its own reward? Why would Israelites feel the need to be recognized for helping a nation in need?

  • queencersei

    Question: Why does the President have to mention any specific countries efforts in Haiti? Like if such and such country doesn’t get specifically called out and patted on the head they wouldn’t bother giving assistance?

  • nflfoghorn

    Or is this all of a sudden a new connotation of “fair and balanced” ?

  • gysgt213

    This is flipping stupid. Is Israel seriously sitting around pouting because the Obama Administration failed to give them a shout out? Will having done so made Israel love Obama any more or any less? We were going to make peace, but that Haiti thing. No way.

  • rustyreturns

    Actually I wouldn’t be so quick to credit Joe Klein for being “fair and balanced”, so much as he is groveling now to make up for calling most all Americans “dumb and stupid”.

  • afguy

    Is Israel seriously sitting around pouting because the Obama Administration failed to give them a shout out?
    .
    No, but AIPAC is.

  • shepherdwong

    Actually, I saw at least two “feel-good” pieces on the Israeli effort, one on CNN I think. Strangely, none on the Cuban effort. Go figure.
    .
    And what f*cking peace-making role? For all practical purposes, Isreal’s land grab is complete and there will never be a viable home state for Palestinians. Arabs will be at war with Israel until one or both of them cease to exist.

  • nflfoghorn

    Depends on who’s leading ‘em. Right now they’ve got their versions of Blush/Chinney in power.

  • nflfoghorn

    Hypo: If an earthquake hit Israel and Syria offered to help, would Israel take it?

  • afguy

    Strangely, none on the Cuban effort. Go figure.
    .
    Cuba’s reputation has been a lot better over the years than our gov’t would like it to be because they tend to send in doctors/medical assistance into past disaster areas in the Caribbean. They’ve been quite good in that regard.
    .
    Of course, it’s been our policy not to notice that because Castro was officially the devil’s spawn and that over-rode ever other consideration.

  • afguy

    Hypo: If an earthquake hit Israel and Syria offered to help, would Israel take it?
    .
    I think Venezuela offered assistance to US after Katrina and we declined.
    .
    That would depend on whether or not those at the top saw the opportunity for some real bridge building between the two countries, and not just view it through political lenses.

  • nflfoghorn

    Thx, AF. Amazing how pure hatred will fog up the glasses of reason, ain’t it?

  • cfukara

    ” .. Israel needs all the good publicity it can get ..”

    Why?

  • slaneyblack

    Hasbara.
    .
    If we really want to talk about countries getting no credit for good work in Haiti…CUBA.
    .
    Way more Cuban doctors working Haiti than Israelis. And the damn IDF propaganda teams have been all over the network news.
    .
    So you want to give Castro his due, Joe? If not, stop whining that no one’s buying the Israeli PR stunt.

  • shepherdwong

    “Depends on who’s leading ‘em. Right now they’ve got their versions of Blush/Chinney in power.”
    .
    I’m afraid that if you think their version of Obama/Biden is going to sign away the West Bank and enough of Jerusalem to establish something resembling “peace”, you’ve got another think coming. The two-state solution is dead and all the players on the ground know it. Current negotiations are pure Kabuki.

  • nflfoghorn

    You’re probably right. I venture to say that both sides aren’t going to do much as long as they have mutual mistrust and reprobate leadership.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Hell, there’s the balance you could provide to Israel – a country that’s a necessary ally paired with a country that you’ve held a bitter feud with.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Color me officially sick of Israel.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    It’s a needed corrective after the extreme pro-Israel imbalance of the Bush Administration.
    You know, it’s quite sad how quickly we forget things. When discussing “extreme pro-Israel imbalance” the first presidential name that comes to mind is none other than Bill Clinton. The man who gave us Camp David could be nothing other than an extreme Israeli hawk. After Carter’s presidency, the two most balanced presidents were the Bushes. Bush I, as VP, argued for sanctions against Israel and and end to aid programs. As president, he publicly slammed Israeli intransigence at a press conference on the eve of the Madrid Conference. Bush II initially pushed Sharon hard on abandoning the illegal settlements, though Congress, at the behest of AIPAC, quickly put an end to such unilateral executive action. Bush did, however, successfully push through the 2003 Roadmap for Peace, the single most balanced and dignified agreement I have ever read regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    ~~
    No US president has ever achieved much. AIPAC’s stranglehold on Congress ensures the executive reins are pulled tautly. AIPAC continually whips Congress into a fury at the slightest sign of presidential deference towards the Arabs. Carter, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama have all been threatened in open letters from AIPAC, err, Congress, following “unseemly” rhetoric against illegal Israeli policies. For Carter and the Bushes, their failures speak not to their personal motives, but rather to the fickle nature of Congress, the puppet-master capacity of AIPAC, and the corrupted abuse of our sovereignty. For Clinton, though, there was something deeper at play: a pure commitment to Israel. Clinton did not act out of desperate deference to the will of Congress or AIPAC, but rather out of his own personal support for the illicit nature of Israel. He is a Zionist, through and through.

  • cfukara

    forgottenbrain ” .. country that’s a necessary ally ..”

    “necessary ally” as in “if USA, the only superpower, imposed sanctions, invaded and occupied that Israel – and changed an uppity rogue regime there – while in search of its WMDs, then we will have no ally nor support left in that region”?

    Really?

  • Paul-no not that one

    I was wondering the other day who in the world cares what Peretz thinks.

    Answered.

  • newfreedomblog

    Does it really get any worse than this?
    .

    .
    Please read about the truth.
    .
    http://www.newfreedomblog.com

  • newfreedomblog

  • formerlyjames

    Maybe if Israel exhibited a little more humanity in the west bank they would make the list. When I think of humanitarianism, I don’t think of Arab countries, or Israel. They earn their place and I don’t think it can be remediated by a passing gesture. People mention Cuba. Who else was slighted?

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Countries with human rights records as attrocious as Israel’s don’t stay allies of the United States unless it has benefits to the US – either domestically or internationally. If those benefits are extensive enough that no pragmatic politician would dream of tossing the alliance down the tubes, then I believe the word “necessary” is correct

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Forgottenlord~
    Countries with human rights records as attrocious as Israel’s don’t stay allies of the United States unless it has benefits to the US – either domestically or internationally. If those benefits are extensive enough that no pragmatic politician would dream of tossing the alliance down the tubes, then I believe the word “necessary” is correct.
    .
    The necessary alliance argument is a fallacy. The Israeli PR machine has masterfully convinced the American leadership that Israeli and American interests are intertwined. Were that true, then yes, perhaps we could overlook Israel’s continuous atrocities in the name of securing our regional interests. However, this erroneous perception is antithetical to reality. Rather than Israel being a furtherance of our interests in the Middle East, it is actually the cause of our troubles there. What does Israel have to offer? We cannot count on their military assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. because Israeli troops in a Muslim country would spur the rise of insurgency the likes of which we could not begin to comprehend. So, militarily, we’re on our own in that regard. Perhaps, they have intel to offer. Mossad is the most successful spy agency in the world. Nope, that’s not it either. Beirut 1983? CIA Agent Bill Buckley? In both cases, Mossad had the intel and the capacity to prevent the loss of American lives, yet they sat on the information to secure our alliance against fundamentalist Muslims. Maybe, Israel has exhibited its commitment to protecting US assets? Well, the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Victor Ostrosvky, Jonathan Pollard, Lawrence Franklin, and Danny Yatom, as well as two hundred Israeli spies caught in the US since 2000, suggest otherwise. Financially, we dole out billions in unaccountable aid and “loans,” so I don’t see much of a relationship there. The cash flows one way. What else could it be? Oh, yes, I’ve got it. Israel is the sole democracy in the region, therefore we share common principles of liberty, equality, and peace. Wait. Isn’t Israel a self-proclaimed Jewish state? There goes democracy. There goes equality and inclusion. Peace? Forget about it. So, what exactly does Israel offer? Well, our alliance with Israel has brought us a bottomless bag of enemies across the Islamic world. That’s a start. Life’s simply not fun without the near constant threat of a US airliner being blown out of the skies due to our immoral backing of Israel’s state-terrorism. That must be it, Israel keeps us on our toes. I retract everything. Necessary ally, indeed.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Ok, we’re looking at very different definitions of necessary.
    .
    When you say necessary, you’re looking solely at geopolitical implications. However, if you look back at my statement, I stated “domestically or internationally”. I explicitly added in domestic interests for a reason: because in a democracy, political implications are quite important. Israel, I believe, remains a “necessary” alliance because the Jewish community deems it so and is a powerful force within the US. Geopolitically, Israel is an incredible liability for the US, almost to the point that the US would have been much better off if it had let Israel be destroyed 40 years ago rather than, effectively, fund their military. In fact, the biggest problem from that perspective is incredibly internal within each western nation: watching a Jewish state get slaughtered so soon after the holocaust would not sit well with the populace of any country with a vested interest in WWII.
    .
    From that perspective, I consider the alliance “necessary” as politically speaking, it is. By the same measure, Cuba is a “necessary” enemy. Do you not think that the juxtaposition of the two would’ve been well balanced in Obama’s speech?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Forgottenlord-
    ~
    Thank you so much for the explanation. I agree completely with what you say. It’s incredibly frustrating to see such a geopolitical disaster become a domestic imperative thanks in no small part to our friends over at AIPAC. Lobbying on behalf of Israel is routine enough, but the unrestricted influence that they wield is as incomprehensible as their unfettered status as a Public Affairs Committee rather than an agent for a foreign government registered as a Political Action Committee. May the Justice Department battle on…

  • abdullah69

    Maybe the US needs to consider the possibility that after Guantanamo, Iraq, and Abu Ghraib, the Israelis are deeply embarrassed to be considered allies.

  • lancethruster

    If it’s paranoia you’re looking for, how about these accusations?

    See: Accusation of Organ Theft Stokes Ire in Israel – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/middleeast/24mideast.html?_r=1

    Though Israel denied organ theft in previous circumstances, those seemed to be born out by the facts.

    See: Body Part Theft: Truth vs. Myth – http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/091222-body-part-organ-theft.html

  • mrein

    Look at who you attract here, Mr. Klein.

    You must be very proud.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Mrein, who are you, Avigdor Lieberman? Your comment’s insinuation reflects the standard reflexive response from any Zionist: question the integrity or character of anyone who raises a concern about the government of Israel. At least you had the decency not to go down that shameless path of holocaust invocation. Kudos to you, Mr. Zionist, for salvaging some semblance of decency in that regard.

blog comments powered by Disqus