Rabbi Meir Kahane, Zt"l
Posted on 03/22/2007 4:24:55 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
Washington - The simmering debate over American policy toward Israel and the role of the Jewish community in shaping it exploded with near-nuclear force this week. Several of the nation’s best-known international affairs commentators fired salvos at pro-Israel lobbyists and defenders of Israel fired back with unprecedented fury.
In the space of three days, major critiques of Jewish lobbying were published by controversial billionaire George Soros, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof, the respected British newsmagazine The Economist and the popular Web site Salon.
The replies were furious. The New York Sun accused Kristof and Soros of spreading a “new blood libel.” The American Jewish Committee’s executive director, David Harris, wrote in a Jerusalem Post opinion article that Kristof had a “blind spot” and had “sanctimoniously lectured” Israel.
The editor of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, renewed an attack on Soros that he began a month ago when he called the Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor a “cog in the Hitlerite wheel.”
The outburst over Middle East policymaking was triggered in part by the annual Washington conference last week of the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a highly publicized event that put the issue of pro-Israel influence in the media spotlight. A parade of politicians and presidential candidates came to the conference to declare their unwavering support for Israel, while the lobby itself reaffirmed a hard-line agenda that included cutting all American ties with the new Palestinian government.
At the same time, the latest attacks and counterattacks were also a continuation — and an escalation — of an ongoing debate in Washington over the purported role of the pro-Israel lobby in shaping American policy in the Middle East and stifling debate. Those attacks reached a peak of venom last year with the publication of a contentious document by two senior political scientists, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who charged that a sprawling, powerful “Israel Lobby” had pushed the United States into war with Iraq.
Among the latest group of critics, Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and currency trader, was the harshest. In an article in The New York Review of Books, published
Monday, he argued that the United States is doing Israel a disservice by allowing it to boycott the Hamas-Fatah Palestinian unity government and to turn down the Saudi peace initiative. But, he wrote, there is no meaningful debate of such policies.
“While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed,” Soros wrote. He added that pro-Israel activists have been “remarkably successful in suppressing criticism.”
Soros singled out Aipac as a key source of the problem, accusing the lobby of pushing a hawkish agenda on Israeli-Palestinian issues. “Aipac under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel’s existence, has endangered it,” he wrote.
Soros’s article was noteworthy in part because it broke his longstanding practice of avoiding public identification with Jewish causes. While he has given hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade to democratization in the former communist bloc, he has given almost nothing to Jewish causes. In this week’s article, however, he stated — apparently for the first time — that he has “a great deal of sympathy for my fellow Jews and a deep concern for the survival of Israel.”
He said that while he has disagreed with Israeli policies in the past, he has kept quiet because he “did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of Israel.” However, he said, the mishandling of recent events by Washington and Jerusalem now demanded greater public debate, which he said was stifled by groups like Aipac.
He also sprang to the defense of his fellow Jewish liberals, criticizing a recent essay on “Progressive Jewish Thought,” written by Indiana University historian Alvin Rosenfeld and published by the American Jewish Committee, for its attack on critics of Israel.
Soros wrote that he is “not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of Aipac” and called on the American Jewish community “to rein in the organization that claims to represent it.”
A spokesperson for Aipac said the group will not comment on Soros’s remarks.
An argument echoing Soros’s was posted a day later on the popular Web site Salon, in an article titled “Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?” The writer, Gary Kamiya, called on American Jews to “stand up and say ‘not in my name’,” and to challenge the notion that Aipac’s views are representative of the broader Jewish community.
Less pointed, but far more widely circulated, was a critique of American policymaking published Sunday by New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof. The much-decorated journalist, famous for his determined coverage of the Darfur genocide, argued that American politicians have “muzzled themselves” when it comes to Israel and that “there is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians.”
Both Kristof and Soros compared America’s Middle East policy discussion unfavorably with the lively debate in Israel over the government’s policy. Both claimed that while Israelis feel free to criticize their government and question its policies, American politicians are afraid to take it on.
The Economist, the internationally respected British newsweekly, summed up Friday in a prescient article the “changing climate” facing the pro-Israel lobby. It mentioned challenges to Aipac from Arab Americans, liberal Jews and foreign-policy experts worried about America’s standing in the Arab world. “America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle East and Aipac needs to take a positive role in this debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics,” the article concluded.
This burst of criticism against the Israel lobby and its role in the shaping of American policy toward Israel was immediately met by critical articles from supporters of Aipac and of America’s pro-Israel policies.
A Monday editorial in the New York Sun was the harshest of all. It compared Soros’s and Kristof’s criticisms to the so-called blood libels directed against Jews in medieval Europe. “The fact is that they write at a time when a war against the Jews is underway,” the Sun wrote. “It is a war in which the American people have stood with Israel for three generations… The reason is that Americans are wise enough to understand which side in the war against the Jews shares our values — and to sort out the truth from the libels.”
But Soros’s greatest critic is no doubt New Republic editor Martin Peretz, who posted only a brief reaction on his blog to Soros’s article, promising to elaborate when he returns from his trip abroad. Peretz had attacked Soros in February for saying that the United States would need “de-Nazification” after President Bush leaves office, charging that Soros himself had been guilty of collaborating with the Nazis as a teenager in Hungary. Soros replied in the magazine that the charge was false, and Peretz backed off somewhat. Now, however, he has promised to come back with guns blazing, after he returns from an overseas trip.
“Since he has picked the scab off his own wound this time, I will not be so kind this time,” Peretz warned.
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, also joined the debate in an opinion article in the Jerusalem Post. Harris praised Kristof’s acclaimed foreign reporting but said he has a “blind spot” regarding Israel. He added that “Israel doesn’t need lectures from well-intentioned journalists on the need for peace. Israel needs well-intentioned partners for peace.”
The current round in the debate over the pro-Israel lobby is already spilling over into the political system. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was seen as being supported financially by Soros, distanced himself from the billionaire following Soros’s article on Aipac.
“On this issue he and Senator Obama disagree,” said a statement from the Obama campaign issued Tuesday. It is now unclear how willing Democratic candidates will be to accept campaign contributions from Soros, who is one of the biggest donors to Democratic-aligned advocacy groups.
While the debate is reaching a boiling point in the public sphere, work on the ground on establishing a new lobbying apparatus by dovish Jewish groups and individuals is moving at a much slower pace.
The initiative was initially called in media reports “the Soros lobby,” after the financier attended an exploratory meeting last fall in New York to discuss creating a new lobby. Since that meeting, however, Soros has shown no further interest in the effort, organizers said.
“He met with us once and that’s it,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, one of the main figures behind the initiative. Ben-Ami stressed that that Soros has not yet pledged any funds for the new advocacy group and that the initiative is still in need of donors. Many in the group now refer to it jokingly as the “non-Soros lobby.”
`Am Yisra'el's legitimate and true leaders are not the government of the State of Israel (a "Hebrew-speaking Portugal," in the words of Rabbi Kahana'), America's "official Jewish community leaders," members of the "alphabet" organizations (here or abroad), advocates of ecumenicism and the notion that non-Jews need not give up their false religions to embrace the Noachide Laws. The true leaders of `Am Yisra'el always have been, are now, and always will be the authentic Orthodox rabbinate, the successors of Moses and the True Sanhedrion (which will be reinstated one day!).
Purely political Zionism is nothing but a big bust.
Ping.
Somewhat off. Buchanan considers America only fighting for America as the true conservative position. This excludes not only Israel but Korea, Formosa, Kosovo, etc. The Afghan war was America's war.
Pat Buchanan hates Jews. Period.
The fact that Buchanan puts national above religious loyalty illustrates that for him religion is primarily an ethno-national phenomenon--thus is preference for Protestant fellow-Europeans to Mexican co-religionists.
The only legitimate loyalty of every creature is to HaShem, the Creator. To put anything or anyone in His place (or to demand that He share one's loyalty) is nothing but idolatry.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
He says that Buchanan no more hates Israel than South Korea; however, you don't hear Buchanan both cutting off aid to South Korea and giving aid to North Korea. You do hear Buchanan urging America give foreign aid to Hamas.
Also, Pat gives the impression that he will go to war against Israel (if he had the power) if they dare try to defend themselves against Iran's upcoming plans to turn that nation into cinder ashes. He has never talked about going to war against South Korea if it makes a pre emptive move against North Korea. For an anti-Semite, attacking Israel makes plenty of sense. I'm sure if there was a Pres. Buchanan (G-d forbid) and the Arab states attacke the U.S., Pat would lob a nuke at them, but, also, lob one at Israel just for that it represents the Jews.
Worth noting that flows from Pat's view of America as a ruthless predator. Comrade Wolf. A view he shares with the good Mr. Putin.
And "true conservatives"
And Geroge Soros
Iran good, America bad.
In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.
After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.
Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.
Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.
Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand?
A "true conservative America Firster" who compares America to Iran in those terms, using Putin's termonology, fits right in with Soros and Code Pink.
And yes, they're Americans too.
Perhaps one day America will be ruled by a leader of Pat's liking. A Franco, a Pinochet, a true soldier-patriot. One to save the corrupt people from themselves.
To compare Pat Buchanan to Pinochet and Franco is an insult to the latter two who, so far as I know, were not anti-Semitic (Franco, though not perfect, saved many Jewish lives during WWII). As a matter of fact, Mussolini wasn't anti-Semitic until he came under Hitler's influence (when he became a total stooge, closing Italy off for Jewish refugees and leaving them to the tender mercies of the Nazis).
But there is something very interesting in your suggestion. American "palaeocons" differ from their counterparts in other parts of the world in one major way: American palaeos favor extreme decentralization and "states' rights" whereas their counterparts everywhere else are extreme centralists and statists (witness how most American palaeos sound like a combination of John C. Calhoun and Ayn Rand rather than any "nationalist" from any other nation, even going so far as to accuse President Bush of "fascism"). So if one of their own were to take over the US would he immediately give it all away to fifty sovereign states, or would he backpeddly and create a centralized fascist state???
I didn't say there was. What I am condemning is the sort of pagan henotheism/polytheism that rejects a universal G-d in favor of a localized idol, which is what palaeconservative chr*stianity does.
During the Middle Ages there were no strong states. Instead people were primarily citezens/subjects of the Church, the empire (which Buchanan regards as a term of opprobrium), a local city/lord, or a craft guild. Modern nationalism--including the supposedly "reactionary" kind--is a very modern phenomenon.
Please note also that the "nationalists" I'm opposing are all uniformly hostile to one and only one form of nationalism--Jewish nationalism. This is for the simple reason that Israel's connection to the True Objective G-d threaten their localized, henotheistic worldview.
But G-d shares loyalty with no one or nothing. It is "palaeo" chr*stianity that insists (in the name of the "trinity") on the validity of multiple identities and loyalties.
"This applies to Foxman, Dershowitz, Lantos, Peretz, Schumer, and all the rest. Don't be surprised when all these liberals go to AIPAC and sound like Rabbi Me'ir Kahana' (zt"l, Hy"d)."
Halevei.
You forgot Lieberman. Israel is lucky to have these friends.
Kahane bump!
Any Jew - or anyone else for that matter - who regards support for Israel as the "true" liberal position has been sleeping for the last fifty years or so. Today's "liberals," typified by the extremely dangerous Soros, generally ascribe to the assinine notions that Israel is the "oppressor" of the "Palestinians," and that any Palistinian claim or desire against Israel, no matter how absurd, should be looked at with favor.
I wouldn't vote for either, but then elections might not be on their agenda.
Both are better men that Pat is. I doubt either one would plow anti-Semitism to achieve power and Franco even saved some Jews during the holocaust.
Franco was part Jewish (a fact kept from Hitler).
If Soros is the main money man for the RATs and hates Jews and Israel, someone tell me why the majority of US Jews vote for RATs? It's a major puzzle. As for Pinochet, he was a hero for most Chilenos--the man who stopped the Commies from taking over Chile. RATs hate Pinochet since they too are Commies at heart and prove it every day.
As for Pinochet, I don't see any relevance of him to this topic of Soros and Israel, so you'd best direct your comments to the posters who brought his name into the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.