Posted on 12/05/2011 8:05:25 PM PST by SJackson
Going Rogue or Staying on Message? Ambassadors controversial comments raise questions about admin.
If you havent heard about it yet (some people try to get outdoors on the weekends, yes?), Howard Gutman, our man in Brussels, told a conference on anti-Semitism last week that there is a difference between, on one hand, traditional anti-Semitism and, on other, Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. These were prepared remarks. Gutman knew what he was doing: I likely will not just say fully what you expected and or maybe hoped to hear, he prefaced. While its not clear whom he blames for the failure to reach peace, it is very clear that he blames that failure for many European Muslims significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred. This would be an undiplomatic thing to say even if he werent a diplomat; you couldnt give me good enough odds to bet that Gutman will continue as ambassador much longer. (And yes, of course Gutman is Jewish.) Already the White House has responded, We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms, adding, there is never any justification for prejudice against the Jewish people or Israel. And already many have pounced, arguing that Gutmans words are actually a useful window into the administration.
They are making this case by pointing to comments Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made last Friday in Washington, in which he urged Israel to get to the damn tablenegotiate with the Palestiniansand said, unfortunately, over the past year, we have seen Israels isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow, and the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace has effectively been put on hold. While Panetta did not blame Israel for this situation totally, he did demand it take bold action to change things.
So now this is the Blame Israel First Administration, according to the conservative Emergency Committee for Israel, which predicates its case on both Gutmans and Panettas words. (Blame Israel First is catchy enough, and is of good enough stockits a play on neoconservative godmother Jeanne Kirkpatricks Blame America Firstthat it is surely coming soon to a billboard, newspaper, or television near you.) Ambassador Gutmans comments were not way out of line with Obamas worldview, insisted Bill Kristol, whose many hats include ECI chief. What the events of recent days emphasize is that the problem is not with one ambassador or with one cabinet secretary. The problem is President Obama.
There is nothing in Panettas comments that goes remotely as far as Gutmans. Panetta was referring to security and diplomacy, geopolitics; Gutman was referring to ideas and sociology. And yet! I do think (and regular Scroll readers will know how much I hate typing this) that Kristol has a point. Panetta called on Israel to reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability, including Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. This is sloppy at best. And not at its best, it fails to recognize that, in Turkeys case, Prime Minister Erdogan is more responsible for blowing up that alliance than any other individual, and that Egypt just elected some people whose anti-Semitism does not entirely derive from the failure of Middle East peace.
Moreover, Panettas words appear to be just one prong in a larger administration effort to presure Israel. U.S. ambassador Dan Shapiro just chastised Israel over the proposed law that would affect foreign funding of non-governmental organizations. And over the weekend Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly made similar comments in an off-the-record session.
The point isnt that she and Shapiro are wrongin fact, theyre completely right. The bill is totally heinous; by its supporters own admission, its literally McCarthyist. Thats why bloggers like me publish lots of items saying so. But these are not bloggers, they are diplomats. And the bill is not nearly as bad as the violations of any number of countries where U.S. envoys tend to keep quiet about such matters, and besides Im not sure of either the purpose or justification of raising the issue here. I fail to see how they think this push is going to help them get what they want, whether its Israel at the damn table (wheres the leverage? wheres the opportunity?) or its re-election stateside (youre just making these peoples jobs easier).
I dont think the substance of Ambassador Gutmans spiel represents the administrations substance. But I think its stylethis faux-brave, off-the-cuff, lowbrow intellectualizingis representative: its counterproductive, and the questions it invites about what is driving it are valid, particularly coming only weeks after Dennis Ross, long perceived as Israels strongest supporter in the White House, announced he was leaving.
A final caveat: Clintons lodestar has always been her strident feminism, and where she reportedly focused on Israeli womens potential plight should the country become more religious, the realpolitik side of me cedes to the idealist side, and I applaud her. Clinton
noted she was shocked at the fact that some Jerusalem buses have assigned separate seating areas for women. Its reminiscent of Rosa Parks, she said. Tell me shes wrong. You cant.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Flat-out: it's okay if the Muslims do it.
Leftists are really pushing every foul thing they've got going to the limit these days.
Like they're running out of time, or something.
There is debate about whether the people known as “Palestinians” were actually expelled from ancestral towns and farms from within the borders of present-day Israel. However if this were true, the resentment over said expulsion could hardly be fully attributed to racial or religious bigotry.
While I think the evidence that there wasn’t wholesale expulsion is conclusive, it’s irrelevant. Arab hatred and violence predated the founding of Israel, attacks on Jews by the Arab predecessors of todays palestinian leaders predated the founding of Israel. When Israel declared statehood, war was begun by Arabs with the stated intent of destroying Israel and killing or expelling the Jewish population, not Jews terrorizing Arabs and stealing their homes.
BTW, if you forget about the “debate”, and concentrate on what’s been taught in the schools and media to the Arab world, which goes far beyond “The Jews took our homes”, rather characterizes Jews as subhumans out to destroy Islam, the greatest honor killing them, you’d arrive at the underlying problem, and the reason peace will likely come only after a generation of reeducation.
This is certainty bigotry, but genuine territorial disputes are not ultimately rooted in bigotry.
Even if Palestinians opposed Jews arriving from Europe prior to the founding of Israel, it is still hasty to conclude that the opposition was motivated by ethnic bigotry and not fear of displacement. Is all native opposition to immigration the same as bigotry?
Arabs have been killing Jews, and enslaving or subjugating survivors since 619CE.
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.