Something for you to ponder today.
Stopping Israeli settlements has caused an open debate to break out in America that has finally unleashed liberal Israeli supporters to shout from their keyboards, because it’s not allowed to be spoken on TV, that Israelis and Palestinians must come to a two-state solution agreement now, because there is no tomorrow. This begins with ending settlement building, to name just one obstacle. Another being the reality that U.S. favoritism toward Israel can impact our effectiveness in the region, which should be obvious, but has upset the right.
As with all things, this has unleashed a defense of the status quo from all quarters right, regardless of Pres. Obama’s strong stance against further settlement building, which is at the heart of current challenges for peace that has relegated the debate to all process, no solutions.
There’s been an interesting back and forth about statements coming from Administration that has tied Middle East peace to Iran, including Dennis Ross who felt the sting of a broadside shot recently, which reveals that everyone knows how dire the situation is at this point, including on the diplomatic front where everyone is nervous about what comes next.
When you think further of Sen. Harry Reid’s difficult re-election fight, with Sen. Chuck Schumer waiting in the wings, also Dick Durbin, who’s Obama’s guy, you can see the foreign policy playing field when it comes to the Middle East pretty clearly. Sides are lining up and have been, with an opening seen now that it’s been proven that Obama can’t move Netanyahu on settlements if he doesn’t want to move, any more than we can move the Israelis and Palestinians off of where they’ve been since Clinton left office.
Segue to the Newsweek opening.
Mr. Saban, who is a rabid Clinton supporter, has his primary focus on foreign policy, specifically Israel, making sure our relationship stays firm, which isn’t out of the ordinary and is shared by most, including myself, though that in no way precludes criticism of policy where it’s deserved. That said, the desperate nature of the two-state solution situation has brought to the fore a new urgency from hard right Israeli supporters to reaffirm an alliance that once again puts Palestinian focus and rights further off the agenda than is good for anyone.
From the New Yorker, by Connie Bruck: “The Influencer – An entertainment mogul sets his sights on foreign policy.”
… At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times. …
[...] At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times. …
[...] Saban’s father had been a sales clerk in a small toy shop in Alexandria. One day, Saban says, he was doing his homework by an open window of the family’s apartment. An Egyptian soldier across the way suddenly pointed his gun at him, and called out, “You, Jew! You, Jew! Bam bam!” In 1956, after the Suez Crisis, the Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, effectively ordered Jews to leave the country. The Sabans—his parents and his grandmother, and his younger brother—immigrated to Israel, where they shared a three-room apartment with two other families, next to the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv.
… [...] After the Tribune Company went into bankruptcy, in 2009, Saban said he informed the creditors of his interest. “They’re not going to do anything until they get out of bankruptcy. So am I still interested in the L.A. Times? I am, yeah, I am,” he said. Saban also said that he asked the New York investor Steven Rattner to let the Sulzbergers know that he would like to buy the New York Times, but Rattner told him they weren’t interested. “What’s it worth now, the whole thing—a billion dollars?” Saban said dismissively. “But it’s a family legacy or something, I don’t know.” If the Sulzbergers were to change their minds, he said, “I would be jumping all over it.”
… [...] According to Saban, in June, 2008, after the primary battles finally ended, Barack Obama called and asked for his help. “I said to him, Let me coördinate a meeting between you and some of the people who supported Hillary through me. We have a few things we need to clarify.”
For example, Saban continued, “Obama was asked the same question Hillary was asked—‘If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Hillary said, ‘We will obliterate them.’ We . . . will . . . obliterate . . . them. Four words, it’s simple to understand. Obama said only three words. He would ‘take appropriate action.’ I don’t know what that means. A rogue state that is supporting killing our men and women in Iraq; that is a supporter of Hezbollah, which killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization; that is a supporter of Hamas, which shot twelve thousand rockets at Israel—that rogue state nukes a member of the United Nations, and we’re going to ‘take appropriate action’! ” His voice grew louder. “I need to understand what that means. So I had a list of questions like that. And Chicago”—Obama campaign headquarters—“could not organize that meeting. ‘Schedule, heavy schedule.’ I was ready and willing to be helpful, but ‘helpful’ is not to write a check for two thousand three hundred dollars. It’s to raise millions, which I am fully capable of doing. But Chicago wasn’t able to deliver the meeting, so I couldn’t get on board.”
Saban offered to fly his group of Hillary supporters to meet with Obama anywhere in the country, but he was told that it couldn’t be arranged. “Haim understands message—Obama didn’t have time for him,” a close adviser said. “After that, he met with McCain. It went that far. But, ultimately, he felt he could not abandon the Democratic Party, even though he did not like its candidate.”
He has not spoken with Obama since he became President, Saban said, “because he has no need to speak to me—or, at least, he thinks he has no need to.” He has refused on two occasions to co-chair fund-raising dinners for the President.
Saban called Hillary’s defeat “my biggest loss—and not only mine. I’ll leave it at that.”
[...] … He pointed to news reports that the Obama Administration is considering presenting a peace plan. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that both Netanyahu and Abbas were to sign it, he continued, Netanyahu might still have to bring it to a referendum for approval. “Any deal that is pushed by the U.S. with Obama at a nine-per-cent approval rating in Israel, at the moment, will not go through,” he said. Last August, when Saban was in Washington, he met with both Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, and he argued that Obama should travel to Israel to speak to the Israeli people. That has been his continuing message. “I told friends of mine in the White House, ‘He goes to Saudi Arabia, he goes to Cairo, he doesn’t even make a stop in Jerusalem?’ If he thinks that having a Seder at the White House is going to mitigate that—no, it’s not.”
Hillary Clinton, in her role as Secretary of State, has taken a stern line “condemning” the construction plans, and upbraiding Netanyahu. But Saban—who likes to describe Hillary as a “team player”—remains protective of her. Before Hillary addressed the AIPAC conference on March 22nd, he urged the organization’s leaders to be sure that the convention crowd treated Hillary well. Dan Gillerman, who came from Israel to attend the AIPAC meeting, said that, at a Washington dinner for Netanyahu, following Hillary Clinton’s speech, “there were many people, including some prominent Jewish leaders, who were very surprised and even disappointed at the warm reception Hillary received, because they felt that after the way she treated the Prime Minister, and the way she admonished him for forty-three minutes on the phone, she should have felt the coldness in the room.”
Gillerman added, “No sooner had she said her last syllable than I got an e-mail from Haim, saying, ‘How was Hillary’s speech?’ ” Saban had listened to it in Los Angeles, and “it was very important to him what we felt about her.”
Read the whole piece by Connie Bruck.
The possibility, however remote, of a Schumeresque foreign policy line on Israel coming from the cover of Newsweek, chiding Obama over settlements, shouldn’t excite anyone.
Now, I’m not saying that the debate would change if Saban purchased Newsweek, but there is clearly a hunger on the American right, no matter the political party, for a pro Israel rallying cry, regardless that none is needed, especially if that wail is no different than what’s come before.
Taylor, the American Left supports a strong U.S.-Israel relationship as well, thank goodness. Any opportunity by the Right to try and drive a wedge between progressives strong support for Israel, particularly President Obama and Secretary Clinton, will be hotly challenged by progressives like myself.
The right is louder and stronger.
And trust me, the target will *not* be Hillary.
The American Left when it comes to Israel, is a breath of fresh air. Labor unions routinely refuse boycotts of Israel, teacher’s unions swiftly strike down any academic resolutions/boycotts condemning Israel, and even UC-Berkely–the most progressive student body in America, roundly rejected attempts to “divest” from Israel, as have all other progressive campuses and towns across the country.
The American Right when it comes to Israel yes, generally is supportive. However, they have individuals like Pat Buchanan, the late Robert Novak, and David Duke who are the most hostile toward U.S.-Israel relations.
The American Left, starting with President Obama and Secretary Clinton–along with VP Biden, Sen. Kerry, Durbin, Mikulski, and other progressive champions, are Truly more genuinely supportive of Israel than the Right. Same goes for the House with Spseaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and Maj. Whip James Clyburn leading the way. African-Americans and Latinos are particularly supportive of Israel, as is the religious left in general.
The Right will NOT be allowed to hijack the cause of Israel, as a strong U.S.-Israel relationship has historically and continues to be an important piece of the progressive/Democratic platform.
I have no doubt of the left’s strength where Israel is concerned, LATC.
However, I’m equally aware of political pressure via money that can be placed on people, turning them into Schumeresque critiques of a president who has suffered some credibility loss in the region, and is likely facing a shift in the House in November, not to mention re-election where Republicans will use Israel against him.
This dynamic is just beginning to play out…..
Fair enough, Taylor. Then it is our obligation, as staunch progressive supporters of Israel, to fight back against the right wing noise machine that will seek to portray the Left as “anti-Israel.” Schumer’s critique aside, the Obama administration has taken *great* early steps to attempt to re-frame the “anti-Israel” narrative that the Right will try and use against the president. A WONDERFUL speech such as that by Hillary at the AIPAC Conference, which I attended, is a great way to start, in explaining that America’s support for Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable, and in supporting Israel, the US wants to ensure that a peaceful solution is reached between Israel and its neighbors to assure that Israel continues to exist as a democratic Jewish state. This is why the Administration is tough on Israel when it comes to settlements, as true peace and security for Israel will come with a Two-State solution that fits the needs of Israelis and Palestinians alike, along with the normalization of Israel in the region.
Generally, Israel’s supporters stand by the approach of the Obama administration toward Israel, although it’s nice that the rhetoric has been dialed down a bit lately, largely at the behest of President Obama.
This is how we will fight off the Right-Wing smears against progressives on Israel. Constantly quoting Walt/Mearsheimer’s book, which has been criticized as amateurish and untrue by progressives such as Speaker Pelosi and even Rep. John Conyers, is probably not a good way to fight off the Right-Wing smears.
I hope a fair person buys Newsweek. I am so sick of their sexist crap !! I know their are people on both sides that support Isreal and should, but don’t excuse either Isreal or some of their arab neighbors if they do something wrong, just be fair on boths sides !!
Taylor:
This is only going to get more louder and nastier – as Israel gains the label of an “apartheid state” its backers are only going to demand more blind obedience to whatever its most fervent backers want.
All that is left now for AIPAC, the Israeli Government and folks like Saban & Company are delaying tactics and intolerance. The clock continues to tick, more settlements will be built, their rhetoric will become more extreme, the situation of the Palestinians will get more bleak and the world will quietly watch and turn its back on Israel.
mwfolsom, instead of throwing around incendiary names (“apartheid”), take a second to understand and appreciate the current peace talks in the region between Sen. Mitchell, the Israeli Government, and the Palestinian Authority. There seem to be some positive developments and Israel has repeatedly said that it wants to go from proximity talks to direct talks. Your comments would have a bit more credence if you actually did some research on the current events, rather than firing off (false) accusations against Israel constantly. This is unhelpful to the cause of peace.
I can’t find any other word to describe the situation Liberal. The allegations are true, I don’t think you can spill settlement building across the 1967 borders as anything but colonial expansion. Folks like you with your false accusations and insults only make me sick of Israel and it’s rot on our foreign policy.
“With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever. The Jewish people know what it means to be oppressed, discriminated against, and even condemned to death because of their religion. They have been leaders in the fight for human rights in the United States and throughout the world. It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.”
-Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Representative Rangel, who led an anti-apartheid measure relating to South Africa in 1987,stated in response to equating Israel with “Apartheid”, “Words like these may sell papers and books, but they do little to advance the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. For diplomacy to have a chance, we must create an environment that will allow both sides to come together and make the necessary but difficult steps to stop the violence and improve the lives of everyone in the region.” Representative John Conyers, who is often criticized by members of the Jewish community for his failure to support Israel in a certain instance” and had also been active against apartheid added: “I cannot agree with the book’s title and its implications about apartheid…. I recently called the former president to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed.”[51] For Conyers the title “does not serve the cause of peace[,] and the use of it…is offensive and wrong.”
thanks Iceblinkjm, LATC, mwfolsom, FMI, as well as Ramsgate & Pilgrim who almost always chime in, but also others I’m hearing from for getting into this debate.
One reason I continue to bring it up is that it’s going to be up front and center during election season, 2010 & 2012.
It’s not easy to chime in on these issues. Thanks for doing it in a mostly positive sense. Let’s continue to see what we can learn from each other, but also the news as it plays out. I’d particularly like to see us get beyond the usual jockeying to the tells and foreshadowing of what’s likely to come.
Work restrictions, travel restrictions, forcible eviction from land. I’ll just call it Israeli fascism and Palestinian genocide.
That’s right dude, “travel restrictions”=genocide. You nailed it…
“work restrictions, travel restrictions, forcible eviction from land”
Not to go as far as “genocide” but what would you call this behaviour?
Some of these charges are exaggerated and unfounded, some are true and legitimate efforts to protect the security of Israeli citizens, and some are probably true and are just plain discriminatory. For the last category, I condemn any such practice by any government or municipality, outright.
I’m really sickened by the attempts to “buy” this debate and ultimately silence it. We all know that while the MSM is incredibly influential it’s also incredibly biased and more often than not, not a good source of news but rather a good source of being spoon fed the opinions of a particular outlet’s owner (Murdoch, or eventually Saban, etc.) It’s also a really unseemly look at how much influence media and special interests have over our politicians- something which we all knew but to see it laid out like t his is disturbing.
I’m also really sick of the notion that there can only be one “correct” view of Israel while everyone else is condemned as anti-Semitic, anti-Israel etc. Can you imagine if Saban was Muslim and said those things that Taylor highlighted above? There would be a lot more outrage, wouldn’t there?
Anyone who believes that the mainstream media should at least attempt to be somewhat objective should be disturbed by this. But you have to ask yourself what they are so afraid of? The reactions to groups like J-Street have exposed their Achilles heel- the AIPAC crowd have controlled the debate for so long they clearly feel threatened by a new generation of progressive Jewish organizations who are less willing to buy into the notion that there can be no public criticism of Israel.
Also, I think Saban’s comments feed right into the perceptions of some of divided loyalty- Saban is interested in foreign policy? Not really,. He seems interested in controlling the debate over one narrow, albeit important aspect of it, Israel.
As for Iran, am I the only one that thinks that our Iran policy is less about an actual imminent threat to the US, Israel or the region and more about US domestic politics regarding Israel? As I’ve said before here, our argument about the threat posed by Iran doesn’t even rise to the pathetically low level (in terms of actual evidence) that was proffered by the Bush administration with respect to Iraq.