Trash Nader If You Want

[Gary Sisco]

I have, too. But I won't trash him for this -- which is something that's been needing to be said by someone with a national audience for decades. And which would never be said (in public, with a name attached) by any repub or dem. Ever. I salute him for stating the obvious:

August 5, 2004

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
823 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Foxman:

How nice to hear your views. Years ago, fresh out of law school, I was reading your clear writings against bigotry and discrimination. Your charter has always been to advance civil liberties and free speech in our country by and for all ethnic and religious groups. These days all freedom-loving people have much work to do.

As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in the United States. Israelis of all backgrounds have made this point.

Do you agree and if so, what is your explanation for such a difference?

About half of the Israeli people over the years have disagreed with the present Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinian people. Included in this number is the broad and deep Israeli peace movement which mobilized about 120,000 people in a Tel Aviv square recently.

Do you agree with their policies and strategy for a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians? Or do you agree with the House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407 members of the House to support the Prime Minister’s proposal? See attachment re the omission of any reference to a viable Palestinian state – generally considered by both Israelis and Palestinians, including those who have worked out accords together, to be a sine qua non for a settlement of this resolvable conflict – a point supported by over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith. Would such a reasonable resolution ever pass the Congress? For more information on the growing pro-peace movements among the American Jewish Community see: Ester Kaplan, “The Jewish Divide on Israel,” The Nation, June 24, 2004.

Enclosed is the “Courage to Refuse – Combatant’s Letter” signed by hundreds of reserve combat officials and soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces. It is posted on their web at: www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp . One highlight of their statement needs careful consideration: “We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people. We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense. The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them” (Emphasis in original). Do you agree with these patriotic, front line soldiers’ observation that Israel is dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating an entire people – the Palestinian people – and that in their words “the Territories are not Israel?”

What is your view of Rabbi Lerner’s Tikkun’s call for peace, along with the proposals of Jewish Voice for Peace, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and Americans for Peace Now? As between the present Israeli government’s position on this conflict and the position of these groups, which do you favor and why?

Do you share the views in the open letter signed by 400 rabbis, including leaders of some of the largest congregations in our country, sent this March by Rabbis for Human Rights of North America to Ariel Sharon protesting Israel’s house-demolition policy?

Have you ever disagreed with the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people in any way, shape or manner in the occupied territories? Do you think that these Semitic peoples have ever suffered from bigotry and devastation by their occupiers in the occupied West Bank, Gaza or inside Israel? If you want a reference here, check the website of the great Israeli human rights group B’T selem.

Since you are a man of many opinions, with a specialty focused on the Semitic peoples, explain the United States’ support over the decades of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes, in the greater Middle East, over their own people which is fomenting resistance by fundamentalists.

These questions have all occurred to you years ago, no doubt. So it would be helpful to receive your views.

As for the metaphors – puppeteer and puppets – the Romans had a phrase for the obvious – res ipsa loquitur. The Israelis have a joke for the obvious – that the United States is the second state of Israel.

How often, if ever, has the United States – either the Congress or the White House-pursued a course of action, since 1956, that contradicted the Israeli government’s position? You do read Ha’aretz, don’t you? You know of the group Rabbis for Justice.

To end the hostilities which have taken so many precious lives of innocent children, women and men – with far more such losses on the Palestinian side – the occupying military power with a massive preponderance of force has a responsibility to take the initiative. In a recent presentation in Chicago, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the point explicitly – Israel should take the initiative itself unilaterally and start disengaging from the West Bank and Gaza and not keep looking for the right Palestinian Authority. Amram Mitzna, the Labor Party's candidate for Prime Minister in the 2003 election, went ever further in showing how peace can be pursued through unilateral withdrawal. Do you concur with these positions?

Citizen groups are in awe of AIPAC’s ditto machine on Capitol Hill as are many members of Congress who, against their private judgment, resign themselves to sign on the dotted line. AIPAC is such an effective demonstration of civic action – which is their right – that Muslim Americans are studying it in order to learn how to advance a more balanced Congressional deliberation in the interests of the American people.

Finally, treat yourself to a recent column on February 5, 2004 in The New York Times, by Thomas Friedman, an author on Middle East affairs, who has been critical of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. Mr. Friedman writes:

“Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year—all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.”

These are the words of a double Pulitzer Prize winner.

Do you agree with Mr. Friedman’s characterization? Sounds like a puppeteer-puppet relationship, doesn’t it? Others who are close to this phenomenon have made similar judgments in Israel and in the United States.

Keep after bigotry and once in a while help out the Arab Semites when they are struggling against bigotry, discrimination, profiling and race-based hostility in their beloved adopted country – the U.S.A. This would be in accord with your organization’s inclusive title.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

[Dr Dave]

Hats off to Ralph Nader.

It is too bad that being "pro-Palestinian" automatically means "Anti-Israeli" and therefore "anti-semitic" in this country. How the hell did we get to this point?

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

How the hell did we get to this point?

Critical thinking is considered unAmerican by many.

[Gary Sisco]

How could we not, given the reality of the points in Nader's (implaccably logical) response?

And I'm neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, if we are talking in terms of those who hold real power in either society; to those, I am opposed on all sides. I'm pro- the Israeli and Palestinian people who have to suffer the consequences of the decisions of those in power on all sides of that conflict, and there are many more than two sides in it. As far as those with real power goes, I say a pox on all of their houses. My only sympathy lies with the Israeli and Palestinian people who don't get to travel in armored caravans everywhere they go.

[Gary Sisco]

At this point, thought is apparently anamerican.

[cookie]

Gary: Thanks for posting that. I appreciate having the opportunity to read it.

[Tanager]

Pretty damned good letter from Ralph, IMHO.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

i never thought i'd ever agree with anyone about this, but i have to say, gary pretty much laid my opinion out nicely. i hate to be unoriginal, but oh well. cheers gary.

[Gentle Giant]

I'd like to know what precipitated this letter, and to read Foxman's response.

For one thing, while I am sympathetic with what Nader writes, Foxman's not the bad guy in the Mideast crisis. The ADL aggressively combats all manner of hate crimes, not just those against Jews. While the ADL is naturally a supporter of Israel in general, it has no agenda against Palestinians or other Arabs, so long as they're not killing Jews.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

How the hell did we get to this point?

[Gary Sisco]

For me, the point isn't whether anyone agrees with Nader or what their position is on the issue. The point is that there isn't anyone in either of the major parties with balls enough to say what he had to say, publicly, with names attached. (I know that there are others who will say what he said privately, though they will not publicly and won't vote the way they really think, either.)

For that, I have to salute him. It took some real balls and he will now be attacked for months (years, actually) for telling the simple and irrefutable truth. There is in fact more freedom of speech on this subject in Israel than there is in the US. Anyone who wants to, can read Ha'aretz in English on the web. If you do, you will see that what he is saying is true. On any given day there you can read more serious debate in an Israeli paper than you will see in a decade in any major American news source.

[crawjo]

The Washington Post had an editorial on this issue yesterday:

"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced."

"Bush also repeated the catch-phrase . . . 'committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state,' which is repeated almost word-for-word again and again by Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets."

QUICK QUIZ: Which of the above quotations is lifted from the Web site of the white supremacist National Alliance and which was uttered this summer by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader? It's a tough one. After all, both play on the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure isn't showing it. In a letter this week to the Anti-Defamation League, which had complained to him about his rhetoric, he responded with breezy indifference and more rhetoric that only compounds concerns.

Mr. Nader complains in his letter that the debate in Israel over Israeli policies is far more robust than the American debate over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In an interview last month on the "Democracy Now!" radio show he explained, "The U.S. government never connects with the deep and broad Israeli peace movement" -- a claim he elaborates on in the letter. And Mr. Nader has a point. Israel's shriller defenders often cry foul at even the mildest and most constructive criticism of the state. The problem with Mr. Nader's words are not that he criticizes either Israel's policies or American support for those policies. The problem, rather, is the language he deploys in doing so. In the radio interview he called John Kerry a "puppet politician who does not think in the best interests of the American people and the Israeli and Palestinian people." And in his letter he writes, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, of "AIPAC's ditto machine on Capitol Hill" and the awed members of Congress "who, against their private judgment, resign themselves to sign on the dotted line."

This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn't understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly know how to read such code. But Mr. Nader, as always, is not backing down: "As for the metaphors -- puppeteer and puppets -- the Romans had a phrase for the obvious -- res ipsa loquitor," which means the thing speaks for itself. Indeed it does.

Quiz answer: The first quotation was Mr. Nader's.

[RainyDay]

Speaking of Ha'aretz, on today's op ed page:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/464620.html

The snail from hell

By Uzi Benziman

If one considers the effort the athletes are making at the Olympics to be first and to break speed records, then the pace of our government in moving ahead with the disengagement plan is that of a leisurely walk in the park. The comparison is actually a poor one, because in Athens energy is concentrated on the real thing - athletic achievement - while Israel is garnering its strength to fulfill a less important goal, merely involving human life and the image of the country, if not its future.

From the beginning, the schedule for the implementation of the disengagement plan lacked the essential urgency to transform it into a national challenge to be achieved as soon as possible. Instead of placing this important initiative at the center of the government's activity and focusing the public's attention on it, the plan has melted into bureaucratic moves made behind closed doors, some of which are made by only a few dozen people.

Preparations for withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria are not in the public consciousness and have not become central to public discourse. As a result, there is no atmosphere of preparation for something that is really going to happen. Disengagement is still perceived as a possibility only, as a declaration of intent with a question mark floating over it. The not-quite-real-enough form that disengagement has taken has its price: It means that the lion's share of the public is unconnected to the process and uninterested in it. The political moves developing as the prime minister attempts to create a coalition favorable to his initiative are taking place without the involvement of the people. Coalition negotiations do not focus on the withdrawal plan and its implementation, but on portfolios, social issues, and matters of religion and state.

The mantle of normalcy worn by these negotiations is a great missed opportunity; it leads to delay which in turn leads to the evaporation of the critical national significance of the decision. Advances are not being offered to settlers to be evacuated, there is no tumult of dismantling, no sense of the army moving its facilities out of the Gaza Strip ahead of the submission of a bill dealing with the process of disengagement to the Knesset.

The style and tone the government has given the disengagement plan has already had its results: Egypt has let up pressure on Yasser Arafat to reform the Palestinian Authority's security forces and postponed the ultimatum it had given him in this matter, which minimizes the chance for the creation of a governing body that will take responsibility for the Gaza Strip after Israel's withdrawal. The Israeli right is taking advantage of this time to organize for a struggle against withdrawal, both at the political level and in creating a public mood. Meanwhile, the U.S. is allowing Ariel Sharon to maintain the status quo, including continuing to evade dismantling the outposts and avoiding decisions regarding limiting the development of settlements to existing boundaries.

Worst of all, the more time that passes between the decision in principle to disengage and the implementation of disengagement, the greater the danger that Palestinian terror organizations will be able to carry out a mega-attack that will prevent implementation of disengagement. And the chance increases of an extreme right-wing Israeli making an attempt on the prime minister's life.

Sharon is taking significant political steps to create the necessary backing to carry out disengagement. He has also put into motion the planning and administrative system that will lay the organizational groundwork for disengagement. His failure lies in his not creating facts on the ground that highlight the seriousness of his intentions, and that he has not worked to engender public support for his plan. This may not be coincidental. It is very possible that the prime minister is waiting, just like Arafat is, to see who will be sitting in the White House in three months, and then he will decide whether to stick to his plan or frame it and hang it on the wall.

[John L]

Thanks for posting that, Gary.

As angry as I am with Nader, you are right. That makes it very hard for me to keep hating him. After all, Kerry has been as completely gutless as could be imagined on this and other such issues. On virtually every foreign policy issue down the line, he has essentially endorsed Bush, claiming that he will do exactly what Bush is doing...but, oh yea, he will be able to do it better because he will wear a smiling face and get our friends to help us more. Pathetic, if you ask me.

When Kerry refused to declare that, given what he knows now, he would not have voted to go to war in Iraq, I just couldn't believe it. So, in that case, all of his "critical remarks" on policies toward Iraq really have no content whatsoever. If, when push comes to shove, he supports Bush 100% on Iraq, he should just keep his damn mouth shut.

Similarly, when Bush sends the Palestinian people down the river by suddenly shifting American foreign policy away from the "road map" in favor of the land grab, mind you with NO prior consultation with ANY Palestinian leaders on the subject, all Kerry could do is say "me too!" "I would do it too."

Man, this country is in for some deep shit in coming years. America will eventually pay for it too. You mark my words.

[bobetterblues]

Originally Posted by John L

Thanks for posting that, Gary.

As angry as I am with Nader, you are right. That makes it very hard for me to keep hating him. After all, Kerry has been as completely gutless as could be imagined on this and other such issues. On virtually every foreign policy issue down the line, he has essentially endorsed Bush, claiming that he will do exactly what Bush is doing...but, oh yea, he will be able to do it better because he will wear a smiling face and get our friends to help us more. Pathetic, if you ask me.

When Kerry refused to declare that, given what he knows now, he would not have voted to go to war in Iraq, I just couldn't believe it. So, in that case, all of his "critical remarks" on policies toward Iraq really have no content whatsoever. If, when push comes to shove, he supports Bush 100% on Iraq, he should just keep his damn mouth shut.

Similarly, when Bush sends the Palestinian people down the river by suddenly shifting American foreign policy away from the "road map" in favor of the land grab, mind you with NO prior consultation with ANY Palestinian leaders on the subject, all Kerry could do is say "me too!" "I would do it too."

Man, this country is in for some deep shit in coming years. America will eventually pay for it too. You mark my words.

That's what I'm saying John. That's what I'm saying.

[Monte Smith]

I will note that if we stand by Israel, we are doomed. Why? Because the opposition will blow us to hell. But they are not all terrorists.

[Gary Sisco]

John -- I can't stand Nader myself (for other reasons) and wouldn't vote for him. But the fact that such positions (and logic) are almost completely unheard in "responsible" political sectors of the US (meaning nearly everyone in power and all of the major media) is to me all the cause that's needed to entirely abandon the two-wings-of-one-ruling-class-party dictatorship in this country.

But that won't happen so long as people with alternative (meaning alternative to the dems, in this case) views continue, whenever push comes to shove, to support the dems no matter what because they're not the repubs. On issues like these -- that is, the most important non-domestic issues facing the people of the US -- it clearly matters not if they're not the repubs because both factions of the ruling class have an ironclad Line that must be followed at all costs, even when it flies in the face of the objective reality. They are as implaccable in that regard as any Stalinist party ever was. Their brains are calcified when it comes to these issues. They simply haven't the flexibility to deal with them in any way other than the way they have been, which is to continue pouring gasoline on a bonfire, all the while trying to convince everyone else in the world that the gasoline is water. And perhaps at this point their disconnect with objective reality is so complete that they really believe it is water. Who knows. I mean, there are still millions of Stalinists who haven't been able to understand, no matter what the evidence, what that fuss was all about. That's the way I view "responsible" American political circles when it comes to issues of any real, human importance.

Having brains like these, flexible as reinforced concrete, in charge of the largest and most powerful killing machine ever in all of human history scares the living shit out of me. Al Q doesn't. A handful of lunatics, is all. Here, we're talking about people who exert real power on a global basis that has a direct effect on the lives of everyone on the planet, and who have come closer than anyone in history before them to a global imperial reality.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I read the same editorial that crawjo reprinted. Israel is one of the many third rails of politics we have in this country. If you're a non-Jew and question Israeli policy you're automatically labeled an anti-semite. If you are a Jew and question Israeli policy you're accused of self-hate.

[crawjo]

I should say that although I posted it, I don't agree with the editorial. I don't find anything wrong with Nader's comments. The puppets/puppeteers analogy is by no means exclusive to Jews. People talk all the time about Tony Blair being a puppet for Bush, or Bush being a puppet for the neo-conservatives who back him, etc. etc. etc. Fact of the matter is, various interests do influence politicians, and there is no question that the Jewish lobby is one such influence. Saying so does not make one anti-Semitic.

[bluenoter]

Crawjo--

"The Jewish lobby" suggests a monolithic entity that represents American Jews, and it conveys a tone that might indeed be construed as anti-Semitic. I believe that you're referring to a few large Jewish organizations that can be thought of as constituting a Zionist lobby. In my youth, such organizations were considered mainstream, but today, they're far too conservative (with a lowercase "c") for me, a Jew, and they don't speak for me.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Crawjo--

"The Jewish lobby" suggests a monolithic entity that represents American Jews, and it conveys a tone that might indeed be construed as anti-Semitic. I believe that you're referring to a few large Jewish organizations that can be thought of as constituting a Zionist lobby. In my youth, such organizations were considered mainstream, but today, they're far too conservative (with a lowercase "c") for me, a Jew, and they don't speak for me.

Rita,

I agree that the term should be zionist, and definitely not Jewish. However, it seems that many of these organizations themselves, or at least individuals within them, tend to obfuscate the difference to the point where they claim critics using the word 'zionist' really mean 'jew'. This only adds to the difficulty in discussing these matters. It's a strategy not very different from asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife.

[John L]

Gary: I agree with you in general. Yet this year I will engage in the joyless exercise that you criticize of voting the lesser of the two evils. That is only because I believe that the greater of the two evils that currently occupies the White House is very, very evil, exceptionally evil. I want Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld out of there at almost any cost. Kerry's campaign certainly doesn't give me much to cheer about, however.

I have been ready for a serious third party alternative for a long time. Just not this year.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Rita,

I agree that the term should be zionist, and definitely not Jewish. However, it seems that many of these organizations themselves, or at least individuals within them, tend to obfuscate the difference to the point where they claim critics using the word 'zionist' really mean 'jew'. This only adds to the difficulty in discussing these matters. It's a strategy not very different from asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife.

No matter how one characterizes the largest few organizations, they don't represent all American Jews.

Come to think of it, I never did like B'nai Brith much, even when I was a member of BBG (B'nai Brith Girls).

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

No matter how one characterizes the largest few organizations, they don't represent all American Jews.

Understood, but when they themselves implicitly equate zionism with jewishness, debate become murky and kind of ugly.

[bluenoter]

There's Zionism and then there's Zionism. (I don't want to see the state of Israel abolished either.) But with that profound observation, I'm backing away from the thread.

[walto]

I like Nader's letter and, FWIW, I agree with him that Kerry is a puppet. He just vacillates a lot on who he'll let pull his strings.

For example, while Bush has been a pretty predictable evangelical X-tian for many years, Kerry just became 1/4-Jewish in time for this election. But don't despair, papist voters, he's still taking his regular communion and enjoying South Boston pubs and corned beef just as if any of his relatives had actually ever been Irish! JFK!!

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

There's Zionism and then there's Zionism. (I don't want to see the state of Israel abolished either.) But with that profound observation, I'm backing away from the thread.

I hear ya on all counts.

[crawjo]

The Jewish lobby doesn't represent all Jews any more than the Christian lobby represents all Christians, but I think I'll go on calling them each what they are.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by crawjo

The Jewish lobby doesn't represent all Jews any more than the Christian lobby represents all Christians,

Yes, and so . . .

Originally Posted by crawjo

but I think I'll go on calling them each what they are.

But by your own reckoning, you'll be calling them each what they're not. Besides, I'll bet you don't speak of "the Christian lobby"; I'll bet you modify it with "fundamentalist," "conservative," or "right-wing."

[Gary Sisco]

John -- I hear you. I've said several times recently that this is a year for conscience, not lecturing or hectoring about who to vote for. I hope that everyone who votes takes the time to think very clearly and do what their conscience tells them to do, whoever they vote for. I have been trying to be non-dogmatic about it, as I understand very clearly your (and many others') take on it. I have only been expressing my own views about it because I so dislike and take such umbrage when dem hacks insist on lecturing people about how they "have to" vote. I don't have to vote at all, much less for anyone, and much less than that for anyone I'm told I have to vote for. That's all. Once my hackles come down again, I'm more objective about it.