New York Times columnist Kristof says everything that needs to be said about muzzling
Posted on March 18 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Government.Thanks to Richard Silverstein for the hot off the press heads up on this. Major differences about the definition of honest broker aside, this op-ed should come with an applause track.
Op-Ed ColumnistTalking About Israel
Democrats are railing at just about everything President Bush does, with one prominent exception: Mr. Bush’s crushing embrace of Israel.
There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.
Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.
Three years ago, Israel’s minister of justice spoke publicly of photos of an elderly Palestinian woman beside the ruins of her home, after it had been destroyed by the Israeli army. He said that they reminded him of his own grandmother, who had been dispossessed by the Nazis. Can you imagine an American cabinet secretary ever saying such a thing?
One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an “even-handed role” for the U.S. — and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
A second reason may be that American politicians just don’t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.” Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.
You can argue that Arabs pursue a double standard, focusing on repression by Israelis while ignoring greater human rights violations by fellow Arabs. But the suffering in Palestinian territories, while not remotely at the scale of brutality in Sudan or Iraq, is still tragically real.
B’Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights organization, reports that last year Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians (including one minor) and six Israeli soldiers. In the same period, B’Tselem said, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, triple the number killed in 2005. Of the Palestinians killed in 2006, half were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed, and 141 were minors.
For more than half a century, the U.S. was an honest broker in the Middle East. Presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were warmer to Israel and Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush a bit cooler, but all sought a balance. George W. Bush has abandoned that tradition of balance.
Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right’s aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended up harming U.S. interests.
The best hope for Israel in the long run isn’t a better fence or more weaponry; they can provide a measure of security in the short run but will be of little help if terrorists turn, as they eventually will if the present trajectory continues, to chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Ultimately, security for Israel will emerge only from a peace agreement with Palestinians. We even know what that peace deal will look like: the Geneva accord, reached in 2003 by private Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum headlined a recent column, “Pandering Not Required.” He wisely called on American presidential candidates instead to prove their support for Israel by pledging: “If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians.”
Last summer, after Hezbollah killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others, Prime Minister Olmert invaded Lebanon and thus transformed Hezbollah into a heroic force in much of the Arab world. President Bush would have been a much better friend to Israel if he had tried to rein in Mr. Olmert. So let’s be better friends — and stop biting our tongues.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 19th, 2007 at 7:51 am
University of Leeds bows to Muslim protests and at the last minute cancels talk by Dr Matthias Kuentzel on ‘Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East’
This morning, the University of Leeds cancelled a talk, scheduled later for today, and a 2-day workshop series on the topic ‘Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East’ by the German scholar Dr Matthias Kuentzel. The series of events has been well publicised for several weeks.
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: Actually, we did post the story here.]
March 19th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Wonderful column. A smaller point: re: “You can argue that Arabs pursue a double standard, focusing on repression by Israelis while ignoring greater human rights violations by fellow Arabs.”
One could argue this, but it would be silly and hypocritical to do so. Arabs and Palestinians treat attacks by the “foreigner” differently - in this they differ not at all from Americans or Israeli Jews. Compare the reaction in the U.S. to the Oklahoma City bombing - remember that? - to 9/11. You can’t explain the difference solely based on the number of casualties. If Timothy McVeigh had been an Arab Muslim from the Middle East, it would have been a very different story.
One could say that we have a “double standard” by criticizing the “double standard” of the Arabs while regarding our own “double standard” as unremarkable.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
these are the words of ehudd olmert…it is not difficult to see how anti semitism could come up from seemingly nowhere on the unsuspecting everyday jewish american, but the truth is that israel and the israeli zionist lobby..aipac is pushing for us (american) to stay in araq and to further get us involved in iran. do you really believe that the blood of american men and women ought to be used to further the interests of this rogue (israel) state. If anti semitism starts to flare up in america it will be because it was instigated by the neocons and aipac plus israels likhudniks, and jewish americans will think it came out of nowhere because many are blinded by dual loyalty.
love america or leave her.
this is from antiwar.com …justin raymondo write up..
it is ehudd olmer talking to the aipac meeting a few days ago..
“I know that… all of you who are concerned about the security and the future of the State of Israel understand the importance of strong American leadership addressing the Iranian threat, and I am sure you will not hamper or restrain that strong leadership unnecessarily.”
“Those who are concerned for Israel’s security, for the security of the Gulf States, and for the stability of the entire Middle East should recognize the need for American success in Iraq and responsible exit. Any outcome that will not help America’s strength and would, in the eyes of the people in the region, undercut America’s ability to deal effectively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime will be very negative.”
March 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
anybody go to the rally in SF yesterday? the march was great, but the speakers were ridiculous.
talk about muzzing!!
speech after speech condemning israel. not one word condemning suicide bombings, or violence against civilians, or refusal to recognize the rights of a UN member states or any other palestinian shortcomings. also no mention of all the positive things israel does.
obviously any pro-israel opinions are muzzled by ANSWER.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Hooray for you, Nicholas Kristof! But I hope you are emotionally prepared for the hate mail you must be receiving. Remember that it comes from a relatively small number of zealots, some of whom are emotionally disturbed.
I hope this starts a trend.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Heres what Ed Koch, former liberal Democratic Mayor of New York says;
The hostile views that Nicholas Kristof expresses in his March 18, 2007 column correspond with those held by former president Jimmy Carter.
Kristof is distressed that the Democratic Party leadership is too supportive of the State of Israel. He says that he prefers the view of U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Barak Obama who recently stated, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” for which he says Obama was “scolded.”
Kristof does not mention that Palestinian suffering has in large part been brought on by the Palestinians’ own actions. Their leaders rejected the United Nations vote in 1947 dividing historic Palestine into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. They supported or actively participated in at least seven wars against Israel: the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1968 War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 Lebanon War [1] and the 2006 Lebanon War [2]. Their leadership declared two intifadas (insurrections) in 1987 and in 2002, which still goes on.
Kristof blames Israel for all the troubles of the mideast citing the speech of King Abdullah of Jordan as proof. The King stated, “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.”
How do the King and Kristof explain the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran, the war of Egyptian military forces in a military coup creating the Yemen Arab Republic, the occupation by Syria of Lebanon, the threatened war by Syria against Jordan stopped by Israeli tanks, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the genocide currently engaged in by the Sudanese Arab government against the black Sudanese of Darfur? They don’t. Surely they were not the result of Israel’s existence. Kristof says, “Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.” Kristof is implicitly defending the Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed over a thousand Israeli civilians and maimed many more.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under its current Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, elected by Hamas, actively support and currently engage in terrorist acts against the State of Israel.
Kristof denounces President Bush for treating Israel as an ally. He writes that he would prefer the relationship that existed before the Bush administration with the U.S. role as “an honest broker in the Middle East” and having a “tradition of balance.”
He has kind words for Harry Truman, forgetting that Truman on behalf of the U.S. recognized the State of Israel before any other nation did, despite the threat of then Secretary of State George Marshall to resign. He has kind words for Lyndon Johnson, forgetting that Johnson sent the U.S. fleet to the Mediterranean at the side of Israel as a warning to the Soviet Union then militarily threatening Israel. Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest friends of Israel second only in my opinion to George W. Bush, is given kudos by Kristof and an exemption from criticism probably because of his great popularity. Had Kristof been writing a similar column in 1939 or at any time before December 7, 1941 and Pearl Harbor, would he have denounced FDR for making clear his intention to assist Great Britain against Hitler’s Germany? Would he have urged instead that the U.S. remain neutral and assume the role of an impartial honest broker? If Kristof had been with Charles Lindbergh in Madison Square Garden denouncing the Jews and the U.S. support of Great Britain, would he have applauded or been repelled?
Kristof denounces Israel’s building “a better fence” or seeking “more weaponry.” What does he mean? That in his opinion Israel may not erect a fence to help keep the terrorists out? Does he suggest that the U.S. should deny the sale of new weapons to Israel unless it also makes them available to the Palestinians? Kristof’s tortured reasoning led to the fall of the Spanish Republic to which we would not sell arms to defend itself from Franco’s fascist armies which were supported by Hitler and Mussolini.
Ultimately, Kristof predicts, the Palestinians will turn to “chemical, biological or radiological weapons.” In my opinion, the Palestinian radicals are now an extension of the Islamic terrorists seeking to bring Western civilization, including Israel, to its knees. Hamas continually refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel; it refuses to recognize agreements with Israel agreed to by prior Palestinian governments; and it refuses to renounce violence. The European Union has declined to provide funds to the current Palestinian government until it meets those conditions. Does Kristof opposes those conditions?
Kristof clearly wants the U.S. and the Democrats seeking the presidency to end what every president since John F. Kennedy has called “a special relationship” with Israel — that of an ally — and create a new climate of neutrality. Even the Arabs have accepted that special U.S. relationship with Israel; nevertheless, they have asked the U.S. to take the role of mediator/broker, knowing that only the U.S. would be able to get Israel to make concessions based on hopes and promises rather than concrete confidence-building measures by the Palestinians and their supporters.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
[…] Nicholas Kristof in der New York Times, Überschrift “Talking About Israel”: “Die Demokraten schimpfen praktisch über alles was Präsident Bush tut, mit einer wichtigen Ausnahme: Mr Bushs erdrückende Unterstützung für Israel. […]
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Global contest seeks a “just, peaceful” Jerusalem
http://tinyurl.com/2huvos
March 24th, 2007 at 1:21 am
excellent and incisive piece, the wave is finally starting break against the lock step, Israel right or wrong mentality that permeates the US political and media culture. The storm of rhetoric by the “lock steppers” is a sure sign this is happening. The main point, real friends of Israel want a just peace based on 1967 borders for the Palestinians. Real friends understand that the occupation is the real enemy of peace for all parties.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:08 am
the problem isn’t whether or not “real friends of Israel want a just peace….” (heck, most ISRAELIS probably want the same thing!)
the problem is that to the Palestinians, a “just solution to the refugee problem” has consisted of the so-called, nonexistent, “right of return” TO PRE-1967 ISRAEL without any compromise possible. Not only did Arafat insist that he could not compromise on that, Abbas has repeatedly said the same thing.
Now, who is willing to live in peace and who isn’t? To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the right of return, stupid” that prevents the Palestinian leadership from agreeing to live in peace with Israel. And now that they have taught yet another generation that they will regain their abandoned homes in Jaffa and Ramle, they have guaranteed that another generation will fail to achieve a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.
By the way, nobody from JVP has even made a feeble attempt to justify the overwhelming hypocrisy of their participation in the Islamic Society of Boston lawsuit against the David Project, a lawsuit which is attempting to muzzle the free speech of Israel advocates.
Come on, Cecelie, let’s hear JVP’s side of THAT one!
May 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
tights 3…
Hi! http://klaaoikn.info/593_0.html . Thanks!…