M.J. Rosenberg has noted a public discourse shift concerning Israel. For those of us concerned about the linkage between middle east policy in this country and the goals of hawkish supporters of Israel, this really matters!
The evidence for this, as noted in this DKos diary, is that Joe Klein blasted the neocons on his blog for the war in Iraq, suggesting that they have divided loyalties to Israel and the US. Subsequently, Klein was attacked by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, with this the key quote:
The notion that Jews with "divided loyalties" were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards .....
to which Klein hit back!!!!
But what has allowed this shift of discourse?
Walt and Mearsheimer.
More below the fold.
UPDATE: A commenter noted this full quote from Foxman, which I left out of the intro when I ran into editing troubles:
The notion that Jews with "divided loyalties" were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, which has unfortunately gained new currency of late with public figures such as Jimmy Carter and professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggesting that American Jews are disloyal and that pro-Israel groups have undue influence over American foreign policy.
We are disappointed that a respected and thoughtful writer of your caliber you would resort to such stereotyping.
************************(back to the flow....)
First, this from Klein, in response to Foxman:
Jewish neoconservatives certainly played a subsidiary role in providing an intellectual rationale for the war. In a 2003 column, I called their arguments "the casus belli that dare not speak its name." The notion of a "benign domino theory"--benign, that is, for the interests of Israel—was certainly abroad in the community during that time. I had several off the record conversations with prominent Jewish conservatives who cited it. And there is now, in my opinion, an even more dangerous tendency among Jewish neoconservatives to encourage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear program. Their gleeful, intellectual warmongering—given the vast dangers and complexities of an attack on Iran--is nauseating.
Whew. That is potent stuff. Do you remember the domino theory? Get a working democracy in Iraq, and the whole region will magically go, one by one, democratic. That is why the hard line regimes were antsy about what we were doing, or so the story went. Of course, as noted in The Shock Doctrine and No End in Sight, that possibility went out the window with the doctrinaire approach to governance laid out by Paul Bremer and crew. But never mind.
Klein also challenges this from Foxman
There can be no question that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, legitimate and serious American security and foreign policy interests played a critical role in President Bush's decision to attack Iraq.
with this retort
Well, I question it. And so do a fairly thick slice of the diplomatic, intelligence and military communities, who believe that Iraq was a tragic, costly and, above all, bloody diversion from the battle against those who actually attacked us on September 11.
Great. I actually feel good going along with Joe Klein here, something that has not happened for years.
Rosenberg's post then noted this shot from Klein, against the charges of anti-semitism on his part:
the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don't favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being "soft on terrorism" or "unpatriotic" or favoring "surrender"--Joe Lieberman's favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness. They, and you, should know that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior. They, and you, should know that the tendency to "cry wolf" about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community—indeed, in this case, it is laughable.
Ok, caveats. Foxman pointed out that Cheney and Bush and crew pulled the lever to turn the war in Iraq on, and Klein does not disagree (he simply notes the reinforcement in their views from prominent jewish neocons).
But, note: Klein did not back down. He did not cower at the arrows launched here by Foxman. He hit back, and he hit back hard and in full view of the public. I have not seen anything quite like this, and it gives me hope that on this front of the war AGAINST an attack on Iran, our side has surged.
This is extraordinary. What allowed it to happen? Well it probably does not help the neo-con's arguments to note that the war in Iraq has just been a dismal failure for us, and that democracy domino game floated down the Euphrates river some time back.
But as Ezra Klein suggests, the Walt-Mearsheimer tome about the Israel lobby has helped to move the center of gravity of public discourse about middle eastern policy in this country. He suggests that citing M&W is not a good idea, because they have been uniformly tarred as anti-semitic in an effective way by the relevant players in this country. On the other hand, you are still free to invoke the kinds of arguments they made, so that in defending M&W against the attacks by neocons and the like, people worked
through their ideas, and prove[d] that nothing happened when you voiced impolitic-yet-obvious statements like some Jewish neoconservatives view the containment and even destruction of Israel's adversaries as an important objective for American foreign policy. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that perspective, nor even with the idea that zionists, like corn farmers, have a powerful political lobby, but you weren't supposed to say so before. [emphasis mine]
The mere act of ``saying so'' opened you to charges you were anti-semitic. Klein the younger then concludes that M&W may have in some sense lost the current debate, but achieved a great success by creating the possibility for just this kind of public debate between Klein the older and Foxman.
Did Joe Klein hold to the form suggested by Ezra? Sure. Even as Foxman invokes M&W, Klein does not take the bait, and instead sticks to his own arguments and observations.
At the end of his ``Neocons gone Wild'' piece, Joe Klein asks this, of the neo-cons and Commentary Magazine crowd:
A question to all concerned: When was the last time you opposed a policy, any policy, of the Israeli government--other than one that attempted to move toward peace?
And that is where we are at with Iran.
So, Joe K, speak bro! Speak the truth to that neocon power base, to the Commentary-at, to the Kristols, the Perles, the Krauthammers, the Likud, because as William Stafford said, in A Ritual to Read to Each Other:
..I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.
And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider—
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.
For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give—yes or no, or maybe—
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
I would say that Joe Klein has, laudably, given a VERY clear signal.
Here are the key links:
Rosenberg Post
Klein blog on ``Neocons gone wild''
Foxman response to Klein
http://www.adl.org/...