Sunday there was a very good, enthusiastic
diary by The Raven about Senator Russ Feingold. Lots of people on this site expressed support and hope that he would run for President in 2008. 222 comments were posted.
I raised the question whether progressives would support Feingold if he failed a particular litmus test on Israel but didn't get much of a response. The Raven explained Feingold hadn't said much in that particular speech. Quite a few people who self-identify as liberal see Palestinian suicide bombers as freedom fighters defying an evil occupying power rather than as terrorists using the murder of innocent civilians as their preferred form of political protest. In this line of reasoning, if a Jewish settlement in the West Bank or Gaza is attacked, it's the residents' fault for being there.
As a 53-year old Jewish man, Feingold shares a common background with many American Jews of the baby boom generation. We were brought up to celebrate the recent creation of modern Israel, to recite prayers that called for a return to Jerusalem and to feel solidarity with the generations of Jews who came before us and the future generations yet unborn. We raised money to plant trees in Israel and marched to rescue Soviet Jewry from the oppression and prejudice they faced as Jews. Every year at Passover, we tell and retell the story of the exodus from Egypt and the return to our homeland and why we need to fight for the well-being and freedom of all people. In our conversations, our loyalty to America is never in doubt.
In an interview with Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive in 2002
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/... Feingold laid out his positions which I view as in line with mine and many other American Jews who self-identify as liberal, progressive, as well as moderate Democrats and Republicans. It's been suggested to me that there may be a generational split with the younger(?) folks who post here who seem to be proud of how anti-Zionist they are.
Q: What about the current crisis in Israel and Palestine, which just seems so despairing? What is your position?
Feingold: Well, I have long believed that Israel should seek to give up the so-called Occupied Territories in return for security, and that a Palestinian state should be established. I have felt that way all my life. I think it is unreasonable to ask the Israelis to do this in a context where there is no guarantee at all that suicide bombers will be controlled. Even though Ariel Sharon would've been my last choice for prime minister, I do agree with his spokesman who said given what has happened in the last few weeks that Israel is, in fact, on the front line of terrorism. I think that is true. But that doesn't mean that the Palestinian people themselves don't deserve self-determination and a state. They do. So the tragedy right now is that the people who are running the show are the very conservative elements in Israel along with the scariest people on the Palestinian side who, quite frankly, are big fans of bin Laden.
Q: There is absolutely no defense for these suicide bombings. But I have to believe that Sharon isn't helping anyone's cause by attacking Arafat the way he is.
Feingold: I don't know what he thinks he's accomplishing by this image of Arafat holed up in this building. I don't get it. If there is some rationale, I'd love to hear it. I don't think it's helpful.
Q: And the Israeli military seems to be taking steps that are going to sow resentment among Palestinians for another generation.
Feingold: That's true. But they're in a terrible dilemma. I don't know how you explain to your families that you're going to sit back and twiddle your thumbs while suicide bombers strap bombs to themselves and kill your kids. Who would put up with that?
I believe that the Israelis and the Palestinians, by and large, want peace, they each want their own country, and they want to get along, and they are going to get along. I know it sounds unbelievable, but I know enough about this, having been there, that these are sophisticated people. It's not like in Pakistan, where people have been told about Jews for a thousand years but don't know any. The Palestinians know the Jews. And the Jews know the Palestinians. And they know they're not really different. And they know they are from the same background. And they know if they coordinated that they could be an economic success and a real basis for a rebirth in the Middle East.
An article by Jeffrey Goldberg in the September 11, 2006 issue of the New Yorker examines the current situation in Gaza. Frequently critical of Israeli policies in his body of work, Goldberg seems to be welcome in Palestinian circles suggesting he represents their views accurately. The article is not yet online so I can't link to it but I offer the following as examples of why Feingold, the prospective Presidential candidate, is not likely to make a dramatic shift in perspective even if he might regard the current Israeli leaders in power with the same lack of enthusiasm he would feel for Bush & Co.
Goldberg paints a picture of Hamas leaders and ordinary people who view the recent engagement between Hezbollah and Israel as proof that Israel is weak and can be overpowered. Highlights include:
In explaining why Hamas is not a terrorist group like Al Qaeda, Hamas leaders say, "Al Qaeda targets civilians" while Hamas "only targets Jews." Hamas's position is that all Israelis--whom it simply refers to as Jews--including Jewish children, are combatants.
The father of a fourteen-year-old boy says, "I want him to finish his studies, but if he happens to die, I don't have a problem, so long as he dies a martyr, and on the condition that he takes Jews with him when he dies." The boy shows Goldberg his "martyr picture" which all of his schoolmates have.
Goldberg cites the Hamas charter which "accuses Jews of using their wealth to `destroy societies and achieve the Zionists' interests' and `take control of imperialist states' and persuade those states to `colonize many countries.'" Sound familiar?
Accusations of the unlimited power of AIPAC and phrases that are bandied about on this site such as "Zionist apologists" or "disloyal Americans" sound like the same sort of code phrases that previous generations of virulently anti-Semitic groups have used to incite hatred and violence against Jews (Zionist banking or media conspiracy for example.) You personally may not believe your use of those terms when you associate them with criticism of Israel means you are anti-Semitic but it sure feels that way to many of us.
When extremist groups in countries outside Israel want to express their displeasure at Israeli government policies, they attack synagogues and Jewish schools, not the Israeli embassies or consulates in those countries. Do you honestly believe I could use the n-word to describe Clarence Thomas because I despise his judicial reasoning and not have African-Americans take offense? Insults are determined by the way words are loaded for the objects of the hatred.
I would argue that if you chase Jews who support Israel out of the progressive movement or put a good guy like Russ Feingold in an untenable position, it won't do our common goals for a better America any good.
So what's it going to be folks? Will you support a wonderful, charismatic, intelligent progressive politician with integrity IF he refuses to condemn Israel as an oppressive, apartheid-like regime or won't sign up for cutting off all U.S. aid and support because he believes the consequences would be dire?