Thursday, September 30, 2010
Don't Fool With the Birnbaum
So far as I can see from far away Jerusalem, Jeffrey Goldberg represents a sizable constituency in America's Jewry. Over the past week he seems to have changed his mind about J-Street - for the worse. If you follow his summary, you might want to note the role played by Ben Binrbaum. Birnbaum is a young but rising Washington journalist, who did a mildly brutal expose of Human Rights Watch not long ago; he also had an interesting look at who is going after the reputation of Alvaro Uribe. My impression is that if you've got a story you'd rather not have exposed, you'd probably not ought to talk to Ben.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"So far as I can see from far away Jerusalem, Jeffrey Goldberg represents a sizable constituency in America's Jewry."
Well, I think he (ie the leftist pro-Israel POV) represents perhaps 20% of American Jewry. Then perhaps 20% of American jewry are of the pro-Israel right-wing variety. The rest may say they are pro-Israel, or not, but don't care really one way or the other. They are not passionate about Israel basically.
Jeffrey Goldberg's type are more involved in the media so they seem more representative than they really are. From my experience, the pro-Israel right of American Jewry includes most Sephardim, Russians, and Modern Orthodox.
Carrie
I like Ben Birnbaum and Eli Lake and I admire them greatly
and I am relieved that Goldberg reports honestly about the story
But I swear that one of my any reasons why I can't quite trust Jeffrey Goldberg stems from when he waxed lyrical about the founding of J-Street. How can a seasoned knowing his way around the world journalist who must know so much more about just everything than I do be taken in by high-sounding but basically empty language about peace and impractical practicalities - and I have never ever heard anything else from J-Street. In my book they were always of the "perpatai ta sinefa"=strolls on the clouds kind. Do star reporters never run reality checks?
That J-Street may now turn out to be something worse than blue-eyed do-gooders makes me admire no end the reporters who spent doubtlessly dreary unglamouros hours going through their taxes
May the glory and the ramplight that others get from fancy trips for once be teirs
Silke
yea, Ben is awesome!
somewhere from all that I got the impression that Americans find it not OK if foreign funded NGOs meddle with US-internal affairs.
Why then is it OK for foreign funded NGOs to meddle with Israel-internal affairs or can it be that foreign funded Israeli NGOs never try to influence MKs?
Surely I must have misunderstood something here but what?
Also I was surprised to learn that when I wished for the establishment of an NAF = New America Foundation that outfit existed already and that it seems not to be aiming at making America a better democracy ;-)
Silke
Silke,
I feel the same way as you do regarding Jeffrey Goldberg. From reading his book, "Prisoners," Jeffrey had a far clearer picture of the negative aspects of Islam, Arab culture and the Palestinian movement than I would have expected from his blog and magazine articles. Yet at the end of the book, he tries to take everything he knows and has experienced, and force it into his preferred ideological box.
When the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque blew up, I couldn't believe that someone with his knowledge and real world experience would believe that the people involved with the "Cordoba Institute" (or whatever it's called this week) were genuine moderates interested in interfaith dialogue for any purpose other than to advance an Islamic supremacist agenda.
Jeffrey reminds me of the "moderate" Muslims who criticize terrorism and speak out against the "extremists." Yet at the end of the day, they never quite can bring themselves to see that it is Islam itself that is the creed inspiring the jihadists, even if other factors contribute as well. Without acknowledging what is in the Koran, Hadith and Sira, one cannot address this issue. So instead, many "moderate" Muslims choose to claim that the jihadists have been brainwashed, are angry about poverty, have twisted Koranic verses (in spite of the widespread acceptance of those interpretations for 1400 years and all the authorities who still back them). Or that honor killing are a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam, that Islam never endorses killing of apostates, that "no compulsion in religion" is the authoritative Koranic verse that sets the tone for Islam's great tradition of tolerance, and that Islam is really misunderstood by those in the West who don't realize that it is an inherently peaceful, tolerant, progressive religion that has been abused by a tiny minority of extremists.
Likewise, Jeffrey does great work in fighting many aspects of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. But he clings to the fiction that there is this large left-wing group of Israel critics, whose attacks on that country are all motivated by notions of justice, peace and their love of Zion. In reality, the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" nonsense is simply a cover for an anti-Israel agenda that fits too perfectly into an ideological wordview shared by millions who hate Israel. Jeffrey doesn't share that entire ideological outlook and has a genuine love of Israel. He just can't bring himself to admit that it is awfully lonely on the pro-Israel left these days.
4infidels
when it comes to religions I am ignorant. Most of what I read from the pious when they write about pious things makes me feel uncomfortable.
Notable exceptions come from people telling stories about Zen-Buddhism or Yaacov telling from his Torah studies or just tonight Victor writing about atonement. Both have in common that they don't proselytize and don't try to better me. They tell me of their world and they don't tell me that my world is a bad one.
As to Christian churches I don't share your trust in them. When I was a teenager they were still very eager to regulate our (German) lives through threats, denunciation and force (watch out or we'll land you in an institution).
That said I judge all on how much they adhere to live and let live in the Here and Now. People misbehaving in the Here and Now will quite often resort to something beyond human reach to justify whatever they do. That is their choice, my choice is based on rules of decency so basic that a lot of them will apply in all likelihood all over the world. I am a better person than you based on whatever justification is not one of them. I have the right to shoot rockets at you on no provocation whatsoever is another one.
I don't know and I don't understand why people need all that going back into history. It seems a bit weird to me - on the one hand they are ready to trust that Christians despite their history are now reformed and will stay so on the other hand they are also ready to trust that because Islam has bad teachings it will always adhere to those and not others.
To trust repentent sinners too much has always seemed a bit otherworldly in my religion school lessons.
Let "them" free Gilad Shalit, let "them" re-write their school-books, let "them" laugh out loud at that nutter from Teheran ranting dirt at the UN plus some more things who then is going to care about what the Koran says?
Silke
J-Street's---and Ben Ami's---rampant dishonesty should have been apparent from the very beginning.
The question Goldberg (and others of similar persuasion) should be asking himself is why he didn't---couldn't---see it.
Ditto for the sordid---if laughable---Ground Zero mosque "affair".
Silke,
I think you are making a mistake if you believe my criticisms of Islam mean that I harbor idealized views about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. I am a skeptic when it comes to organized religion in general, and a critic of Jewish and Christian religious institutions, spiritual leaders and political actors.
However, today the threat to Israel, America and Western Europe (as well as India, Thailand, the Philippines, minorities throughout Muslim-majority countries, etc) comes from those motivated by the teachings, texts and tenets of Islam as well as the attitudes (or "atmospherics" as Hugh Fitzgerald calls it) that prevail in socities where Islam is the dominant ideology/faith.
If Muslims decided to ignore the violent teachings of Islam, then you are absolutely right that it wouldn't matter what is the Koran anymore than what is in the Bible. However, enough Muslims take very seriously what the holy texts teach and their traditions and imams espouse to cause trouble for the rest of us. As long as they believe that God wants them to fight the infidel until he converts, submits or is killed, then it absolutely matters what Islamic texts says and how they are interpreted. And change won't come until the real "root cause" is addressed. Similarly, Israel didn't become an economic success until it challenged some of its core economic beliefs rooted in its founding socialist principles.
Without diagnosing the patient, you can't treat the illness. So the West engages in democracy promotion, regime change, peace processes, economic development programs, arming and training Muslim security forces, educational exchanges, entrepreneurial encouragement, dialogue, listening tours, understanding "narratives," engaging "moderates," business and cultural "partnerships," writing constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq that honor (thus empowering) Sharia Law, and when all else fails, pressuring Israel to give up territory, accepting suicidal rules of engagement for our troops and adopting aspects of the OIC agenda such as restrictions on free speech.
At the end of the day, none of these moves have helped the West and brought us into a better partnership with Muslim world, because the real "root cause" of our enemies' activities remains the one element undiagnosed by our leaders: the Islamic teachings underpinning Islamic jihad.
Now, let me tie this back to Goldberg...
There is the "moderate" Muslim who clings to the idea that all would be wonderful with Islam, the Koran and Muhammad had not extremists brainwashed by dictators and demagogues (or outraged by U.S. policies, alienated from Western culture, radicalized in an extremist mosque, etc., humiliated by occupation or lack of economic opportunity) not acted against the true peaceful, tolerant and just teaching of Islam.
Then there is the left-wing, pro-Israel Jew who wants very much to find a place where one can comfortably be left-wing and pro-Israel, just like one could be in 1967. While he sees the anti-Semitism on the left, the incitement in the Arab world, the singling out of Israel for condemnation by progressive academics and activists and the double-game being played by Abbas, he can't fully allow himself to comprehend how those progressives with whom he wants to make common cause on a variety of issues, and whom he has long looked at as having a superior "social conscience," really are hostile to Israel, have swallowed whole the anti-Israel narrative and are carrying water for Israel's enemies.
So while Jeffrey Goldberg is a good journalist and does some outstanding work in support of Israel, he couldn't see from the beginning that J-Street is a disgrace because they offered him what he so badly needs: the hope of a place to be pro-Israel and yet align that love of Israel with your progressive values and progressive allies by working hard for a two state solution. But the progressive movement is tied at the hip with the anti-israel left and Islamist movements, which is why J-Street mostly finds fault with Israel while going soft on her terrorist enemies and international defamers. Similarly, Goldberg could obviously note during the 2008 Presidential campaign that McCain's positions and attitudes toward Israel were more in line with Israel's supporters than those of Obama, he has long maintained that Obama is also a friend of Israel, a position that I found a tough sell during the campaign and a complete fiction from his first days in office.
But I could be wrong...
4infidels
Commentary has a piece by Daniel Pipes who deals with present day Islam largely without saying that it has a birth defect (all proselytizing religions have a birth defect, once you have convinced yourself that you must save your neighbour from hell you're infected with the meddling virus) - it is this claim on history I object to not complaints about present Islamist horrible behaviour, but I have known my share of decent muslim people and I just can't forget that I owe them some kind of faithfulness even though they won't know what I am writing here. That said, I have no illusion that if the nutters keep getting more and more of their demands granted, it is the decent ones I have known who will pay their fair share of the price also.
http://www.danielpipes.org/8913/two-decades-rushdie-rules
Daniel Pipes has a "nice" list of the demands of British Muslims. In that light I wonder what the Druids will be demanding who got their official recognition as a religion right now. (seriously, read it at the BBC) Maybe they'll make good use of Asterix's drink and all will be well forever thereafter.
In one of the two Robert Graves books on Claudius is described that the Druids of old liked to be buried alive for a time to enhance whatever. Will they demand special time off to indulge that practice?
As to all this prayer room granting, when I went to a nun's school for a couple of years there was a chapel for Catholics to pray but no prayer room for us protestants. That was highly unjust because Catholics just had to go praying to atone for misdemeanours while we had to write a 100 times "I will never again ..." - and believe it or not, such goings on never raised an eyebrow in predominantly protestant Nuremberg ;-)
Silke
the NYRB has a highly confused and confusing piece that claims it is about General Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator for Israel and the PA, but has me by the end "convinced" that life under Hamas is much more desirable than in the West-Bank while I've learned next to nothing about Mr. Dayton's doings. ("the West Bank is living now not under one but under two occupations")
What makes the piece valuable though is that despite its obvious non-love for "my" side it includes an impressive list of Israel's concessions that can be found in it. but watch it including its 52 foot notes the print-out comes to 15 pages.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/14/our-man-palestine/?pagination=false&printpage=true
Silke
Silke,
You can't understand what motivates the Islamists if you limit yourself to the present. You have to understand what is in the books that inspire Islamists and how those teachings have been interpreted by Islamic jurists, scholars and imams throughout history as well as the practical implications of those teachings on the societies where they have been predominant. Otherwise, as I said, you look for all types of prescriptions that don't address the root cause of the Islamist program. And you have to identify alternative ways of dealing with those teachings that are at the root of the jihadist ideology.
One major problem for Islam is that there really isn't a powerful alternative interpretation to the orthodox and authoritative Islam that the Islamists follow. There are many peaceful Muslims who have no interest in working to impose Sharia on non-Muslim societies or reduce infidels to second-class dhimmi status, but those Muslims have not made a strong theological argument to "reform" or counter the traditional, orthodox jihadist interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths. For the most part, those Muslims either avoid the issues altogether or attempt to protect their faith through deceiving infidels into believing that the Koran doesn't say what it does or that the "extremists" are a tiny minority who have twisted their faith.
Let's say Jewish "extremists" started stoning people because of what it says in the Bible. Do we pretend that the proper response is to spread democracy, encourage economic advancement, engage in dialogue and be aware of Jewish sensitivities, without ever acknowledging the verses in the Bible that actually led these "extremists" to carry out stoning? Obviously, this is a different case precisely because of Jewish history. Jews have not interpreted those verses in the Bible literally for thousands of years and there is a whole literature of Jewish legal discussions by Rabbis throughout the centuries dealing with all types of religious issues from various perspectives. You could accurately say that Judaism in law and in practice does not condone stoning. You simply cannot look at Islamic law or history and say the same thing about jihad or, for that matter, killing apostates.
The problem for "moderate" Muslims is that the best they can do theologically is keep silent, as the Koran is believed throughout Islam as the literal word of God, with its injunctions to fight the believers taken as ongoing until the whole world submits to the rule of Islamic law.
None of this mean I should treat Muslims in my life any differently than non-Muslims or assume that they are not law-abiding and peaceful people, loyal citizens and caring friends. But, unlike in Christianity and Judaism, the fringe elements aren't a tiny "extremist" minority whose "fundamentalist" interpretation is out of place within the mainstream of their faith. The only way to understand the challenges presented by the Islamists and their ultimate goals is to have the knowledge of Islamic history, Islamic texts, Islamic law, Islamic ideology and the orthodox and authentic interpretation of those elements. Without that knowledge, we will continue to be guided by platitudes, poorly-chosen policies and a vision of the Islamic world filtered too heavily through our own filter.
4infidels
I favour competition over root cause treatment/understanding/elimination.
Come up with something more attractive than their current back to the roots mania.
Where are moderate preachers with equal or better appeal than the rogues? How come that a culture that has spawned Hollywood can't win in the attractivity competition?
(btw in both Churchill's encounters with them a Mahdi was involved and both times I couldn't find any clues in his telling of it, that negotiations might have worked, that reliable contract partners were available.)
So it probably boils down to the Strong-Horse-scenario and there "our" cards aren't too good, because thank heavens we are squeamish. If a guy burns a Koran in California and that gets 15 people killed in Kaschmir just because of the announcement, it makes me feel uneasy about burning the Koran. It is a Catch 22 I haven't found a remedy for.
Here is the BBC interviewing Terry Jones - I look forward to listening to it since Owen Bennett-Jones isn't a timid interviewer http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009zklg
If I were even a non-pious Muslim I'd object to all these Islam-expert musings on my religion's books. I'd object on principle because it would feel like trespassing to me. There must be other ways in adressing it. Maybe we should ask Miss Manners for advice?
Silke
PS: religions maybe bad as a tool to organise societies but recent experiences with ideologies make me guess that they are the best mankind has been able to come up with for the purpose.
"religions maybe bad as a tool to organise societies but recent experiences with ideologies make me guess that they are the best mankind has been able to come up with for the purpose."
Silke,
Religions are ideologies and Islam is the most ideological of them all, with its game-plan for conquering the entire world and its legal structure that reduces non-Muslims and women to second-class status.
Silke,
While not close to perfection by any means, the values stated in the Declaration of Independence and the laws in U.S. Constitution have created a system that is better than any other for the organization of society. Where America was flawed (slavery, women's rights) in practice, those founding documents provided guiding principles and a framework in which changes could be made.
4infidels
I wasn't advocating for a Gottesstaat. Here's Malcolm Gladwell on how movements get going. It seems to me that religions played a prominent role http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
even though I dimly remember there is a book out there "proving" that the pilgrim fathers were motivated by business considerations I can't quite believe that they'd had set out without praying together.
Coming back to Gladwell's examples I bet the majority of those people back then did the gathered for praying to an Almighty, believers and probably lots of the non-believers also. I at least would have felt better after such a common prayer as compared to swearing to a number of maxims regardless of my inability to believe that a God exists.
Silke
Post a Comment