Jeffrey Goldberg's ‘American Problem'

There's been much about Jeffrey Goldberg's New York Times piece about how the powerful members of Zionist groups in America are being, er, more Catholic than the Pope (more Talmudic than the Rabbi?) in their inflexibility on the issue of West Bank settlements. Yes, it's good that a prominent Jewish-American journalist and former IDF soldier says that. Even if he slammed Walt and Mearsheimer from bringing attention to the lobby a year ago, resorting to the usual slander of anti-Semitism. Yet, to me, most perplexing in this piece is this:

So why won’t American leaders push Israel publicly? Or, more to the point, why do presidential candidates dance so delicately around this question? The answer is obvious: The leadership of the organized American Jewish community has allowed the partisans of settlement to conflate support for the colonization of the West Bank with support for Israel itself. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel.

Several things here: Goldberg has a problem with the omerta on this topic in the US presidential election not because a small group is silencing the debate on a major foreign policy issue, but because he thinks the policy is wrong (for Israel). So he's more concerned about the problems in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the damage to American democracy. And then the same line of thinking is seen again when he expresses concern not for the damage to US interests in support for Israeli extremism (one that would think has become amply evident after eight years of extremist Likudnik policies under Bush), but that this might hurt Israel. So basically he is saying we should have a full debate to consider various points of views of the Israeli political leadership (fair enough), but that this is the limit of the debate and benefits to America are not worth considering. Just look at the last line of the piece:

The people of Aipac and the Conference of Presidents are well meaning, and their work in strengthening the overall relationship between America and Israel has ensured them a place in the world to come. But what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel. Barack Obama and John McCain, the likely presidential nominees, are smart, analytical men who understand the manifold threats Israel faces 60 years after its founding. They should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.

But this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen.

Quite amazingly, he does not seem to have a concern for the American political process, where discussion of a crucial policy question being banned by small but powerful interests. All his attention is focused on whether it might be good for Israel. Does he ever think that, for the majority of Americans who don't particularly care about Israel or Palestine, the fact that debate is being silenced is the most dangerous and offensive thing of all? Or that US policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict has hurt American interests?

(And incidentally, let's not forget that Goldberg is among the most biased journalists who cover this conflict in the US, as Finkelstein has argued.)

Comments

[Dan Segalman]

First, I have found what little I have read so far of your web site very interesting.

Second, with respect to the Goldberg article - discussing the attitudes of CERTAIN American Jewish supporters of Israel - the article itself sets the context. Goldberg is asserting that their support for Israel would be more effective if it were less dogmatic.

Goldberg is speaking in a narrow context in that article. There is no need for him to discuss in that short column all the other issues you raise.

Best Wishes

[Juanjo]

Esteemed Arabist,

It seems that you missed two important points about Goldberg's article:

First, Goldberg makes clear (whether objectively correct or not) that he believes support for Israel is not harmful to America. Indeed, the very first paragraph that you posted from his article says as much.

Second, the article is primarily concerned not with how zionism effects America, but how certain forms of zionism effect the zionist movement as a whole. Specifically, Goldberg advocates for a much more progressive and mild form of zionism which is expressly anti-settlement. Thus your point that he is not taking American interests to heart is really beside the point.

In either case, I don't understand why you feel Goldberg is obligated to write this piece from a more American-centric point of view. He is, after all, Israeli and, more to the point, this is essentially an opinion piece...Could you explain that one? Or are you simply calling his article "un-american" or "unpatriotic?"

Un Saludo,

Juanjo

[arabist]

I am not calling him "un-American" but simply pointing out that his priorities are in the wrong order. Goldberg is Israeli-American, btw, not just Israeli. And I do find it shocking that he only cares about the impact on Israel when pro-Israel policies have been so damaging to the US, as well as the region, in recent years. Not to mention that his opinion that US support for Israel has not been damaging is obviously contradicted by his later statement that the israel question silences vital political debate in the presidential elections.

[jijo]

"pro-Israel policies have been so damaging to the US"

relative to our hideous war in Iraq? not so much I'd say.

[Juanjo]

Senor Arabist,

I have to say that I found this comment rather shocking:

"And I do find it shocking that he only cares about the impact on Israel when pro-Israel policies have been so damaging to the US,"

This is especially surprising considering you are allegedly of the Left. Why is Goldberg obligated to discuss the impact on America in an opinion piece which is not about America but about Zionism? Why is that shocking in the least?

You rarely if ever do that on your site, that is to say, link every topic discussed to American interests. Strange that you would apply such a strict standard to someone you loathe as much as Goldberg, particularly when you don't follow that standard yourself.

Cheers.

[arabist]

a) I am not leftist just because I am pro-Palestinian;
b) Goldberg's article is about America rather than Israel. It is about the American political process. The whole point is that American presidential candidates cannot be frank on the question of Israel policy.