So say fifteen Republican senators, writing to President Obama to encourage him to pick someone other than Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.
They go on to say that “The occupant of this critical office should be someone whose candidacy is neither controversial or divisive.”
This is amusing because Hagel as a nominee is really only controversial or divisive to these GOP senators and because the reasons for the controversy are of their own divising.
So … in addition to the option of withdrawing the Hagel nomination, another option would be for GOP senators to stop their grousing and simply vote for Hagel, since their former colleague is really only controversial or divisive because they now say he is. Honestly, if you really believe that it’s very important for near-unanimous voting on nominees for this position, then just vote for the nominee. Problem solved.
(Source: The New York Times)
| Tweet |  |
This is the conclusion to Rupert Cornwell’s lengthy piece in the Independent today, “So, just how powerful is the Israel lobby in the US?”
Cornwell’s conclusion is that the Israel Lobby is obviously incredibly powerful; his evidence is the Chuck Hagel fiasco that’s gone on for weeks now. Except his conclusion is that opposition from this incredibly powerful Israel Lobby won’t be “the only reason, or even the main reason” behind Hagel losing his confirmation fight.
And he’s right about that, even if it undermines the entire point of his piece. Opposition to Hagel comes from the Right in America, which has fixed on Israel and Iran as excuses to undermine Obama’s nomination of a former Republican senator who they believe consistently failed to toe the party line.
But that narrative doesn’t work for Cornwell so he grasps at straws instead:
There are those who claim that the lobby’s clout is vastly exaggerated, insisting that far from being a sinister body subverting US foreign policy in one of the world’s most unstable regions, it is pushing at an open door. Even without a lobby, the thesis runs, Americans would be overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. Which may be true, but misses the point.Power lies in the perception of power, and the Israel lobby, led by Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is perceived to have a heck of a lot of it. Fall foul of the Israel lobby, with its financial muscle and ability to put the word out, and, it is said, your political career may be doomed.
[…]
True or false? It’s impossible to say. What matters is the perception.
So, Cornwell’s claim is that the Israel Lobby is incredibly powerful in American politics because people believe that it is. It doesn’t matter whether it is or it isn’t; all that matters is that legislators think it is.
His remaining bit of evidence is that very few legislators are vocally pro-Palestinian. The only possible reason for this is the perception that a powerful Israel Lobby exists and that it punishes anyone who steps out of line; it is impossible that most legislators are pro-Israel based on their own beliefs or based on their understanding of the beliefs of their constituents. But even if that turned out to be the case, those beliefs would surely have been influenced by the Israel Lobby somehow.
This is like saying the Arab Lobby is incredibly weak and fails to impact our politics (despite the fact that it’s quite well-funded and really is trying its best) … not because that lobby is or isn’t actually powerful but because we think it’s not. But this is the same thing as saying that we’re the ones with the power, not this or that lobby. The Israel Lobby — or the Arab Lobby — isn’t actually doing much here; the power resides with the believers.
This isn’t a very striking conclusion to a piece that a lot of people will read as making some strong claims about the power of the Israel Lobby on American politics. All it’s really saying is that people think the Israel Lobby is powerful and so they act that way. Why do people think the Israel Lobby is so powerful? As far as Cornwell is concerned — in his piece about the Hagel confirmation process — it’s not because of the Hagel confirmation process, where opposition from the Israel Lobby didn’t play much of a role.
It’s just because he believes it’s very powerful.
| Tweet | |
| Tweet | |
That’s Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, speaking to American Jewish leaders in New York yesterday.
I can only assume this won’t dissuade the “serious people” who are tarring Hagel as an anti-Semite because he once said “the Jews,” and because of his heterodox views on dealing with Iran and on using diplomacy to try to solve problems.
More from me here.
| Tweet | |
Over on Facebook, my friend Scott Basinger digs deep into the ancient Israelite prophets to reply to my post: Chuck Hagel Anti-Israel Charge Is ‘Extremely Stupid,’ Nebraska Rabbi Says:
Breaking news: Senate GOP also labels the prophet Micah anti-semitic for his criticisms of Israel.
| Tweet | |
Chuck Hagel said Monday an accurate assessment of his record will demonstrate “unequivocal, total support for Israel”
Today begins the new Spring Semester for me and, like every year, I will be teaching a class on Israel and the Middle East.
It seems important to at least acknowledge the difficulty of teaching such a class at a time when it is a black mark against an American politician to even be thought of as holding less than unequivocal support for Israel.
It isn’t clear what Hagel’s statement even means, let alone how we ought to interpret it. Does he mean to say that he supports the policies of the current rightwing Israeli government? That he supports the Israelis when it comes to the peace process? That he generally likes Israelis and wants them to flourish? That he would never publicly disagree with anything that the Israeli government says or does?
My sense is that Hagel’s critics on the question of Israel and/or Jews would require every American politician to agree with the current rightwing Israeli government and never publicly disagree with anything the Israeli government says or does. It’s not clear why they desire this or why they think it’s good policy for the United States or for Israel … but that doesn’t seem to matter.
I’m no radical when it comes to Israel — my father was born there and many of my family members live there today; I wish its citizens well, I worry for them in times of strife, and I wouldn’t want to see the country or its citizens harmed in any way — but even a cursory glance at this blog makes clear that I am not unequivocal or total in my support of the Israeli government.
I don’t think that the current governing coalition is acting in the best interests of the citizenry; many of the policies pursued by the Netanyahu government seem incredibly problematic or counterproductive to me. I doubt that I’m the only one who feels this way and I suspect that a fair number of Israelis feel this way; in other words, Israelis are not unequivocal in their support for the current Israeli government.
Of course, no one is unequivocal in their support for any government. The critics of Chuck Hagel, for example, are openly and very vocally critical of their own government, and they’re well within their rights to act this way. I don’t demand uniformity in thinking about our government and its policies, just as I don’t demand it with regard to thinking about Israel.
So perhaps Hagel’s critics believe he opposes the idea of Israel or that he wants to use his position as Secretary of Defense to damage Israel in some existential way. That makes more sense than the criticism that he doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Benjamin Netanyahu — which doesn’t matter at all — but it’s also a charge that’s completely without proof. And that, perhaps, is why critics have resorted to intimating that he’s an anti-Semite based on the way that three of his former constituents in Nebraska felt when they met with him to ask that he toe the AIPAC line on some policy or other.
In the end, it’s incredibly frustrating that we can’t have a conversation about Israel that doesn’t begin with everyone expressing their complete and total support for the Netanyahu government and it’s sad that anything less than this level of support allows people to tar you as an anti-Semite.
| Tweet | |
NPR ran a story this afternoon about the Hagel nomination that featured Elliot Abrams, a neoconservative critic who says outright that Hagel is an anti-Semite: “He seems to have some kind of problem with Jews,” he says about three-quarters of the way through this short interview.
To make his case, he refers to a statement Hagel once made about the “Jewish lobby” and about how he was a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator. But, really, Abrams relies on the testimony of the Jewish community of Nebraska, of which I am a member.
He specifically refers to Hagel’s “hostility toward that community — their word not mine.”
In fact, in fewer than eight minutes, Abrams mentions the Nebraska Jewish community three times to hammer home that Hagel’s Jewish constituents are deeply distrustful of him.
Apart from the obvious fact that Jews in Nebraska are not a monolithic community that speaks with one voice, none of the allegations amount to anti-Semitism. That all of the allegations seem to be made by staunch members of AIPAC is particularly telling; by their lights, I’m certain to be just as much of an anti-Semite as Hagel.
I said it earlier today and I’ll say it again:
That Chuck Hagel doesn’t see eye-to-eye with some Jews in Nebraska and with the GOP more broadly on the question of America’s blank check relationship with Israel does not make him an anti-Semite.
Despite the fact that all of this has made me angry enough to write a series of blog posts about it, I want to be perfectly clear that I don’t have any skin in this game. It doesn’t matter to me whether Chuck Hagel or someone else is our next Secretary of Defense. Contrary to Abrams’ position in this NPR interview, the next Secretary will serve at the pleasure of President Obama; he won’t be cozying up to Iran or punching Netanyahu in the stomach just because he feels like it. I write all of this because it’s incredibly disturbing to see someone tarred with allegations of anti-Semitism by neoconservatives, Tea Partyers, and AIPAC when, in fact, the person in question simply isn’t toeing the AIPAC line on writing blank checks to the Likud party in Israel.
This isn’t how Cabinet-level positions should be decided, not if we have any sense left in our heads.
| Tweet | |
Apropos of my most recent post on Chuck Hagel’s relationship with Israel and with Jews in Nebraska:
“I thought we were done with this,” said Aryeh Azriel, the rabbi at Temple Israel in Omaha, Neb., where Hagel has been a longtime regular presence, in an interview Friday with The Huffington Post. “I though we were done already with the [childishness] of being Jewish where everyone who says something critical about Israel needs to be labeled an anti-Semite. I find this extremely stupid, and definitely not helpful.”
[…]
Azriel said that in numerous one-on-one meetings with Hagel over the years, as well as several appearances by the senator before Azriel’s congregation, he has emerged with a similar sense of Hagel’s personal attachment and support for Israel.
“We developed a very close relationship,” Azriel said. “I cannot tell you how many times we spent talking, with him wanting to know about my childhood in Israel, what it was like having to go to the basement in apartment building I lived with my parents to hide from bombings. He was deeply interested in my personal experiences.”
HT: John Vann.
| Tweet | |
It seems natural for me to wade into the swamp of accusations about Chuck Hagel’s feelings toward “the Jews,” given that I write a fair amount about anti-Semitism and because I’m a Jew living in Nebraska.
Still, I hesitated.
In no small part, my hesitation was due to a desire not to offend friends and also because I’m quite sure there’s a great deal about Hagel that I — as someone who only moved to Nebraska in August 2007 — simply don’t know.
Still, I have to say something because it’s been weighing on me. So here’s the thing that I’ll say:
All of the allegations against Hagel that I have seen have to do with his position on America’s relationship with Israel and there is a general mistake that people — including Jews — are prone to make, namely that one’s position on Israel equates with one’s position on Jews.
That this is a mistake should be clear and obvious: There are plenty of Christians who insist on American support for Israel not because they like or support Jews but because they understand the existence of Israel to have some important role to play in the end of the world. And there are plenty of people around the world who don’t particularly like the direction in which the government of Israel has been moving (with regard to the peace process, to immigrants, to the role of religion in the public sphere, and so on) who nonetheles very much like and support Jews.
But we will continue to make this mistake as long as it’s considered inappropriate to ask questions about the bellicosity of Israel’s current government, about the seeming lack of interest in peace with the Palestinians, or about the way in which the United States traditionally supports Israeli policies virtually without question.
That Chuck Hagel doesn’t see eye-to-eye with some Jews in Nebraska and with the GOP more broadly on the question of America’s blank check relationship with Israel does not make him an anti-Semite.
There might be other reasons to believe that he is, but I have not seen them. Since I have many friends and colleagues here in Nebraska who read this blog — including many Jews from Lincoln and Omaha — I’m very hopeful to start a conversation on this topic, to hear from you some of your experiences with Hagel over the years, and to learn whether or not my diagnosis of this issue — controversial though it might be — is accurate.
| Tweet | |
The jokes about dialectics pretty much write themselves. Here’s a sample:
wow. further proof that obama is trying to force the usa into embracing hegelian dialectics.
Don’t worry I’m sure the opposition will be sublimated into some greater Defense synthesis.
Which one of you let President Obama borrow your copy of Elements of the Philosophy of Right? It’s all starting to make some sense.
For my own part, I wonder when we’ll hear from Slavoj Žižek about whether or not Hegel is a good choice for Secretary of Defense; if I had to guess today, I’d say Žižek will side with the GOP and oppose Hegel … just as a goof.
(Source: seabedz)
| Tweet | |
My assumption is that GOP legislators would put up a terrible fight if President Obama were to nominate a Democrat as his new Secretary of Defense. It seems they will also put up a terrible fight if he nominates a Republican:
Republican lawmakers voiced staunch opposition Sunday to their former colleague Chuck Hagel, who is expected to be nominated next week to be President Barack Obama’s next secretary of defense.
[…]
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Hagel was a “controversial” choice by Obama. Graham didn’t rule out staging a filibuster to prevent a vote on Hagel’s nomination.
“Hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history,” Graham told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican freshman from Texas elected with strong backing from the tea party, said on “Fox News Sunday” that it was “very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support (Hagel’s) confirmation.”
“It’s interesting, the president seems bound and determined to proceed down this path despite the fact that Hagel’s record is very, very troubling on the nation of Israel,” Cruz said. “He has not been a friend to Israel. And in my view the United States should stand unshakably with Israel.”
In addition to his apparent antagonism toward Israel, which stems mostly from a comment he made in 2007, it seems that Hagel is also insufficiently hawkish with regard to Iran … which also counts against him when it comes to standing with Israel.
The only nominee for Secretary of Defense the GOP will accept is Benjamin Netanyahu.
| Tweet | |
