Jim Lobe points out that “strong supporter of Israel” is too often used by the press as shorthand for “extreme right-wing views on Israel.” For instance, the Washington Post referred to the founders of “Freedom’s Watch” as “strong supporters of Israel.”
I don’t doubt that the group’s donors consider themselves “strong supporters of Israel”, but what precisely is meant by that? If the phrase means supporters of the government of Israel, then it is inaccurate, because the positions of Adelson and other Watch donors on such key questions as Jerusalem, the West Bank — indeed, any territorial compromise — even Annapolis and a two-state solution, are well to the right of the current Israeli government. In fact, Adelson, like most RJC heavyweights, are strong supporters of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party which, the last time I checked, constituted the government’s chief political opposition and is maneuvering to bring it down. So, if they oppose the current government of Israel, in what way are they “strong supporters of Israel?”
This kind of journalistic shorthand — associating neo-conservatives and their organizations like the RJC and Freedom’s Watch — with being ‘’pro-Israel’’ or “strong supporters of Israel” — is unfortunately pervasive in the mainstream media. It is not only inaccurate; it is also dangerous. It […] puts those individuals or organizations — particularly in the American Jewish community — that are very concerned about Israel but that believe that the neo-conservatives have actually undermined the country’s security in a kind of political limbo. After all, if Adelson, Freedom’s Watch, and the RJC are considered “pro-Israel” or “strong supporters of Israel,” what does that make Americans for Peace Now or the Israel Policy Forum, both of which consider themselves “pro-Israel” and “strong supporters of Israel” but also believe, contrary to hard-line neo-conservatives, that a two-state solution with major territorial compromises that include East Jerusalem are the only way to ensure Israel’s security and long-term survival?
This kind of lazy journalistic labeling has very real and very unfortunate political consequences.
I’d take issue with the “best interests at heart” phrase, which gets into motives. I do think it’s true, however, that calling right-wing policies “pro-Israel” implies that these policies are good for Israel, which is a partisan opinion that many would disagree with. The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.
This comment is not Israel-specific.
I do not see that “strong supporter of nation X” and “strong supporter of the current government of nation X” necessarily go together. I think it would be altogether possible and reasonable for a Frenchman to “love America” and be “pro-America” and think that the Bush administration was bad for America.
The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.
The mainstream media should find more neutral terms to use for a lot of things. But it’s not neutral, so it won’t.
I believe both of the positions described are “right wing,” though distinct. If I was writing the headline it would read ” ‘Strong supporter of Israel’ and ‘Pro-Israel’ shouldn’t mean Neoconservative ” or “shouldn’t mean Likudnik.”
And I’m well aware of people on the left whose radar is totally screwed up when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians – that any overture at peace is considered a “sellout by the Palestinians”.
The best thing for the Palestinians is for them to stop being used as a political football by repressive Arab states like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and homophobic and sexist theocracies like Iran, and tell other countries “Fuck y’all – we’re going to make our own peace with Israel…stop telling us the Israelis are the devil while exploiting us!”
I dont think the Palestinians are in a position to “sell out.”
I dont think the Palestinians are in a position to “sell out.”
What do you think would happen if the Palestinians actually stopped all attacks from Palestinian territories (both rocket attacks and killers crossing their borders). What do you think they could get for that?
I am sure we could endlessly debate it, but i think the history of recent cease-fires suggest that what Palestinians would get would be more of the same (increased restriction of movement and disruption of daily life through wall construction, road block, raids and settlement.)
This is because I don’t think “peace” or ending rocket attacks is actually the primary aim Israeli government policy; i think control of land and water and expulsion of undesirable people is.
This is not to say that I find the rocket attacks or suicide bombing to be useful tactics or desirable ones; I just think that analytical focus on them is a red herring that misunderstands the power relationship at play in the conflict.
IMHO at this point, after over 30 years of Israeli behavior under a variety of governments, ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘right-wing’ are indeed the same. Now, given a rather unlikely and highly radical reorganization of the Israeli system of government, that might not be. But only ‘might’.
Curiousgyrl: “Control of land and water and expulsion of undesirable people is” [Israel’s goal.]
Umm, yeah, right, that’s why SO MUCH of the territory (Golan/Jerusalem) has been annexed and placed under Israeli civil law over the past 40 years. Means the State of Israel itself regards 90% of the land as disputed and under belligerent occupation. Because you sure want to get stuck in anarchy while trying to give de facto and de jure control away (Oslo) and deny yourself de jure sovereignty, or even an explicit claim of de jure sovereignty, if your final goal is all of the land and none of the people. Makes perfect sense.