Agree or Disagree

[cye]

Paul Krugman: ‘Israeli government policies are a form of national suicide’
New York Times columnist and Nobel prize winner: criticism of Israel silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism.

By Haaretz



Get Haaretz on iPhone
Get Haaretz on Android
New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman believes that the policies of the current “narrow minded” Israeli government “are basically a gradual long-run form of national suicide.”

Writing in his New York Times blog “Conscience of a Liberal” about Peter Beinart’s controversial book “The Crisis of Zionism”, Krugman writes, “Like many liberal American Jews I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide – and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world.”


Krugman’s unusually harsh critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is sure to elicit howls of protest from Israeli spokespersons and American Jewish organizations – more so, perhaps, as they come on the eve of Israel’s Independence Day. It is also sure to further inflame the continuously deteriorating relationship between the Israeli government and the New York Times, considered by many to be the most important newspaper in the world. Last December, Netanyahu declined an offer by the Times’ to pen an article for the paper’s opinion pages, citing the newspaper’s alleged anti-Israel bias.

Krugman, probably the world’s leading economic columnist, won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics) in 2008 for his contributions to the theories of free trade. Born to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Krugman, 59,has written only rarely about Israel. At an economic conference in Tel Aviv in 2009 he had only high praise for Israel’s economic performance.

In another controversial comment in his blog, Krugman noted that he has refrained from commenting on Israel out of fear of the potential Jewish reaction. “I have other battles to fight,” he wrote, “and to say anything to that effect [that the Israeli government is leading to national suicide] is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.”

Writing of Peter Beinart, Krugman adds: “It’s only right to say something on behalf of Beinart, who has predictably run into that buzzsaw. As I said, a brave man, and he deserves better.”

 

[cye]

As someone who admires Israel I cannot help but agree that the current policies will force Israel to turn its back on democracy and become another fundamentally religious state that can only remain intact by denying a growing number of it's citizens full status.
I hope that the left returns to governing and radically alters Israel's direction.

 

[fuji]

Which policies in particular is Krugman criticizing? What you have posted is vague. I can't tell whether he's being critical of Netanyahu in particular, and the recent paucity of good faith measures, or whether he is being critical of Israel in general. It seems to me mostly to be the former but as Krugman hasn't said it's hard to tell.

Netanyahu is a hawk. He was elected as a reaction to thuggery by the Palestinians, but it isn't really the right answer. Despite the thuggery and terrorism, some sort of more constructive approach is required, and if that's what Krugman is saying, I agree with him. It would be more helpful if Israel had a leader who was willing to reach out a bit more than Netanyahu has done.

On the other hand, long before Netanyahu Israel had been forced to take fairly extreme security measures by Palestinian terrorists. Even dovish Israeli politicians will maintain the security perimeter between Israel and Gaza, until some other sort of guarantee can be achieved through negotiation. No Israeli leader is going to dissolve the state of Israel or put its entire citizenry at risk of terrorist attack by removing the wall, no matter how far left or how dovish. At most you'll get some agreement to move the wall to a less controversial place, or some other good faith measure, until there is more of a positive reaction from the Palestinians.

I suspect some people are going to read whatever they like into what Krugman has said, but he hasn't really been specific enough in what he's being critical of for me to vote. I might agree. I might disagree.

 

[onthebottom]

Poorly worded poll.....

I agree with Krugman here (and I almost never do, he's the smartest guy who's always wrong).

Israel is digging it's own grave, it's isolated itself to support from the US government and US Jewish funding, it's fighting peasants with tanks, it's building walls (no image issue there), it's going to lose the demographics battle at some point 20-30 years from now... and yet it plays for time when time is the last thing Israel has.

It will be interesting to see if the Jewish lobby hit's him hard on this....

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

This sounds like a bit of a warning.....

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/223537-netanyahu-says-iranian-sanctions-better-work-soon

Netanyahu says Iranian sanctions 'better work soon'


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that sanctions on Iran "better work soon" to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon.

But he refused to say whether he believed Mitt Romney would stake out a different foreign policy than President Barack Obama for the Middle East.

Netanyahu said that "the sanctions haven't worked… because nothing has been stopped" in the Iranian weapons program, and expressed skepticism that a mixture of diplomacy and economic restrictions would be enough to halt the Iranian regime.

"They're certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy, but so far they haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota. I mean I hope that changes, but so far I can tell you the centrifuges are spinning," Netanyahu said in an interview with CNN. "They were spinning before the talks began. Recently with Iran they were spinning during the talks. They're spinning as we speak. So if the sanctions are going to work they better work soon."

But Netanyahu insisted he wasn't an important player in American politics and sidestepped expressing his preference in the 2012 presidential election. Republicans have accused the Obama Administration of not asserting enough strength on the Iranian nuclear issue and upsetting Israel in calling for a return to the pre-1967 border with Palestine.

While Netanyahu insisted that he had "enough politics of my own," he did offer some lighthearted praise for Romney. Netanyahu and Romney met earlier in their respective careers while working for the Boston Consulting Group.

"Well, I didn't work with him, but when I entered the Boston Consulting Group-- 35 years ago-- something like that, he was-- well, I was a young recruit and he was-- already a star manager. He looked the same…. Isn’t that disturbing, I don't look the same. He looked the same," Netanyahu said.

But despite some badgering from CNN's Erin Burnett, that was all the prime minister would offer on the presidential candidates.

"I respect Mitt Romney as I respect Barack Obama, the president of the United States. And that's the end of the ranking-- and the-- questions that you will undoubtedly try again and again to-- draw me into," Netanyahu said.

The Israeli prime minister also discussed the conflict with Palestine and said he believed that he "could deliver a peace agreement" under the right circumstances.

"I think that peace would benefit us, as I think it would benefit the Palestinians, as it would benefit the entire region,"Netanyahu said. "I think that I could deliver a peace agreement. I could get the Israeli people to follow me if I believe that I have a serious partner on the other side willing to make the necessary compromises on the Palestinian side. Many compromises that people talk about are on the Israeli side. But there are necessary compromises on the Palestinian side. And, you know, peace is always a two way compromise."

 

[groggy]

This sounds like a bit of a warning.....

More of the same, really.
Meanwhile the head of the IDF had this to say:

IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-to-haaretz-i-do-not-believe-iran-will-decide-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.426389

Obama seems to actually be allowing negotiations with Iran to go on, so there is a possible chance for peace. Netanyahu is still pissed at the US and CBS for airing a negative report on Israel (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/60-minutes-israel-christians-netanyahu-kill-story_n_1449595.html), and is still trying to get the US to fight a war with Iran for them.

But right now it looks like the only way it could happen is if there is a repeat of the USS Liberty and rumours are suggesting that the US put an about to be decommissioned aircraft carrier in the gulf just for that reason.

So Enterprise, the first ever nuclear-powered carrier, parades through the Gulf with lots of gunpowder. Its “strike group 12” consists of: Carrier Air Wing 1; the guided-missile cruiser Vicksburg; and Destroyer Squadron 2, comprising guided-missile destroyers Nitze, Porter and James E. Williams. Enterprise is 1,123 feet long, weighs 94,000 tons, has 8 propulsion reactors, four 35-ton rudders, two gyms, a crew of at least 3,100, a television station and—no doubt demonstrating a free press— a daily paper.

The government knows its loss at sea would be cheaper than retirement, and if it can scare the country into yet another shooting war, our munitions makers and weapons merchants continue swimming in billions of tax dollars defending freedom and peace. In January, when Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta first said he would send Enterprise to the Gulf “to send a direct message to Iran,” the price of gas shot up and stayed up. You’d almost think the oil giants like war. The privatized DoD contractor corporations certainly do.

To get public opinion and NATO behind war on Iran, the war party needs to both sideline our Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan Syndromes and to flabbergast Russia, China and India. How better than to make it look as if Iran started it? Deployment of the Enterprise is hair-raising in the context of previous “false flag” provocations in the region. Like the Lavon Affair before it, Israel actually attacked the U.S. spy ship Liberty June 8, 1967 — using unmarked jet fighters and torpedoes — initially blaming Egypt in an attempt to draw Washington into the war. Israel later claimed it attacked what it thought was an Egyptian ship, yet no one was charged or disciplined. Ward Boston, the U.S. Navy Senior Counsel for the Court of Inquiry, says in a 2002 affidavit, “Both [lead investigator] Admiral [Isaac] Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 sailors and injured 172, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.”

Today the Enterprise has nothing to do but act like the greasiest sitting duck in history. No one should believe that Iran is dumb enough to take the bait.

http://www.progressive.org/provoking_an_incident_in_persian_gulf.html

 

[danmand]

Another article by a friend of Israel:


Can Israel survive?
The country's main lobbyists in the US may end up hastening a one-state solution, much to their own dismay.
Last Modified: 22 Apr 2012 14:00

Washington, DC - The occupation and the Iran nuclear issue have swallowed up Israel. Unless you live there, the only sense you get of that country is that it is obsessed with Iran, maintaining the occupation and exploiting the Holocaust to keep critics of its policies on the defensive. No wonder a billionaire-financed organisation has to pay for college students to visit Israel. Without the "subsidy", who would voluntarily go to a place that its advocates portray as a combination of war zone and Holocaust memorial?

I was lucky. I started going to Israel as a teenager. All my friends did, multiple times, and, if anyone paid our way, it was our parents. By now I have been there, on trips of varying lengths, some 35 times. So I know the country well, which means that I am not deceived by propagandists (both pro-Israel and anti-Israel) who dedicate themselves to describing a country that does not exist.

Because anti-Israel types have little, if any, influence on perceptions of Israel in the US, I'll focus on the ones who think of themselves as pro-Israel. Also, I would not expect those who are anti-Israel (and, by that, I do not mean those merely opposed to Israeli policies) to present a full picture of the place.

But one should expect that of Israel's advocates. However, few of them make any effort to present the real Israel. They are too busy selling Israel's policies towards Iran and in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem - and trying to silence policy-makers, journalists, academics and others, who do not march in lockstep behind Binyamin Netanyahu's policies.

Even on college campuses, pro-Israel students are trained to defend policies that, if carried out elsewhere, they would find indefensible and that would simply never fly on a US campus (or anywhere other than among the fringe of young Jews who are right-wingers).

That is why author Peter Beinart, who wants young Jewish people to care about Israel, is so worried about the ever growing number of young Jews who are either indifferent to or turned off by Israel. For them, Israel is no more, and no less, than the sum total of its policies.







In-depth coverage of a growing regional debate


A political battle

If I were running Israel's "hasbara" (public relations) efforts on campus or among people under 40, I'd use the slogan: "Israel, Yes: Occupation, No."

Unfortunately, that approach will never be adopted because the people involved in selling Israel care more about promoting the government's policies than the country itself. They are engaged in a political battle designed to garner support for Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies, not Israel. And, even more, they are attempting to advance their own influence and power.

They tend to be indifferent to the extraordinary happenstance of living at a time when there is a thriving Jewish country in which some seven million people speak a language that was dead for two millennia. They don't know much about its history; they don't speak its language; they don't know about its geography. They are people who do not enjoy eating an ice cream on the promenade along the beach in Tel Aviv one hundredth as much as pressuring some congressman to oppose humanitarian aid for Palestinians or any dealings with Iran.

You will see this approach on those quasi-official tours of Israel (including the trips for kids) that focus heavily on Jerusalem and very little, if at all, on Israel's largest metropolitan area, Tel Aviv. Yes, I know that Jerusalem is Israel's "capital" and spiritual centre. But it is the secular liberal beach town of Tel Aviv that shows Israel's most appealing face.




"Tel Aviv, in all its rich colour, is what Zionism is all about ... it is a Jewish city, built in the 20th century by and for Jews, adjacent to the wonderful, ancient Arab and now mixed, town of Jaffa."


Jerusalem is black and white. Jews here, Arabs there. Secular Jews here, religious Jews there. Jews don't go to East Jerusalem; Arabs don't go to West Jerusalem. Two cities divided by an invisible yet impenetrable wall. The tension in the air is palpable, and so is the fear.

Tel Aviv, in all its rich colour, is what Zionism is all about. It is a Jewish city, built in the 20th century by and for Jews, adjacent to the wonderful, ancient Arab and now mixed, town of Jaffa. It abuts the Mediterranean and is a place one goes to escape the Arab-Israeli conflict, unlike Jerusalem that is at the heart of it. Jerusalem - with its beautiful vistas built long after Jews left for the diaspora - would be a gorgeous and fascinating city even if the Jews had never returned to Palestine after 1,900 years. Tel Aviv exists because they did return.

With its beaches, bars, art galleries, gay neighbourhoods, theatres and high-fashion scene, TA is often criticised as a "bubble" because it provides the illusion that it is possible to escape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while in the heart of Israel. It is an illusion, but a good one, and the very opposite of the ugly and hopeless reality offered by the fanatics in Jerusalem.

I understand the contradiction here. I am saying that the best place in Israel is an all-Jewish city rather than a de facto binational city such as Jerusalem. But this is not a political prescription.

Two-state solution: critical

It is, however, what I believe. There is nothing wrong about a Jewish city, just as there is nothing wrong (and plenty right) about a Jewish country (which the 20th century taught us is essential to Jewish life).

But that equation does not apply beyond the 1967 borders. The settlements and outposts in the West Bank - "legal" and "illegal" - are essential only to prevent Palestinians from having their own state and to make their lives as difficult as possible. The hundreds of checkpoints that divide one Arab town from another and not from Israel proper exist primarily to punish Palestinians. That is the prime purpose of the settlement enterprise. As for Jerusalem, which is now divided by walls of hate, it will only become one city when it is shared with the Palestinians.

That is why the two-state solution is critical.

Unfortunately, its condition is also critical, which means that Israel's is too. It does not take a genius to know that time works against Israel. If the land is not divided, it is Israel that will lose (perhaps everything), while the Arabs (the overwhelming majority in the region and, within a few decades, the majority in Israel) will win. They can simply wait the Israelis out and watch the Zionist enterprise disappear. Without the two-state solution soon, the one-state solution is unstoppable. No, the "one state solution" does not refer to "pushing the Jews into the sea", it refers to Palestinians and Israelis living together in a single entity, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, under governance by the majority, probably Palestinian.

Those of us who want to preserve the Jewish state are determined to prevent the one-state solution coming about. In fact, those of us who fight against a status quo that will make one state inevitable are the ones truly entitled to claim the label "pro-Israel". Those others, the political apparatchiks, should find themselves a new label, like maybe "political player on Israel issues" because "pro-Israel" most decidedly does not apply.

Being pro-Israel means caring about Israel. It does not mean using it as an excuse for power brokering and suppressing dissident voices.

Israel is more than its most strident supporters in the US seem to understand. If they understood how much more, they might be less cavalier about advancing policies that would ultimately deliver doom.

 

[groggy]

And a quick look at this will show you why the two state solution is dead:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338/01/338-0128070354-palestine-territory.jpg

 

[cye]

Pardon for the poorly worded poll but I thought more of you would be familiar with Peter Beinart and his thesis. Essentially he argues that the erosion of democratic values that were key to the founding of Israel are being eroded by the determination to remain in areas where demographically Jews cannot form a majority.

http://us.macmillan.com/thecrisisofzionism/PeterBeinart

Israel's next great crisis may come not with the Palestinians or Iran but with young American Jews

A dramatic shift is taking place in Israel and America. In Israel, the deepening occupation of the West Bank is putting Israeli democracy at risk. In the United States, the refusal of major Jewish organizations to defend democracy in the Jewish state is alienating many young liberal Jews from Zionism itself. In the next generation, the liberal Zionist dream—the dream of a state that safeguards the Jewish people and cherishes democratic ideals—may die.

In The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinart lays out in chilling detail the looming danger to Israeli democracy and the American Jewish establishment's refusal to confront it. And he offers a fascinating, groundbreaking portrait of the two leaders at the center of the crisis: Barack Obama, America's first "Jewish president," a man steeped in the liberalism he learned from his many Jewish friends and mentors in Chicago; and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who considers liberalism the Jewish people's special curse. These two men embody fundamentally different visions not just of American and Israeli national interests but of the mission of the Jewish people itself.

Beinart concludes with provocative proposals for how the relationship between American Jews and Israel must change, and with an eloquent and moving appeal for American Jews to defend the dream of a democratic Jewish state before it is too late.
Connect with the Author
Peter Beinart
Official Sites

 

[fuji]

Israel has nuclear weapons. It is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The world is silent.

Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It may or may not want to develop nuclear weapons. Netanyahu is frothing at the mouth. US is hopping map.

The double standard and hypocrisy evident here are stupefying.

What's stupefying is you're ignorance of the differences between Israel and Iran, your attempt to put them into some equality is dumb.

Israel is a democracy. Iran is a dictatorship and a state sponsor of terror, a country that funds terrorists who engage in open warfare against other states.

You must really hate democracy and love terror.

 

[cye]

I was struck that Krugman who I respect tremendously was moved to defend Beinart .
If you read the reviews of his book the criticism has been savage and I think largely unfair. Israel in the end cannot force Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah to accept them but to occupy territory where to remain they will have to ignore the rights of the majority will ultimately cause the state to fail.

 

[onthebottom]

Israel has nuclear weapons. It is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The world is silent.

Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It may or may not want to develop nuclear weapons. Netanyahu is frothing at the mouth. US is hopping map.

The double standard and hypocrisy evident here are stupefying.

Iran is the world leader in sponsorship of terrorism.... and it has signed an agreement that it wouldn't develop nuclear weapons - if that's the case why do they need underground enrichment facilitates.....

OTB

 

[fuji]

I was struck that Krugman who I respect tremendously was moved to defend Beinart .
If you read the reviews of his book the criticism has been savage and I think largely unfair. Israel in the end cannot force Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah to accept them but to occupy territory where to remain they will have to ignore the rights of the majority will ultimately cause the state to fail.

The settlement should stop, but unless Hamas agrees to peace there are few alternatives to another sixty years of occupation. However Israel should stop the settlements to end the perception that it's a land grab rather than a security issue.

Go back to something close to the old borders, adjusted for common sense, then seal it shut and let nothing in or out.

 

[basketcase]

Another article by a friend of Israel:
...

Would it kill you to include a source or are you pretending this is your work?

 

[onthebottom]

The settlement should stop, but unless Hamas agrees to peace there are few alternatives to another sixty years of occupation. However Israel should stop the settlements to end the perception that it's a land grab rather than a security issue.

Go back to something close to the old borders, adjusted for common sense, then seal it shut and let nothing in or out.

What does Israel do when Jews are the minority?

 

[danmand]

Would it kill you to include a source or are you pretending this is your work?

MJ Rosenberg
MJ Rosenberg is a senior foreign policy fellow at the Media Matters Action Network.

 

[groggy]

What does Israel do when Jews are the minority?

Some say its already happened.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=196877

Which just makes Netanyahu's policies look more suicidal. Anybody who looked at the map linked above has to realize that there is pretty much zero chance of a two state solution being worked out, its way beyond that. Netanyahu missed that boat in his drive to claim all of historic Palestine, now he's pretty much stuck.

 

[fuji]

What does Israel do when Jews are the minority?

Hopefully remain a democracy. If that happens it will be with an Arab population that has been living under democratic rules for several generations.

This is radically different than the solution haters like Groggy are hoping for, which is a violent and spiteful destruction of the Jewish state at the hands of theocratic minded Arabs now living in Gaza and the West Bank who have shown only passing interest in democracy. For example, Gaza had a democracy, but opted to elect terrorists who dispensed with democracy instead.

 

[WoodPeckr]

I agree with Krugman here (and I almost never do, he's the smartest guy who's always wrong).

Coming from YOU the guy who deluded Dubya was delivering real economic performance.....when Dubya was really taking the USA economy into the shitter!!!
NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!....:eyebrows:

 

[groggy]

Hopefully remain a democracy. If that happens it will be with an Arab population that has been living under democratic rules for several generations.

This is radically different than the solution haters like Groggy are hoping for, which is a violent and spiteful destruction of the Jewish state at the hands of theocratic minded Arabs now living in Gaza and the West Bank who have shown only passing interest in democracy. For example, Gaza had a democracy, but opted to elect terrorists who dispensed with democracy instead.

I'd say its the opposite.
You seem to be arguing that Israel should continue its violent and spiteful destruction of Palestine at the hands of a theocratic Jewish state, while most others hope that a one state solution with equal rights for all can be accomplished through the new non-violent movement coming out of Gaza and the West Bank.
You are the equivalent of Col Shalom Eisner randomly hitting non-violent protesters in the face with their gun.