Jeffrey Goldberg, in his excellent memoir Prisoners, tells how he got pummeled by Irish kids, then read the famous novel of Israel’s liberation, Exodus, by Leon Uris, and wound up a soldier in the Israeli army, guarding a Palestinian prisoner whom he befriended. Indeed, this need to flash tough is so prevalent among Jews of a certain age (my age) that I’ve come to see it as a syndrome, which I’ve named after the macho hero of the Uris novel: Ari Ben Canaan Disorder, or ABCD.

Israel is a nation suffering from ABCD — and also surviving because of it. Charm is not a major part of the Israeli national character; a brusque, stubborn toughness, a fierce refusal to retreat against great odds, ensured that Israel would continue to exist when massed Arab armies tried to destroy it in 1948, 1967 — when Israel struck pre-emptively — and 1973. But over time, ABCD has distorted and limited Israel’s view of itself and the world.

Specifically Klein writes:

The most recent display of ABCD is not so much a matter of the Israeli commando attack on the not-so-peaceful “peace flotilla,” which inspired Helen Thomas’ odious remarks — although that operation was seriously seichel-deprived. It’s more the blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza that the flotilla was trying to break. There is reason to treat Hamas as an enemy of Israel; thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians attest to that. Israel has every right to prevent arms shipments from reaching Gaza. But the blockade isn’t really about arms. It’s an ABCD attempt to make life so unpleasant for average Gazans that they turn against Hamas. Of course, the exact opposite is happening: Hamas has turned the blockade against Israel. A non-ABCD response would be to turn the blockade on its head, to allow everything but arms to pass through. That would be the sort of wise, restrained response that Israel made the night it chose not to retaliate against Saddam Hussein’s Scuds and which doesn’t happen so much anymore.

So ABCD then, is to defend oneself. What’s astonishing is that Klein never bothers to consider what happens when Israel doesn’t practice ABCD.

There do happen to be a number of instances of Israel doing just the opposite.

In 2000 Israel withdrew all of its troops from southern Lebanon. In reaction, Hezbollah, instead of laying down its arms, took advantage of the opportunity to build up its presence in southern Lebanon and continue attacking Israel until 2006, when the situation became intolerable and Israel attacked. In 2005, Israel withdrew every last resident and soldier from Gaza. In reaction, Hezbollah, instead of laying down its arms, took advantage of the opportunity to build up its presence in Gaza and continue attacking Israel until late 2008, when the situation became intolerable and Israel launched operation Cast Lead.

So Klein faults Israel for fighting back, but he fails to consider the lesson of history: that if Israel doesn’t fight back it’s enemies will take the initiative and attack. Right now the blockade of Gaza isn’t so much an aggressive posture undertaken at the first sign of trouble, but a last resort undertaken when Israel lost its ability to defend itself under the existing conditions. In fact Israeli passivity in the face of aggression only invites more aggression. It’s not as Klein suggests that Israel spoils for a fight for the heck of it.

Klein also demonstates his ignorance when he takes on Michael Rubin. (via memeorandum)

Yesterday Rubin wrote about President Obama’s pledge to provide $400 million of aid to the PA:

Some back-of-the-napkin calculations:

1. There have been eight terrorist attacks against Israel since Obama’s inauguration, so Obama is paying President Abbas a modest sum of $50 million per attack.

2. The were 2,048 rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel in 2008, but let’s not hold that against President Obama since, obviously, to channel our commander-in-chief, that was President Bush’s fault. And during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli incursion into Gaza from January 1–18, 406 rockets were fired into Israel. Again, let’s not count these against Obama; he hadn’t taken his oath of office yet. Since Hamas’s third ceasefire, however, there have been 370 missiles fired from Gaza into Israel. So, if we want to discount terrorist attacks and just count missile attacks, then President Obama is rewarding Hamas to the tune of $1,080,000 for every rocket or mortar launched.

To paraphrase a slogan I learned in Quaker school: “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force Hamas has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”

In response Klein wrote:

What Rubin doesn’t mention, of course, is that the Palestinian Authority is, in effect, at war with Hamas–and that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been doing unprecedented work in creating a stable, secure environment on the West Bank, where there has been 8.5% GDP growth in the past year according to the World Bank…and where this $400 million will be spent. The Israeli government, minus its more extreme life forms, acknowledges that this is true–and has been helping the process by eliminating check points and other unnecessary accoutrements of occupation on the West Bank. The creation of a prosperous, well-educated Palestinian middle class is precisely what is needed to counter the terrorist excesses of Hamas–but Rubin, who seems a rather rabid puppy, is one of those people who looks at Palestinians and sees only terrorists. Very ugly stuff, this–especially the Muslim-tainted splashback on the President, who is clearly doing the right thing here.

Not that Rubin needs me to defend him, but even granted everything that Klein writes is true, there’s a lot that he doesn’t acknowledge. For example, it’s PM Netanyahu who’s making some of the concessions that allow the Palestinian government to expand that middle class. But still there are problems. Neither Abbas nor Fayyad – and though their moderation is overstated – has much of a constituency. Any relaxing of Israeli security concerns could be disastrous. But Rubin does get to the bottom of it here:

As for the West Bank, can Mr. Klein respond to studies which find correlation between aid to the Palestinian Authority and terror? Or address the incitement which still reigns supreme in the West Bank and official Palestinian media?

Frankly, even now, nothing is certain. Giving money to the PA is not certain to do good as Klein wants to believe. Experience, in fact, shows the opposite. But don’t expect Klein to apologize, he enjoys his ignorance. It allows him pretend that he knows what he’s talking about.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

It’s taken me decades to realize this. Most Israelis–especially those who live in Tel Aviv and environs–not only don’t see settler types, they also don’t see many Arabs. They live their lives, do their work, have fun at the beach. By contrast, when journos like me parachute in, we usually go to Jerusalem, where the government and a significant Arab population lives, and usually (in my case, at least,) combine it with a visit to the West Bank or Gaza. Most journalists based in Israel live in Jerusalem and spend lots of time in both communities. They are aware of the proliferation of settlements and they have experienced the outrageous conditions in the Palestinian territories.

Forget that Klein describes the far left wing Ha’aretz as “moderate liberal.” Here he focuses on perhaps Benn’s weakest point. The people in Tel Aviv aren’t concerned about “settlements?” Please! Tel Aviv is one of the most liberal places in Israel. My guess is that in Tel Aviv you have a lot more sympathy for President Obama’s stance on Israel than most cities in Israel. (And as far as the “outrageous conditions” in the Palestinian territories that he claims he is familiar with, what are they? Mansions?)

The point is that even those who normally would be sympathetic to American pressure on Israel see little sympathy from President Obama.

While I thought that Benn’s op-ed was excellent, I was troubled by one aspect of it. I think it’s that Benn wants to President Obama to sell Israelis on his vision of peace in the Middle East. In other words, Benn agrees with the substance of President Obama’s view, just not the salesmanship.

The problem is that President Obama’s views are pretty far from Israel’s mainstream. It’s a realization that past peace making didn’t work. As Barry Rubin describes:

Between 1948 and 1992, the Israeli consensus was that the PLO and most Arab states want to destroy Israel. When—or if–the day comes that they’re ready to negotiate seriously we’ll see what happens.

Then came the Oslo agreement and a huge shift. The governing view was that maybe the Palestinians and Arab states learned the cost of their intransigence enough to make peace possible. The left thought a deal could bring real peace; the right thought it was a trick leading to another stage of conflict on terms less favorable to Israel. But both expected a deal to materialize.

The year 2000, the Camp David failure, the Syrian and Palestinian rejection of generous offers, and Second Intifada destroyed illusions in Israel.

President Obama isn’t just doing a poor job of selling his vision to Israel, he’s selling an expired vision. Worse he doesn’t seem to realize it.

One of the things Obama needs to address is our growing conviction that in his arrogance he underestimates our intelligence. He preaches that we need to rethink our positions while demonstrating very little understanding of the complexities we’ve long since worked through; he assures us public bilateral agreements made a mere four years ago never happened; he seems incapable of distinguishing between settlements even when the Palestinians have already recognised such distinctions, and his position is empowering them to renounce positions they’ve already accepted.

One PS: Look at the comments to Klein’s column. They’re absolutely chilling. They reads like excerpts from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Do Klein’s fans bother him at all? Does the viciously anti-Israel (if not outright antisemitic) tone of nearly all comments – with little dissent – concern Klein at all? Or is the important thing to have sycophants who agree with his basic premise?

Yesterday I wrote about Benn’s column too.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Joe Klein is upset that “neo-cons” are daring to question the President.

Now, many of these neocons have been gunning for Obama from the start…and have been just twitching in anticipation of the chance to paint him anti-Israel or worse. Their tendency to slime their detractors with overwrought epithets–anti-semite is the old standby–has diminished whatever power that term once held. In this case, once again, they are standing athwart America’s best interests–and Israel’s: it’s about time that the U.S. starting calling Israel on its excesses. Clinton is right, for example: Israel’s strangle-hold on the Gaza crossings gave Hamas a rationale for its rocketing of innocent Israeli civilians. And furthermore, Israel’s steady accretion of settlements on Palestinian lands gives credibility to Palestinian extremists who believe that Israel has no interest in a truly viable two-state solution.

Of course most of this is typical anti-Israel boilerplate. The Israeli siege leads to the rocket attacks. Settlements give credibility to terrorists. If Klein were right, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have undermined Hamas and the withdrawal from southern Lebanon would have done the same to Hezbollah. Contrary to Klein’s beliefs, Hamas and Hezbollah were strengthened by those Israeli actions.

And does he really think that Israel’s siege is what leads to the rockets he ought to read Dan Gordon’s analysis. (h/t Elder of Ziyon.)

But if you notice, the post he links to in “twitching” is Jennifer Rubin’s Had they known. Rubin writes:

And as for those friends of Israel on the left who looked Obama in the eye and got a sense of his soul, do they join in on Marty Peretz’s mea culpa? Well, it does appear that Obama appointed someone ”who is quintessentially an insult to the patriotism of some [sic] many of his supporters.” Moreover, we have placed someone in a key national security role whose analysis was purchased by the House of Saud and whose contribution to Middle East discourse includes such gems as: “For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel’s American backers as against Israel itself.” (Remarks to the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, May 24, 2007)

The main focus of Rubin’s post, though, is Chas Freeman, former Saudi ambassador and recipient of Saudi largess who has been appointed to a top intelligence post. This isn’t sliming the President, it’s asking a serious question about one of his appointees. Rubin presses the point further with her conclusion:

Some enterprising White House reporter might start asking whether the president had any qualms about Freeman’s views and why his financial relationship with a foreign power shouldn’t raise grave concerns about Freeman’s independence and, in turn, the president’s judgment in selecting him.

So instead of whining about sliming, maybe Klein should be doing actual reporting.

There are a few other points of Klein’s that ought to be addressed.

I’d also ask you to go back to the beginning of Klein’s screed.

Over the past few weeks, the Obama Administration has been engaged in truly shocking behavior. It is letting Israel know when the U.S. disapproves of its actions, and appointing people to the government who have not been slavish devotees of the right-wing Likud line in the past. George W. Bush never did that!

So the problem he sees is when an American administration sees itself aligned too closely to Israel. If an administration is closely aligned with Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bother Klein at all.

Later on he addresses the administration’s shameful pandering at Durban II.

And as for conferences on racism, Israel’s supporters will have less credibility to complain about international forums where slogans like “zionism is racism” are bruted about if the anti-Arab bigot Avigdor Lieberman is included in the new Israeli government.

That anti-Israel Arab bigot, happens to believe that Palestinians ought to have a state, is willing to cede parts of pre-1967 Israel towards that end and that those Arabs who serve in the Israeli government ought to swear an oath of loyalty. (This is in response to those Arab Israel members of Knesset who quite openly sympathize with Israel’s enemies.)

The “zionism is racism” trope means that Israel is not a legitimate state. There’s no equivalence between the Arab attempts to rewrite history and delegitimize Israel and Avigdor Lieberman’s ascendancy. Unless, of course, Klein wishes to give credence to the charge.

I would even go so far as to argue that Lieberman’s approach towards the Palestinians is a lot more liberal than is the view of the “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas’s view is towards Israel. It would require a modicum of critical thinking to reach that conclusion. Klein is more interested in hurling invective – or sliming – those he disagrees with than actually dealing with the issue at hand.

In the past two weeks the Obama administration has acquiesced to anti-Israel, Holocaust denying resolutions at the Durban II planning session, pushed for $900 million in aid to go to Gaza with no way of assuring that it doesn’t go to Hamas and has now appointed an anti-Israel former diplomat who has strong ties to Saudi Arabia to a sensitive intelligence position. These are all serious breaches of American-Israeli alliance. Unless, one believes, as apparently Klein does, that most of the problems in the Middle East stem from Israel’s existence rather than from its enemies who are still denying the right to that existence.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.