There’s a bizarre controversy brewing over the fact that New York Times Middle East reporter Ethan Bronner’s son has decided to volunteer for the Israeli military. Anti-Israel activists are arguing that this means that Bronner will be tempted to bias his reporting in favor of Israel and the IDF, rendering his reporting non-objective, or at least suspect. The Times’s public editor agrees with Bronner’s critics, but the Times editor-in-chief is defending Bronner.
I say that this is bizarre because I think friends of Israel would love to see media outlets adopt the standard proposed by Bronner’s critics, so long as it applies to both sides. If the fact that Bronner’s son is serving in the Israeli military means that Bronner can’t be permitted to report on Israel and the territories, then Western media outlets should henceforth be banned from hiring Palestinian stringers who are responsible for doing much of the “on-the-ground” reporting in the West Bank and Gaza. After all, if an American whose son joins the Israeli military as a non-citizen is too tied to one side to report the news, surely actual Palestinian citizens–many of whom no doubt have close friends and relatives affiliated with Hamas or the Palestinian Authority–are even more suspect. It’s no secret that much of the hostile reporting against Israel in the Western media originates from work done by these stringers, both “journalists” and photographers.
For that matter, I assume we can expect Bronner’s critics (and Western media outlets) to no longer rely on reports from Human Rights Watch and other anti-Israel NGOs. If Bronner’s objectivity is in question because he might be biased in favor of Israel, what of “factual” NGO reports commissioned by individuals who are blatantly hostile to Israel? What about, for example, the likes of HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson, who lobbied in the U.N. against Israel and for the Palestinians during the Second Intifada, just before she joined HRW?
I could go on, but the point is that if the Western media is going to start seriously ferreting out biases and potential biases in how it reports on Israel, I don’t think Bronner’s critics would like the result.
UPDATE: Of course, Bronner’s critics likely expected the Times to keep Bronner on his Middle East beat, but hope that by stirring this controversy, Bronner will feel the need to bend over backwards to report the Palestinian side of the conflict, to show that he is “objective”. They may be right.
ArthurKirkland says:
Thank goodness some people are working to counteract anti-Israel bias in the hope that someday, some way, Israel might — for just a moment, at least — get a fair shake in the United States.
Special shout out to Sarah Palin, who reportedly wears an Israeli flag pin to show fellow patriots what a Great American she is.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:54 pmorca says:
Israel has been getting billions of American taxpayer dollars a year since the Carter admin.
That’s not a fair shake?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:03 pmewquired says:
Bill Keller touches on the major problem with conflict-of-interest rules, often the very thing which makes one best qualified to judge an issue is involvement which creates the possibility of conflict-of-interest. Very few people are willing to become deeply informed on issues which don’t interest them, and when they have “a dog in this fight” they are more likely to become knowledgeable on the issue. While I like the idea of disqualifying people from all sides based upon the Bronner Standard, it isn’t workable because quite simply if everyone with an interest in the issue is disqualified from reporting on it the result will be less coverage and what little coverage there is will be superficial.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:14 pmShelby says:
if the Western media is going to start seriously ferreting out biases and potential biases in how it reports on Israel
Of course, this is not at all what Bronner’s critics desire. They simply want to silence someone who’s not on their side, and this is a convenient excuse. When a parallel situation comes up that would disfavor Israel’s enemies, it will be utterly ignored.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:16 pmMalvolio says:
That wooshing noise is... never mind.
Aurthur’s snark is a variation of a standard anti-Zionist complaint that we pro-Zionists hear as “Why is it that a faithful ally of the US is often treated like a faithful ally, even though it’s full of Joooos?”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:19 pmAF says:
After all, if an American whose son joins the Israeli military as a non-citizen is too tied to one side to report the news, surely actual Palestinian citizens-many of whom no doubt have close friends and relatives affiliated with Hamas or the Palestinian Authority-are even more suspect.
Seems the apt comparison would be someone with a son who’s a Palestinian militant. Don’t think this can be assumed based on Palestinian citizenship.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:22 pmSteve says:
They simply want to silence someone who’s not on their side, and this is a convenient excuse.
If, in fact, Bronner is “not on their side,” that’s a good reason for him to be silenced, since a journalist isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s side.
I don’t see anything disqualifying about Bronner’s relationship with the Israeli military. I think a smart editor would perhaps be more attentive to the possibility of bias in his written work, but I’d expect that a good journalist could and would put this sort of thing aside. DB’s point is well-taken here (at least up until he starts grinding the HRW ax).
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:27 pmArthurKirkland says:
If you live in the United States, have you tried switching to pro-American?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:38 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
One wonders whether these activists think that journalists whose children are serving in the U.S. military should not be allowed to cover American wars.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:39 pmorca says:
On January 23 of this year, Ethan Bronner filed a report on the Goldstone report that quoted Binyamin Netanyahu, two Israeli generals, an Israeli professor, an anonymous Israel military officer and “Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem”...and not a single Palestinian.
Sounds like his critics have a point.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:45 pmArthurKirkland says:
Should the New York Times’ bureau chief be overseeing coverage of an issue regarding which a family member has taken up arms for either side (I see no legitimate distinction between fighting for or against Israel in this context)?
I do not, but I readily discount the opinion of anyone whose answer depends upon which foreign power that family member is ready to kill for.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:49 pmArthurKirkland says:
“I do not know” should replace “I do not” in the preceding message.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:59 pmMalvolio says:
Someone said that marriage is based on the idea that once you find a beer you like, you should quit your job and go work at the brewery. Apparently, Arthur thinks patriotism works the same way, that loving one’s own country means despising, or at least disdaining, all others.
Certainly it’s popular in certain quarters to say, “If the US would just stop supporting Israel, the terrorists would leave us alone.” Even ignoring the basic craven nature of the argument, I can’t help thinking: sure, that’s what they said about the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:02 pmArthurKirkland says:
Has Mr. Bronner’s son renounced United States citizenship by enlisting in a foreign army? Military service on behalf of another country — which could mean engaging in combat against United States troops — seems incompatible with U.S. citizenship.
The more I think about this, the more complicated the situation appears for the Bronner family and the newspaper.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:06 pmTCO says:
Why does Bonner’s son not serve in our military?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:10 pmSteve says:
Apparently, Arthur thinks patriotism works the same way, that loving one’s own country means despising, or at least disdaining, all others.
I don’t think declining to display a foreign country’s flag equates to “despising or disdaining” it. Even when John McCain made that silly statement that we are all Georgians now, he didn’t start going around waving a Georgian flag. I guess the late Tom Lantos must have disdained Israel because, unlike Sarah Palin, he didn’t go around wearing an Israeli flag pin.
I’m plenty Zionist (or what you strangely call “pro-Zionist”) but I still find it weird for an American politician to go around displaying the flag of a foreign country. But that’s the weird state of GOP politics when it comes to Israel, I guess.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:18 pmYankev says:
Ah, so one cannot be both. Thank you for straightening me out on that.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:22 pmArthurKirkland says:
That would have been a good question even when our commander-in-chief was sending soldiers on a fool’s errand by invading the wrong country. With that complication removed, it is difficult to imagine a good answer.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:26 pmDavid Bernstein says:
It’s a bit weird, but it’s easy enough to imagine American politicians displaying the Hungarian flag in 1956 or the Czech flag in ’68, or the British flag in 1940, no? If one thinks that Israel is in the forefront of a Western confrontation with the forces of global barbarism, as many on the right do,it makes perfect sense.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:27 pmArthurKirkland says:
When American agents are pursuing Israelis for spying on the United States, which side are we to root for?
This must be very confusing for some people.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:29 pmDavid Bernstein says:
You don’t have a very good imagination. I can think of several good answers:
(1) He has lived in Israel for a while with his dad, and he wants to give back to the country where he has been living/has been educated.
(2) He has lots of Israeli friends who are serving in the military, and wants to share the experience.
(3) He is thinking of moving to Israel after college, and wants a strong taste of Israeli life before he decides, or thinks it would be a big detriment to his success as an Israeli if he didn’t have a military background.
(4) He also wants to be journalist focusing on Middle East issues, and thinks this would be excellent background.
(5) To piss off his father, who is on the dovish side of things, from what I can tell.
(6) He wants military experience for whatever reason, is religiously observant, and knows it would be a lot easier to do be accommodated in the Israeli military.
I can likely think of more, but then I have a good imagination.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Kirkland, you are pushing it...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:32 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Sounds like you’re either dishonest or didn’t read the piece. He did not “file a report on the Goldstone report” that day; that would have been odd, since the Goldstone report had been released four months earlier. He filed a report on Israel preparing a response to the Goldstone report.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:41 pmJeff Hall says:
Quite possibly they do not know anyone who serves in the US Military, or whose son serves in the US Military. That possibility might just never have occurred to them.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:44 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
No. This has been yet another installment of SASQ (“Simple answers to stupid questions.”)
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:44 pmJeff Hall says:
What are you talking about? You’ve gotten him to admit that Jews are people! Score one point for tolerance and humanity.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:46 pmSteve says:
My ongoing beef with DB’s moderation is not that he calls out people like ArthurKirkland for “pushing it” (AK, in this thread, is indeed pushing it), but that he never seems to have so much as an unkind word for comments like malvolio’s 1:19pm or Jeff Hall’s 2:46pm, which are way over the top.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:50 pmArthurKirkland says:
What made it a stupid question? Five minutes of research suggests the answer was “yes” for many years and is “probably not” today; the change apparently derived from a Supreme Court decision involving voting in a foreign election.
I guess this is a stupid question, too: Were the younger Bronner ordered to engage in a military operation to which the United States objected, or to engage in a military operation against a country with which the United States is at peace (or with which the United States is allied), or to engage in a military operation supporting espionage against the United States, what should he, as a United States citizen, do?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:52 pmorca says:
Seeing as Bronner found room to quote six Israelis on the topic of possible war crimes by committed Israel in Gaza, don’t you think it would be nice for him to quote a single Gazan on the topic?
Bronner is the Times’ Middle East correspondent, not its Israel correspondent...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:54 pmJT says:
propose and pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting dual citizenship?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:04 pmChristopher Cooke says:
I agree that Bonner can continue to report, but what if he were reporting on a military action undertaken by his son –not exclusively by him, just an Israeli military action in which Bonner’s son is one of the soldiers? should that disqualify him? I suppose he could write a piece from the perspective of a father (if disclosed) but I would not assign him to write an “objective” piece, e.g., who started the conflict, whether the Israelis are “responding” to continuing aggression or seizing upon a slight provocation to change the facts on the ground, etc.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:10 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I don’t think that’s unreasonable, but only if the same standard is applied to Palestinian “stringers.”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:16 pmDavid Bernstein says:
So if someone punches kid A in the nose, and kid B punches back, kid B is just as blameworth as kid A? If Kirkland would stay in the bounds of polite discourse, he wouldn’t invite impolite responses.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:18 pmegd says:
Have you?
I was under the assumption that liberals were against revoking citizenship for foreign combatants. What brought about the sudden change?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:23 pmSteve says:
Were the younger Bronner ordered to engage in a military operation to which the United States objected, or to engage in a military operation against a country with which the United States is at peace (or with which the United States is allied), or to engage in a military operation supporting espionage against the United States, what should he, as a United States citizen, do?
It is obviously treasonous for a U.S. citizen to take up arms against the U.S., or to engage in espionage against the U.S. on behalf of a foreign country. I don’t think there is any prohibition against taking up arms against a U.S. ally unless a specific law gets passed to that effect (as I believe we have done in the past with certain foreign conflicts).
My intuition is that I don’t think any of this should matter unless and until an actual conflict arises. If Israel were to declare war on the U.S. (probably not gonna happen!) I think our expectation of what a U.S. citizen in the Israeli military ought to do would be obvious.
There are many thousands of non-citizens in the U.S. military, by the way. I don’t know what happens if we ever declare war on their country of citizenship, but I’m guessing we would gladly send them on their way rather than depend on their loyalty. The answer is different for naturalized citizens, who are in fact expected to take up arms against their former country if necessary, but that’s an incident of the oath of citizenship and shouldn’t apply to non-citizens, I think.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:23 pmArthurKirkland says:
For the record, I do not know whether the conduct of Mr. Bronner’s son requires or even inclines a bureau change for Mr. Bronner. The issues are complex.
A family member (and, apparently, United States citizen) taking up arms for a foreign country (whether Israel, the Palestinians, the French or the Pakistanis) is a serious problem for a journalist responsible for overseeing coverage of a relevant conflict. I see no easy answer.
It appears more information would be helpful. What if the son enlisted to aggravate his father? What if the father dislikes the son? What if the father pressed the son to take up arms for a foreign country? Has the newspaper questioned the father’s neutrality before? Is there a normal rotation among bureau chiefs, and when would a change naturally occur? Did the father volunteer this information to his employer? Is the father’s work exceptional or fungible?
I see no easy or obvious answer, and additional information would probably be unlikely to change that.
Would the situation differ if the son had joined the forces of the Jordanians, or Egyptians, or Palestinians, or Saudis, or Syrians, or Lebanese?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:26 pmSteve says:
So if someone punches kid A in the nose, and kid B punches back, kid B is just as blameworth as kid A?
My experience is that people who disagree with you on the Israel posts are routinely smeared as anti-semitic in the comments and you never have anything to say about it.
AK may have deserved a rhetorical punch in the nose but I don’t think he deserved to be called anti-semitic.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:26 pmAF says:
I don’t think that’s unreasonable, but only if the same standard is applied to Palestinian “stringers.”
I agree that the same standard should be used for Palestinians — the standard being whether they have children or perhaps spouses (not “close friends” or “relatives”) who have taken up arms (not merely “affiliated with” the PA). If it had been Bronner’s cousin who had signed up for the IDF, I seriously doubt there would have been an outcry.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:27 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Can the state of Alabama operate segregated schools? Five minutes of research suggests the answer was “yes” for many years and is “probably not” today.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:35 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Why would having a son in the IDF call a reporters’ objectivity into question more than the reporter himself being a citizen of the Palestinin territories, or having a spouse who works for a Hamas-affiliated t.v. station?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:37 pmAF says:
Why would having a son in the IDF call a reporters’ objectivity into question more than the reporter himself being a citizen of the Palestinin territories, or having a spouse who works for a Hamas-affiliated t.v. station?
I don’t understand the question about a Palestinian citizen. Is the distinction between civilians and combatants really irrelevant to you?
Interestingly, if Bronner’s son were in the IDF by virtue of being an Israeli citizen, that would, if anything, be less indicative of bias, given that all Israelis serve in the military, whereas few if any Americans choose to serve in the Israeli military unless they are right wing.
I agree with you on the Hamas-affiliated spouse.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:47 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I don’t see any particular reason to believe that a reporter having a son who is a member of the armed forces of a nation would make you less “biased” than if the reporter was actually himself a citizen of that nation, much less if his spouse or son worked for the government of that nation.
Two problems here. I don’t think it’s true that Americans who serve in the IDF are necessarily “right-wing,” some of the most idealistic American zionist types I’ve met are quite left-wing. Second, on what basis do you assume that if Bronner’s son is “right-wing” that would make Bronner “biased,” or for that matter, that “not right-wing” is the objective standard, but “right-wing” equals biased? I’d say someone who has strong right-wing opinions is biased, but so is someone who has strong left-wing opinions, or,for that matter, strong moderate opinions.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:01 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Well, most of his posts were just uncalled-for snark (although, come to think of it, that’s not really limited to this thread), but his 1:38 PM post seemed a lot like the old anti-Semitic charge of “dual loyalty” to me.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:02 pmBob from Ohio says:
Why not? 999 of 1000 people who speak with the kind of anti-Israel venom he is displaying here are Jew haters. Why is he the exception?
We see his hatred of religious believers, especially Christains, nearly every day. Is it so surprising that he might hate Jews too?
His 1:38 comment is deserving of all possible scorn.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:19 pmAF says:
on what basis do you assume that if Bronner’s son is “right-wing” that would make Bronner “biased,” or for that matter, that “not right-wing” is the objective standard, but “right-wing” equals biased?
That’s not what I said. I said that an American joining the IDF is likely to have a particular political point of view (right-wing on Israel) whereas an Israeli in the IDF is just an Israeli.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:20 pmArthurKirkland says:
I recognize that the issue of Israel resembles that of abortion or religion or Cuba for many people. It generates intense positions that seem to be influenced by broader themes, to the point at which some participants believe some points of debate are entirely off limits.
Some Americans see Israel as an unparalleled ally of the United States, to the point of possessing identical interests. Others see it as a belligerent, expensive parasite unworthy of special sympathy among the world’s troubled nations. Most people are between those extremes. But regardless of its position along any continuum, Israel is not the United States. Its interests at times oppose those of the United States. It spies on the United States, and takes actions that disadvantage or displease the United States. Regardless of the current relationship, allegiances change over months, years, decades or centuries (Iran-Iraq; Noriega; Japan; Germany; the United Kingdom).
I think the sight of any American politician — particularly one who so loudly champions nuance-free patriotism — wearing another country’s flag, or displaying that flag prominently in her government office, on anything other than a special occasion is creepy. That such a politician is obviously winking toward another military expedition of dubious value to the United States (Iran) while wearing the pin makes it even more curious.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:38 pmArthurKirkland says:
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:43 pmNowMDJD says:
Sounds like this article, written from Israel (not from Gaza or anyowhere else), expresses a wide range of Israeli viewpoints, including that of a representative of a pro-Goldstone organization.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:48 pmArthurKirkland says:
If I understand this correctly, people who suspect every Muslim’s loyalty to the United States are suddenly comfortable when a United States citizen swears military allegiance to a foreign power involved in complicated and bloodly conflict affecting American interests?
It would have been a interesting research study to have observed what, if anything, would have been posted had Mr. Bronner’s son enlisted for Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or another Middle Eastern interest.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:51 pmNowMDJD says:
What is the “right-wing” position on Israel? Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul would loathe the idea of Americans serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. So do various people on the Left. Don’t most Americans throughout the political spectrum generally sympathize with Israel?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:55 pmDavid Bernstein says:
But you prefaced that by saying “Interestingly, if Bronner’s son were in the IDF by virtue of being an Israeli citizen, that would, if anything, be less indicative of bias, given that all Israelis serve in the military.” So I’m still not following why having an Israeli citizen son who had whatever opinions the son might have, left, center, right, or otherwise (and just about all Israelis have strong opinions), would be less indicative of the father’s bias than having an American son with “right-wing” opinions.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:56 pmNowMDJD says:
Did Ethan Bronner swear allegiance to a foreign power?
This isn’t a son, but this example shows that close relatives can have strong disagreements leading to one fighting against the other.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:58 pmArthurKirkland says:
Anti-Israeli venom? You are seeing spectres. I do not share the blinded-by-ideology positions that some Americans on a particular edge of the political spectrum demonstrate concerning Cuba, Israel, Iran or a few other countries, but that doesn’t support a charge of “venom.”
I do not hate Israelis. But my concern for them is not grounded in religious dogma or warmongering right-wing ideology, so I propose offering American citizenship, and a start toward a better life (away from the deadly and unsustainable trajectory that is Israel under foreseeable circumstances) in west Texas or West Virginia, to every Israeli.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:00 pmNowMDJD says:
It’s heartwarming tht you are offering (not that it is yours to offer) six million Israelis a chance to go into exile from the country in which most of them is born, to have to learn to speak another language, to abandon their cultural patterns and habits, and to live as a minority in a new country. How sensitive of you.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:04 pmAF says:
So I’m still not following why having an Israeli citizen son who had whatever opinions the son might have, left, center, right, or otherwise (and just about all Israelis have strong opinions), would be less indicative of the father’s bias than having an American son with “right-wing” opinions.
Because the Israeli son is not in the military by choice. Thus, he is less likely to be an idealogue than the American son who chooses to sign up for the IDF.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:08 pmSteve says:
999 of 1000 people who speak with the kind of anti-Israel venom he is displaying here are Jew haters.
Another example of what you can say without repercussion in DB’s comment section. I wouldn’t care if the moderation were simply hands-off all around, but veterans of DB’s Israel threads know better.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:09 pmGrigor says:
For what it is worth, this post at NRO’s Media Blog states, without attribution, that Bronner’s son is in the IDF by virtue of Israeli citizenship, not choice.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:31 pmorca says:
The full spectrum of Middle Eastern opinion from A to B, eh?
Ethan Bronner is the Times’ Middle East correspondent.
Yemen is in the Middle East.
Not a peep from Bronner on (or from) that country since the failed Christmas Day airline bombing. An insightful report on Israeli cinema from him, though!
Heckuva job, Bronnie...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:34 pmAlanDownunder says:
“He did it too, miss” is so pre-school.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:44 pmSteve says:
Ethan Bronner is the Times’ Middle East correspondent.
Bronner is the Jersualem bureau chief. I think “Middle East correspondent” is a title you made up for him.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:11 pmRPT says:
Full disclosure would seem to be enough, just as with other commentators/candidates/lobbyists like Richard Wolffe, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and the many retired military and so on. Bronner shouldn’t be deprived of his position.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:00 pmArthurKirkland says:
It seems preferable to the alternatives. For example, what would happen to Israel were Americans to tire of supporting Israel’s current circumstances with untold billions of dollars, blood and the wearing of strategic handcuffs? Israel’s current trajectory is uncertain at best, and seems unsustainable over the long term. No matter how nice a house might be, if it is located in a known flood plain, wildfire area or earthquake zone, moving to a new house seems worthy of consideration, particularly if you aren’t able to support your lifestyle in that home without a bailout even before the flood, fire or quake hits.
I find it morally questionable for people to advocate propping up Israel, in its current hazardous circumstances, for religious or strategic reasons.
And any concern about Israeli immigrants being an oppressed “minority” in west Texas or West Virginia seems misplaced. They’d be running either place soon after arrival.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:02 pm1040 says:
I believe DB would consider that phrase a redundancy.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:29 pm1040 says:
I think the answer to your latter question is yes.
Anyways, I really liked the update to his post, especially his preemptive invocation of the vast left-wing conspiracy to preempt the complaints about the vast right-wing conspiracy — complaints, which, of course, DB finds silly and problematic.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:33 pm1040 says:
Is there an equivalent to Godwin’s law for a ridiculous Chamberlain analogy?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:36 pm1040 says:
I don’t carry water for Arthur Kirkland, but I’d be grateful if you could provide some color around what statements of his are testing the limits of polite discourse. Thank you.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:39 pmArthurKirkland says:
He should be reporting all sides, and should not need to bend over backward to report any side.
Which brings back my original point: The argument that Israel doesn’t get a fair shake in and from the United States is a rare and strange one.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:42 pmorca says:
Ooops, my bad.
You’re right and I am wrong.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:55 pmBob from Ohio says:
The Germans and the South Africans resettled undesirable populations too, AK.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:41 pmNowMDJD says:
1. The word “oppressed” comes from you, not me. There are, at a minimum, unpleasant aspects to being a member of a minority, no matter what.
2. Will you allow them to move out of West Virginia? Or are you afraid they will also be running the place you live if you don’t build a fence around the places you want to put them?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:42 pmChristopher Cooke says:
I think I agree with DB’s position. His view is that a standard should be applied to everyone fairly and uniformly, and not just to one side.
Here is my simple-minded analysis: if my daughter were fighting in a war for one side, I don’t think I would be able to be fair and objective to the other side, and I wouldn’t expect any other caring parent to be able to behave differently. So, I would not assign myself as a reporter to cover such a conflict or any other parent in my situation, except to write some sort of “human interest” piece (a parent’s view).
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:03 pmArthurKirkland says:
Why would you consider the Israelis undesirable? I believe this would be a rescue mission designed to benefit worthy persons in distress, and that the new Americans would better two backward portions of the United States. Win-win-win.
This would resemble the resettlement of the residents of Centralia. The residents of Israel are in great danger, and guarding against that danger is extremely expensive and reliably ineffective; the Israelis can’t protect themselves without enormous subsidy from American taxpayers, and even if billions are expended, the danger remains. Neither a diplomatic nor military solution has been found for decades, and no reasonable prospect for a solution is in sight (or, perhaps, reasoned imagination).
The American taxpayers would benefit greatly (just in case anyone who frequents this blog favors small government or libertarianism). The Israeli citizens would benefit greatly.
There may be a better proposal, but it does not appear to have emerged despite decades of intensive diplomacy and military action. Anyone with a better idea should step up to the batter’s box. But to try to slur this as a bigoted plot against people considered undesirable, or related to the actions of the South Africans or Germans, seems lame to the point of bizarre.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:53 pmChristopher Cooke says:
Arthur: why should the jewish Israelis be re-settled in the US? They won the wars, conquered the territory, and, after all, “might makes right” in international affairs. If your view is that the Palestinian Arabs were there first (a historically debatable point, but let’s assume it is true for the sake of argument), and therefore have some pre-existing entitlement to the land comprising present day Israel, despite their siding with the losing side in the Israel-Arab wars, then you and I and all other non-Amerindians should move out of the North American continent, ASAP, and we legitimately can’t offer up West Texas to the Israelis. So, at bottom, I don’t see the logic or the legal justification for your views. If you are relying on UN resolutions, etc., then I can see an argument about the West Bank and Jerusalem, but that certainly does not extend to the rest of Israel proper.
Frankly, you can say we should just pay off the Palestinians to move here, or elsewhere, with more justification (I do not agree with that view either). The Palestinians, after all, were on the losing side of several conflicts.
Your remarks about the Israelis “running the place” do smack of anti-semitic views, akin to the “Jews owning Hollywood,” controlling the “press” etc., and they distract from any substantive points you are trying to make.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:28 pmArthurKirkland says:
If might makes right, the Israelis are in grave trouble — or just a grave — the moment the United States withdraws its might. Should Israelis view that as an attractive, or acceptable, proposition? If United States budgets become as strained as it seems reasonable to expect, might not the enormous cost of defending Israel come to be regarded as a luxury the American taxpayer decides he is unable to afford? Should Israel bet its future on Americans’ willingness to tighten its belt even when the squeeze becomes uncomfortable?
If the costs of aiding Israel were quantified for the American public, and Americans were asked whether they wished to maintain current levels of funding, is anyone confident about the poll results?
Even with continuing American willingness to shoulder the enormous cost of maintaining Israel’s position, the Israelis are in danger. They live in understandable fear. They dodge rockets periodically.
Perhaps moving the Palestinians would make sense . . . but would that enable the United States to avoid the cost of defending Israel? The cost to the United States taxpayer is no small part of this equation (I also favor removing or reducing American military personnel currently stationed in many countries), but not the sole factor. The Israeli’s well-being is also an important factor.
In my judgment, the current situation is unsustainable, even if the United States remaining willing to shoulder massive costs of several kinds. It is ridiculous to propose that it would be better to live, free and safe, in the United States, than to live under siege or die from violence in Israel?
My remarks about “running the place” are aimed at West Virginians and west Texans rather than at anyone — Israeli, Palestinian, Norwegian or North Carolinian — who would supplement them. Have you been to either location, or checked the results of the locals’ longstanding efforts concerning education, economy, health care, or other indicators of societal success? I have been to both areas; they were not chosen at random. I would not have the same expectations with respect to most American locations, but West Virginia and west Texas occupy the bottom of the barrel, for reasons that do not reflect well on the current populations.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:43 amRich Rostrom says:
Re SASQ: there has never been any suggestion that service in another country’s armed forces voids U.S. citizenship.
Americans served in the Imperial Chinese forces in the 1800s. Frederick Townsend Ward was created a 3rd Class Mandarin for his service as organizer of the “Ever Victorious Army” (later led by a Briton, Charles “Chinese” Gordon); he had several American subordinates.
William W. Loring, who had been a colonel in the U.S. Army and a major general in the Confederate Army, served with the army of Egypt for nine years after the War. (He was recommended by William T. Sherman.) He later returned to the U.S. and ran for the Senate — and no one questioned his citizenship.
Neither did anyone question the citizenship of those who served in the Lafayette Escadrille, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, or the Eagle Squadrons. Nor was it ever raised with regard to the scapegraces who “joined the Foreign Legion.”
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:09 amorca says:
The U.S. State Dept. has no problem with you serving as a grunt in certain foreign armies, but says serving in its officer ranks might be construed as a desire to surrender your American citizenship.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:35 amDavid says:
The pro-Israel bias of the Times has been evident for years. The Sulzbergers were anti-Zionist once, but that was decades ago.
Both reporters for the Times there have deep ties to the Zionist entity. The Reform Jews for whom the Grey Lady has replaced the Torah don’t want their progressive-except-for-Palestine world view disturbed, and the Times obliges them.
Let the Times hire a Palestinian reporter to work inside Israel and begin to cover the numberless crimes and flaws of the place. When that happens, I’ll show some grudging respect.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:16 amBob from Ohio says:
Our aid is helpful to the Israelis of course but not life or death vital anymore. They have a thriving arms industry. They (probably) have nuclear weapons. They have a second strike capacity in nuclear enabled subs. They are facing weak armies.
The “vast” amounts of aid is a Buchanan paleocon theme. They harp on the “the enormous cost of maintaining Israel’s position”.
AK is more proof that the left and the far right are very close in their views.
[Bigotry towards your fellow Americans in Texas and West Virginia btw, is pretty bad too.]
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:40 amYankev says:
Then again, he did quote B’tselem, who has cooperated with fronts for Palestinian terrorists and generally opposes whatever the IDF or the Israeli government does.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:58 amYankev says:
Depends. Sometimes B is even more blameworthy, especially if B is Jewish and A is Arab. Witness the reaction to Operation Cast Lead.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:04 amYankev says:
So you did not write that one cannot be both pro-American and pro-Zionist? Has someone else been posting in your name? Are you not aware that being pro-Zionist has nothing to do with the policies or actions of one government of Israel or another, and merely means supporting the idea of a self-governing Jewish state in the ancient Jewish homeland? Or that the ranks of the pro-Zionists have included justices of the US Supreme Court, a former Secretary of the Navy and ambassador to Mexico Josephus Daniels, governors of various states, and other American citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, who have loyally served their country?
FWIW, the notorious Israeli flag lapel pin features the American flag (in the position of honor, as befits any display of the American flag in the US or under US auspices) crossed with the Israeli flag, commemorating the common interests and values of the two democratic allies.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:15 amDavid says:
If kid B burns A’s house, kills his sister, and won’t let A’s family rebuild or buy groceries, much more blameworthy.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:18 amYankev says:
Yeah, you have nothing against Israelis. You just want them to stop being Israelis and become Americans.
Pat Buchanan feels the same way about Jews who live in the US. He just wishes we’d all become real Americans by joining his church.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:18 amArthurKirkland says:
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:20 amArthurKirkland says:
Is it bigotry to note that the Pittsburgh Pirates — seventeen straight losing seasons, no reasonable expectation of improvement in the foreseeable future — are a failed franchise?
The most prominent difference between the Pirates and the Wests is that the Pirates occasionally finish third or fourth in their division. West Texas and West Virginia have a longer and more pronounced record of failure.
Those locations were not chosen randomly. They are failed communities that are shackling children (who deserve better than west Texas and West Virginia seem capable of providing) and acting as a drag on the American economy.
Part of the problem seems to be a lack of immigrants in what appear to be two insular areas.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:32 amArthurKirkland says:
“Merely” seems misplaced if the context involves placing that goal above reason (placing off-limits any discussion of whether locating Israelis in their current location, regardless of costs or alternatives) and American national interest (advocating huge American commitments of money, blood and policy without discussion of whether the equation favors the United States).
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:39 amArthurKirkland says:
Is there any end to the commitment of American blood, money and policy that should be devoted to maintaining the current circumstances of Israel?
Would it be worth five times the current level of assistance?
Would it be worth ten American casualties a week?
Would it be worth far more intense restriction of American policy?
Unless and until Israel is prepared to support itself, these are reasonable questions.
If offering a life preserver to a person in distress seems opprobrious, it might be worthwhile to reevaluate the observer’s judgment. I have not seen or heard an explanation of why it is inapt to compare Israel to Centralia, a coal town whose residents, threatened by an underground fire, were relocated (not because of animus toward the residents, but because of a desire to help them, even if they wished to remain).
There is at least one distinction: The self-supporting American citizens of Centralia were forced to relocate. I propose consideration of an offer of American citizenship to Israelis, who would not be forced to move.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:53 amYankev says:
Yes, because everyone knows how Israel dictates US foreign policy. Keep digging, Arthur.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:41 pmYankev says:
Those aren’t US troops fighting the terrorists, and the arms that Israel receives from the US were purchased by Israel, not gifts from the US.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:51 pmYankev says:
At this point you are changing the definition of Zionist to suit your own argument.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:56 pmArthurKirkland says:
Why would one characterize “wearing of strategic handcuffs” to “Israel dictates US foreign policy?”
It seems difficult to argue that the United States has not (independently, and voluntarily) sacrificed some policy flexibility to maintain its defense of Israel. An allegation of Israeli control of American decision-making would be substantially different, and not, so far as I am aware, part of the current discussion.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:08 pmArthurKirkland says:
When did the discussion switch from Israel’s conflicts to terrorists?
What is the volume, and proportion, of funds transferred from United States taxpayers to Israel? I have understood the volume to be substantial, and the per capita figure to be unusually high. If that is incorrect, I would welcome the correction.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:16 pmChristopher Cooke says:
I understand AK’s views about foreign aid and am sympathetic to the general idea that the US should be reducing foreign aid that is not humanitarian. However, aid to Israel right now is a small price to pay to contain Iran, which is threatening stability in the region. Israel, for all of its faults (and what country does not have them?) is the only legitimate democracy in a region dominated by despotic regimes. That is why I support aid for Israel now (65 years after the end of WWII and the Holocaust).
In general, though, US aid should come with US strings, which should include cutting off aid when the government pushes settlements in the West Bank, engages in the random destruction of Palestinian houses by settlers and others to build their settlements, and engages in other acts that will inflame the situation and make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve and encourage further terrorism against the US.
It makes no sense, from a US perspective, simply to side with the hard right or religious zealots in Israel and argue, as some do, that we should simply go to war against the Palestinians or evict them or let the Israelis kick them out. That war is not winnable and it would gravely harm US interests to try to win that war. And, it would inflict immense suffering on civilians and harm many people in the region, Jews and Arabs alike. Ultimately, the Jews and the Arabs are going to have to learn to live together, as the protestants and catholics are trying to do in Northern Ireland.
This blog post –which is over whether a reporter should be disqualified over covering the Middle East because of his son’s service in the IDF– just shows that any posting touching on the Middle East, like one touching on abortion, will inevitably bring out strong emotions on both sides and name-calling etc., and people immediately jump to debating the larger issues, and not the one raised by the original post. It is too bad, but that is the truth.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:18 pmArthurKirkland says:
Perhaps I misunderstand. Does it mean insisting that Israel be maintained (regardless of cost or consequence) in its current condition and location? If so, it is unreasonable to examine or even question the issue of America’s contribution toward enforcing that preference.
If, on the other hand, it means desiring a good outcome for the residents of Israel, recognizing that abandoning them and mindlessly supporting them are not the sole possibilities, and hoping that all relevant factors and prospective solutions will be considering, I would be open to being a Zionist.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:27 pmTCO says:
Maybe he loves Israel more than America. Just an idea, David. As long as you are listing them, why not list all the possibilities, David?
What I like about Orin or Ilya or Eugene is that they actually problem-solve. Listing various possibilities and then considering them. Even the possibilities that are not to their liking.
This shows a truth-seekingness. A sort of scientist-like curiosity. And the mind of an analyst that I would want if I were looking at a tough problem in business or the like and really trying to crack the nut and move forward.
Honestly, there may be all kinds of good reasons for serving in a foreign military. And you listed some. but the topic is worthy of some real discussion and thinking. And if you approach it purely as a partisan, we are unlikely to get anywhere towards the stellar Volokh salon experience.
It’s ok that you are not as smart as those guys...but could you try to be as thoughtful?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:36 pmArthurKirkland says:
I agree, Mr. Cooke, that next to nothing in the original message or one hundred-some replies is part of any legitimate, informed discussion of the important journalistic issue. Pity, that.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:39 pmYankev says:
Pray tell which of Israel’s past and present conflicts have been fought by US troops? The US did station Marines briefly in Beirut in return for extorting an ill-advised withdrawal by Israel, who thereby gave up the advantages of a hard won victory against the PLO. Instead of staying to provide the promissed safeguard of Israel’s northern border, the US withdrew after 300 Marines died because of the stupidity of their CO who failed to implement elementary security against truck bombs. This is simply one illustration of why I find it so hard to understand your refrain that the US is fighting Israel’s conflicts.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:51 pmArthurKirkland says:
This
Led to this:
I can’t follow these leaps (to “terrorists” and “fighting Israel’s conflicts”). My point is that the current (several decades) situation is maintained at great cost (paid in several forms) to the United States and at great jeopardy for Israelis. What part of that is controversial? That we side with Israel? That it is costly to do so (dollars, policy constraints, strained relations with others, military commitments)? That Israelis are not endangered by current circumstances? That Israel depends to great degree, likely to an existential degree, on American commitments?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:55 pmHarryEagar says:
‘They may be right.’
Or not. Reporters can get their backs up about people who try to manipulate them. I don’t know Bronner, but people who’ve tried that with me (and many have) may not have gotten the outcome they expected.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:58 pmYankev says:
It’s very simple. You stated that America has paid a tremendous price in blood for its support of Israel> I reasonably interpreted that to mean that you thought US troops have been dying in Israel’s defense — a ridiculous and unsupportable charge that I am happy to see you did not intend to make.
During the cold war, however, Israel paid in untold blood for its support of the US, as the USSR scrambled to cultivate clients among the Arab states, arming and training insurgents.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:04 pmArthurKirkland says:
Most of the relevant reference to “blood,” in my mind, involves the United States’ commitment to send American soldiers to die, if necessary, to save Israel. I believe American casualties in some contexts (from Beirut to Iraq) have been indirectly tied to United States support of Israel.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:02 pmYankev says:
I see. In other words, you are talking in the realm of fantasy and what if, and asserting that these things have already happened. This fits well with your fantasy of uprooting Israel as a self-governing state and offering citizenship In TX or WVa (would they be able to move to other parts of the US?) to those of her Jewish citizens who did not care to be slaughtered or deprived of legal rights in the Arab state that would replace it.
Didn’t another anti-Zionist write a novel along similar lines, but with the Israelis relocated to Alaska?
Quote
February 11, 2010, 9:28 amThe Mighty ArthurK says:
Perceiving bloody costs to the United States for supporting Israel does not strike me as a fantasy.
Would our embassy in Beirut have been bombed were the United States not reflexively supportive of Israel? Would our Marines in Beirut have been bombed? Would the sailors aboard the USS Liberty be alive today were the United States not devoting its military resources to defend Israel? Would we have encountered such bitter opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would al Qaeda have been motivated to attack Americans were the United States neutral concerning Israel?
One might reasonably argue that the American casualties, directly and indirectly associated with United States policy concerning Israel, occurred for worthwhile purposes. But to deny these costs — particularly with respect to the Liberty — seems pointless.
Unless and until Israel is prepared to operate without American dollars, American military commitments and restrictions on American foreign policy, I believe it is reasonable for Americans to ask questions about and propose solutions to what has for decades been an expensive, bloody and generally unacceptable situation, particularly while many people advocate more of the same and no one has come up with a way to change the situation.
I am not anti-Zionist, as I understand the term, or pro-Zionist. I am not committed to a Jewish state in the “traditional homeland,” particularly if the commitment is heedless of cost or consequences. I am not committed to the lack of a Jewish state in the traditional homeland. But the current situation seems unsustainable and unacceptable. I would prefer that current Israelis be free and safe somewhere else instead of being endangered in their current location, particularly if the United States is footing the bill (in several ways) for the current location.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:53 amYankev says:
Let’s see. Our Marines in Beirut would not have been there had the US not pressured Israel to withdraw and squander a hard won victory against the PLO. The Marines were a quid pro quo for the withdrawal. So was disarming the PLO. The US welshed on both promises — ther first within hours after Israel withdrew, and the second a few days later when the stupidity of a Marine CO cost 300 lives in a bombing that could have easily been prevented by elemtary precautions.
Al Quaeda’s list of grievances after 9/11 focussed on the US presence in Saudi Arabia, which arose as part of defending Kuwait from Iraq — a campaign that needlessly endangered Israel, whom the US refused to allow into the coalition, and who suffered Iraqi attacks that the US refused to let Israel defend itself against.
The USS Liberty was not defending Israel or aiding Israel’s war effort in any way.
These are all readily available facts. So is the fact that Israel does not put “restrictions on American foreign policy” and that indeed it is the US that puts restrictions on Israel’s foreign and domestic policy.
There are indeed things to discuss about the relationship between the Us and Israel, but no meaningful discussion can occur with someone who consistently (and for reasons that I do not even care to guess) not only disregards readily available facts, but indeed inverts them and then, when called on it, repeats the inversion again and again.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:39 pmArthur Kirkland says:
No Israel-related (not Israel-imposed) restriction on American foreign policy? No problems — antagonism from those who dislike Israel’s conduct (and, in some cases, location), for example — deriving from America’s support of Israel? I don’t buy it.
Regarding bin Laden in particular, he has identified Israel as a basis for his animus toward the United States, and I believe he did so before and after the 2001 attack. He also, I believe, is able to lather up plenty of dangerous anti-American sentiment by using the United States’ relationship with Israel as an argument.
If Israel isn’t relying heavily on the United States, why would anyone care whether the United States adopted a more neutral position concerning Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors? The reason, in my judgment, is that Israel could not long survive such a change in United States policy, at least not in any condition any sensible person would choose. I would not support abandoning the Israelis, even if the United States would benefit. But I also can not support the failed course of several decades.
What are my reasons? They include an unwillingness to subject Israelis to avoidable danger for ideological or religious reasons. I believe Israel’s current trajectory is likely unsustainable, even at great cost. Preferring dead and endangered Israelis to safe and free American citizenship seems a strange way of supporting Israelis. Inviting people into one’s home, for safety and prosperity, seems a bizarre way of exhibiting bigotry toward them. I would rather pay to relocate people, and give them a better life, than to pay to prop them up (as long as possible) as characters in some strange End Times or hard-line fantasy.
My proposal is merely a proposal. I would welcome better ideas. Without a better idea, it is difficult to foresee a rationally desirable outcome for Israel, even if the United States citizenry doesn’t change its mind about providing whatever level of American support Israel seems intensely interested in maintaining.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 2:37 pm