When it comes to Jews and Israel, Goldberg is indeed an enlightened tribalist. He is willing to allow Jewish (but not Gentile) criticism of Israel within certain boundaries,what I would call the post-67 consensus of the Zionist left: settlements and settlers (particularly if they are religious) bad; rightwing excesses, bad; terrorism, very bad. Two-state solution, provided that Israel’s security and resources needs are taken care of, good; right of return, bad; militarized Palestine, bad.

In other words, Israel can be a threat to them, because we are not threatening. The Palestinian can’t be a threat to us, because they are.

Jeffrey Goldberg, Leon Wieselthier, Tom Friedman, span a generation, but they all came of age Jewishly post 67, and were exposed to the same Zionist indoctrination that I was exposed to. On some issues they will be liberal, but anything remotely related to Israel and Jews will make them circle the wagons. Iran will drive them crazy.

The pity is that with the exception of Roger Cohen, and some writers for the New York Review of Books, the progressive criticism of Israel, the one that says we have to go back to 1948 or even 1897 not just to 1967 to understand the problem can be heard only in the blogs (such as mine) and occasionally in some leftwing journals.

The “centrist” position in this country is not one that tries to understand both sides, but rather the liberal Zionist position which sees all the problems deriving from 1967.

Let’s hope that the hysteria on Iran displayed by Goldberg et al causes people to reexamine the “liberal-hawk” positions on Israel/Palestine that have become the default positions for moderates in this country.

At their core they are tribal… that tribalism if you are Jewish means the tribe and Israel first, at any cost..bottom line.

Jews like Cohen and others who are actually more intelligent than Goldberg
understand this trap. But even their best efforts fly over the heads of the Goldbergs….it’s like trying to explain to a sociopath what a conscience is.

The Quran says that Muslims and non muslims will both be judged on the same criteria. The Bible says Jews are God’s chosen people. How does one reconcile that with the golden rule?

Many Jews believe they are superior to all other peoples. Hitler, and many whites believed such things widely. White supremacists are taboo. Why aren’t Jewish supremacists equally so? Religious tolerance?

That strain of Judaism is arguably worse than anything in Islam–again, there is no Quranic support for racism. Thankfully this is not a critique of all Judaism, as the exceptional reporting here and elsewhere proves.

In fact, exceptionalism itself must be identified and called out however it raises it’s head. The most dangerous aspect of that is American exceptionalism and it pervades the discussions about the Torture Memos. We are internationally bound to investigate these allegations with threat of real punishment. According to the treaties, if we fail to investigate and pursue charges where warranted, other signatories to the Reagan signed treaty may hold their own trials.

Glenn Greenwald at Slate has been doing some extraordinary reporting on that issue. Thank you Jim, Roger Cohen, and Daniel Luban.

More candidly, it is anger I feel on observing his presentation of events, people and history.
That anger finds expression in scorn – not comfortable at all, which is why I rarely read his work.

Lobe answers the question for him with what failed to come to Cohen’s mind – all the things so obvious to someone not sitting on the hot seat surrounded by the unquestionable prestige of the Israel lobby’s top intellectual brass.

It’s amazing that Israel has managed to make its ridiculous presumptions such a matter of course that it’s very difficult, as a sheer matter of social awkwardness, to stand up against them.