Letters Letters
Can Israel Do No Right? New York City There’s something I don’t understand about Phyllis Bennis’s editorial “Israel’s War on Gaza” [Dec. 10] regarding Israel and Hamas. The latter is a totalitarian organization devoted to terrorism, Jew-hatred, kidnapping, the oppression of women and the destruction of Israel, and was lobbing hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (not the West Bank). This led, as we know, to Israel’s attack on Gaza, where Hamas rules. Now, one may not approve of Israel’s reaction—I sure don’t. Indeed, I believe it to be profoundly counterproductive, just as I believe Israel’s occupation policy to be so. But in Bennis’s editorial you will find no mention of any of the above. Israel, once again, appears to be attacking and oppressing Palestinians for no good reason. Or perhaps because it’s just fun. Who knows? The issue is never engaged. I have to wonder. Who are such editorials supposed to convince? Certainly nobody in Israel is going to listen to a voice that evinces no concern for the safety of its citizens. And why is Hamas given a pass for its horrific behavior and rhetoric? A recent report by Human Rights Watch, for instance, details cases of alleged torture and death in detention, a lack of due process and trials of civilians in military courts. A man named Abdel Karim Shrair was executed by firing squad in May 2011 for allegedly collaborating with Israel, based, according to HRW, on confessions apparently obtained through torture. In the words of Joe Stork, HRW’s deputy Middle East director, “After five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees’ rights and grants impunity to abusive security services.” Where, pray tell, is the outrage? And what about what its leaders say about Jews—not “Israeli” Jews? I could give thousands of examples, but how about this one: “Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,” according to the organization’s charter. “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.” Does that sound like a party with whom one might negotiate a lasting peace? One can disagree with the degree of importance one attaches to such statements, but to ignore them entirely is to ignore reality and, in this view at least, morality. Just what practical value it has also escapes me. ERIC ALTERMAN Nation columnist Bristol, Pa. I have been reading The Nation since the 1920s. Now I know why—again! Ahead of The New York Times, where I “copy-boyed” in 1946, Phyllis Bennis lays out all I’ve been feeling for so long. ARTHUR B. SHENEFELT Bennis Replies Washington, D.C. Eric Alterman is angry that I gave “no good reason” for Israel’s recent assault on Gaza. Israel had very clear motivations—but I guess Alterman didn’t like my explanation of them. I don’t know why; I quoted Israel’s army chief of staff. I would have thought Alterman would like that. Maybe he didn’t like my saying the timing was likely linked to Netanyahu’s January re-election plans. But not to worry. Apparently it doesn’t matter whether I got the reasons right. Alterman knows exactly what caused Israel’s most recent escalation. Actually, “we” all know. It’s because Hamas is a “totalitarian organization, devoted to terrorism, Jew-hatred, kidnapping, the oppression of women and the destruction of Israel, and was lobbing hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (not the West Bank).” Really. That’s a lot to be “devoted” to. It’s also straight out of AIPAC–style talking points, resting on the longstanding Islamophobic assumptions about Hamas so popular in the West. And even for mainstream American media—which too often blithely accept government definitions of Hamas = Terrorists—it’s hopelessly out of date. Israel began this escalation with the assassination of Ahmad Jaabari, the military chief of Hamas. Was he responsible for attacks violating the limitations that international law places on legitimate resistance to occupation? Almost certainly. But he was also negotiating peace with Israel at the moment he was murdered. I guess Alterman didn’t read enough of my editorial to learn how Hamas’s strategic positioning has changed in the new Middle East: having broken with Syria, and distanced itself from Iran, Hamas has among its closest supporters these days Egypt and Turkey, the same governments Washington so desperately needs as allies in the region. Maybe it’s those changing relationships pushing Hamas in new directions—such as when Hamas leaders recently condemned the killing of six alleged collaborators in Gaza. Maybe they’ll also help Hamas create a more transparent and accountable legal system. And by the way, Eric, don’t worry if “nobody in Israel” reads or agrees with my articles. Sorry if you think Israelis are the only ones who matter, but they’re not the ones I’m writing for. Unofficially, Israelis actually talk to Hamas. I write for people in this country who pay the taxes and vote in the politicians that finance and enable Israel’s assault in the first place. PHYLLIS BENNIS Chicken Wire & Nietzsche Santa Clara, Calif. Regarding Thomas Meaney’s review of Robert A. Caro’s The Years of Lyndon Johnson [“Chicken Wire and Telephone Calls,” Dec. 10], he uses the terms “antiquarian,” “monumental” and “critical” to describe Caro’s treatment of Johnson’s history. These are not his terms, but were borrowed from Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (1874). Because the meaning of these terms is not intuitively obvious, especially the first two, Meaney could have explained how Nietzsche used them and then how they apply to Caro’s book. Briefly, the monumental consists of glorifying past events at the expense of the present, the antiquarian preserves details that define identity and local communities, and the critical interrogates the past seen as anti-life. All three approaches are valuable in their own way but have their limitations. Not being a historian, I do not know if these terms have become standard usage in the field, but since they were highlighted on page 31, they invite additional consideration. ALFRED JAN Meaney Replies London Alfred Jan is right that I borrowed those historical categories from Nietzsche. I expected readers familiar with Nietzsche, like Mr. Jan, to pick up on that. I did not want to burden other readers with a digression on how Nietzsche himself understood those terms. In any case, Nietzsche did not think monumental history was “glorifying past events at the expense of the present.” He thought the past could often be of service to the present. THOMAS MEANEY
Dec 31, 2012 / Our Readers, Eric Alterman, Phyllis Bennis, and Thomas Meaney
Harry Reid Finally Settles It: Social Security Is Off the Table Harry Reid Finally Settles It: Social Security Is Off the Table
Preserving Social Security should never have been all that difficult. But it took Harry Reid to settle the issue—at least as regards the miserably long and absurdly inappropriate debate of 2012. “We’re not going to have any Social Security cuts,” the Senate majority leader said on the floor of the chamber Sunday. “It’s just doesn’t seem appropriate at this time.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had attempted Saturday to use the “fiscal cliff” fight to advance a proposal to adopt a chained consumer price index—“chained CPI”—scheme that would slash cost-of-living increases for Americans who rely on Social Security and other government programs. The Obama administration had entertained the “chained CPI” switch earlier in December. But as the critical point when a deal to cut Social Security might have been made, Reid said “no.” That simple rejection of the false premises of Paul Ryan and all the other fantasists who have tried to push Social Security over the “fiscal cliff”—and into the grips of the Wall Street speculators—confounded the political pawns and the “expert” pundits who imagined that “entitlement reforms” (Washington for Social Security cuts) were “inevitable.” Within hours of Reid’s Sunday announcement, McConnell and the Republicans backed down and it was clear, finally, that Social Security was “off the table.” Reid’s firm rejection of any cuts actually moved the negotiations forward—making clear to the Republicans that they would get no deal on Social Security. “I was really gratified to hear the Republicans have taken their demand for Social Security benefit cuts off the table,” said Reid, the wily Nevadan who has repeatedly defied political expectations to save his own seat (in 2010) and then to increase the Democratic Senate majority (in 2012). “The truth is they should never have been on the table to begin with.” True enough. But it took Reid’s rejection of the Republican proposal to foreclose any more wheeling and dealing with the economic security of Americans who rely on Social Security to make ends meet. Groups that have battled to save Social Security hailed Reid Sunday night. “Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats are to be applauded for standing up for the American people by standing firm against cutting Social Security,” said Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works. “Social Security has no place in this fiscal showdown. It does not and, by law, cannot add a penny to the federal debt. Republican policymakers are wrong to try to ram through unpopular cuts, ones which are opposed by the vast majority of Americans they have been elected to serve.” Altman was right to hail Reid, who was certainly not the only Democratic absolutist in the Social Security fight but who took the critical stand at the critical moment. Reid deserves the praise. But it is important to remember that all he did was embrace economic, social and political reality. Social Security does not contribute a penny to the federal deficit. “In fact,” as the coalition explains, “it currently enjoys a $2.6 trillion surplus that will grow to $4.3 trillion by 2025. Social Security has its own dedicated revenue stream described above. And Social Security is forbidden by law from borrowing, so it cannot deficit spend.” Cutting Social Security, especially using the privatization schemes outlined by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan and other fiscal fools, would undermine the current recovery and threaten prospects for long-term economic stability. The Social Security program is fiscally sound, efficiently run and it works. In the most recent year for which premise statistics are available, Social Security lifted 19,808,000 Americans out of poverty. And Social Security is popular. Extraordinarily popular. “When asked which was more important, 70 percent of respondents said that protecting education, Medicare and Social Security was more important than broad cuts to reduce the deficit,” notes the AFL-CIO’s analysis of a post-election poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future. “More than half—58 percent—of the overall sample said that they felt strongly about opposing such cuts. Only 17 percent of the survey said they felt strongly that across-the-board cuts were important enough to cut the popular programs.” With numbers like that on his side, Harry Reid did not take a political risk Sunday night. He simply did the right thing. That settled it for 2012. But what of next year? The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which did so much to strengthen the backbones of Reid and other Democrats, responded in with the proper mix of celebration and resolve. “Democrats stood firm—and Harry Reid declared from the Senate floor that no deal would pass this year that touched Social Security,” declared PCCC co-founders Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green in a message to the hundreds of thousands of PCCC members who contacted Congress with messages opposing any cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. “Today’s victory shows that activism works. In 2013, we’ll keep fighting any proposed cuts to these benefits.” Social Security was worth fighting for in 2012. And because activists prevailed—with an assist from Harry Reid—it will be worth fighting for in 2013.
Dec 31, 2012 / John Nichols
The Guide to Going Off the Cliff The Guide to Going Off the Cliff
We’re going off the cliff. What does it mean?
Dec 29, 2012 / George Zornick
![Dangerous Rush to Legislate on Surveillance and Mental Health? Dean Spade [VIDEO]](https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/deanspade_mthumb_0.jpeg)
Dangerous Rush to Legislate on Surveillance and Mental Health? Dean Spade [VIDEO] Dangerous Rush to Legislate on Surveillance and Mental Health? Dean Spade [VIDEO]
Involuntary mental health care and police profiling will not make the United States safer.
Dec 28, 2012 / Laura Flanders
Introducing The Nation Builders Introducing The Nation Builders
Show your support for The Nation Builders—and for this journalism—by making a year-end contribution today—so we can cover the critical stories of the coming year....
Dec 28, 2012 / Katrina vanden Heuvel
Cerberus Collected Ex-Government Opportunists Cerberus Collected Ex-Government Opportunists
In mythology, Cerberus is the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hades. How perfect a name for a company whose leaders have sold their souls.
Dec 28, 2012 / Robert Scheer
Let’s Put the ‘Play’ Back in Wordplay! Let’s Put the ‘Play’ Back in Wordplay!
There are no rules to this game
Dec 28, 2012 / Joshua Kosman and Henri Picciotto
Roger Goodell: The Wayne LaPierre of the Sports World Roger Goodell: The Wayne LaPierre of the Sports World
As the media turn a critical eye toward the NRA president, they might want to follow suit with the commissioner of the National Football League.
Dec 28, 2012 / Dave Zirin
I’m With Tagg: Mitt Didn’t Want to Be President I’m With Tagg: Mitt Didn’t Want to Be President
Mitt Romney deserved a Faye Dunaway Award for his “Make me president! Don’t make me president!” ambivalence.
Dec 27, 2012 / Leslie Savan
Largest Mass Execution in US History: 150 Years Ago Today Largest Mass Execution in US History: 150 Years Ago Today
Lincoln ordered the execution of thirty-eight Dakota Indians for rebellion—but never ordered the execution of Confederate officials or generals.
Dec 26, 2012 / Jon Wiener