So, Molly Ivans’s objections to Jay Garner are[ol][li]links to the international arms industry[]links to a Jewish lobby group[]visited Israel as the guest of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs []alleged Zionist sympathies []blamed the Palestinian Authority for the violence after the collapse of peace talks praised the “remarkable restraint” of the Israeli army[/ol]Most of her objections are that Garner was connected with or had sympathy for Jewish organizations. [/li]
Another quote from the column is, “So we’ve got a crook, a Zionist and an old spy…” Is being a Zionist as bad as being a crook?
Damn, he’s got us again! I had always hoped that december wouldn’t read Molly and discover all of these sordid goings-on that would surely embarass and humiliate us leftys!
Lets just hope and pray he doesn’t make a habit of reading her column every chance he gets! And that the rest of the Usual Suspects don’t do the same! That would be terrible!
Shit december, if Pres Bush or Clinton had sent someone with strong public ties to the Catholic church over to mediate peace efforts in Northern Ireland…it would be appropriate to wonder if those ties could interfere with perceptions of fairness from the Loyalists in Northern Ireland. Wondering about those ties does not automatically equal anti-Catholicism.
If you have to ask, the person is probably an anti-Semite. Pretty much any non-Jew who makes a statement criticizing Israel or mentioning Zionism is an anti-Semite. Actually, some Jews fit in that category too.
It seems to me that there is something intensely wrong with equating “crook” with “Zionist” (or “gay sympathizer” if you prefer, december.)
Wasn’t there just a huge uproar because a Pennsylvania senator just equated homosexuality with bigamy and incest? He didn’t go so far as to equate homosexuality with theft, of course.
There is certainly a valid point that a person with pro-Israel sentiments might be viewed negatively by Iraqis. That’s different from calling him a “crook and Zionist”.
However, where do we draw the line? This person is unacceptable because he signed a statement assigning some blame for the collapse of the peace talks to the Palestinian Authority (Horrors!). The next person in line supported equal rights for women, and so is unacceptable to many Iraqis. The one after that once ate pork! The next one…
Bah. This is specious arguments. Trying to find someone acceptable to all Iraqis is impossible. Trying to find someone who doesn’t offend many Iraqis would probably mean putting Saddam Hussein back in power. No American is going to meet Ms Ivans’ test.
If the US had just crushed a tyrannical government of homophobic zealots in the nation of Gaydaq, and then sent in Jack Chick to be the interim administrator of the country, then you might have a similar example.
I’m sure Gen. Garner is a fine fellow. But Rumsfeld just doesn’t understand subtleties like perception when it comes to dealing with Iraq.
This is a plausible claim, but I do not agree. A Zionist is someone who supports the existence of the State of Israel. That’s been US policy for 50 years. It’s not a big deal that Garner supports the American position.
Iraq faces some enormous challenges in forming a new government; relations with Israel is way down on the list.
Also, the column doesn’t say why Ivans considers Zionist sympathies to be a problem. Maybe her reason is the same as yours, Sua, or maybe not. The column certainly allows an interpretion that she thinks “Zionist” is a pejorative.
Sure. So what? The phrase still seems to equate a Zionist with a crook.
I don’t hear Molly Ivin’s saying that the only reason that she objects to him is that “…he signed a statement assiging some blame for the collapse of the peace talks to the Palestinian Authority.” Her objection is that, given his affiliations, he will not bring a balanced POV to the position of Viceroy Designate. That is a reasonable objection. Being a “crook” is also a reasonable objection. And his association with the Pentagon as a spy is a reasonable objection. I would think that’s why they were all strung together – not because she equates Zionists with crooks.
I didn’t see anything in what was posted in the OP about how he is a crook or about his experience as a spy. I assume that the complete text was, of necessity, not posted here. It might have shed some light on the her objections.
I am pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. In my opinion, solutions to the problems there cannot be found in extremist groups on either side. And yes, I think the Zionists are extremists. Just my opinion.
IMHO the word should have disappeared 55 years ago. Before there was a State of Israel, a Zionist was someone who supported the creation of a Jewish Homeland. I’m not sure just what the word means, now that Israel exists.
Anti-Semites in the Middle East sometimes use “Zionists” as a euphemism when they mean to criticize Jews. Because of that usage, Ivans probably should have avoided using the word in her article, unless she said just what it she meant by it.
You do realize that Ivans is using the terms “Zionist”, and “crook”, and “old spy” to refer to how many in Iraq might view Garner et al, right?
She is essentially saying, you’re picking people who can rather easily be plastered with some labels that create more baggage than may be suitable for nation building. (see my example above about a Catholic supporter as a negotiator in Northern Ireland).
Whether her arguments are valid is a different debate.
Are you high? If not, there’s no excuse for that kind of willful misreading. Ivins (note the distinct lack of the letter a in her name) discusses three men, in order, in her column: [list=1]
[li]Ahmed Chalabi: Convicted of bank fraud and embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars in Jordan.[/li][li]Jay Garner: Strong supporter of the Israeli military crackdown against the Palestinians, strong opponent of the Palestinian Authority, no apparent support for a Palestinian state.[/li][li]James Woolsey: Former head of the CIA who virtually proclaimed a crusade against every Muslim government in the region a couple weeks ago[/li][/list=1]And there you have it: she sums them up as “a crook, a Zionist, and an old spy who thinks this is the start of WW IV.” The phrase IN NO CONCEIVABLE WAY equates Zionism with being a crook.
I have been given the impression that zionism is not in favor of the creation of a state full of Jews, but rather a specifically Jewish state. There’s a difference. The first isn’t racist; the second is.
So if we ignore Beagledave’s Very Good Point, it is still okay to treat a zionist with skepticism. Using “zionist” as a pejorative is orthogonal to one’s feelings on Jews.