The Mitchell Report

Bibi Netanyahu, Politicaster

 May 29, 2011

 

“People may be honest, though they are doing wrong: that is between their Maker and them. But we, who are suffering by their pernicious conduct, are to destroy them. We are sure that [Burke] acts from interest. We know what his genuine principles were. They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

Life of Johnson

James Boswell

 

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

I’ve been searching for a word or term to describe Israel’s 27^th and 32^nd Prime Minister, after observing his Trumpian-stentorian-triumphal tour of Washington DC.

 

Having considered many options, and finding bully, coward, and poseur fitting, although insufficient to the task, yesterday’s e-mail provided a moment of discovery, drawn from the weekly edition of “World Wide Words,” and its “Weird Word” entry for the week -- criticaster.

 

“You may gather it [criticaster] is uncomplimentary. It refers to those who set themselves up as arbiters of taste and literary discernment but whose sensibilities are inadequate to the task.

 

“It was coined in the late seventeenth century by adding the ending -aster to critic. The suffix came directly into English from Latin, where it meant an incomplete resemblance. English adapted it to refer to a person of inferior or inadequate qualities. It turns up in a small number of words, of which poetaster, a person who writes bad poetry, and philosophaster, a shallow or pretentious philosopher, are the least rare.”

 

Aha! Just like Pygmalion’s Professor Henry Higgins, I said: “By Jove, I think we’ve go it.”

 

Binyamin Netanyahu, aka, Bibi, is a politicaster, i. e., a person who practices bad politics, is shallow and pretentious, and has sensibilities that are inadequate to the task.

 

It’s about that simple.

 

But because he is also a poseur of considerable skill, he achieved two important goals for his efforts during this visit:

 

First, popularity at home.

 

According to a poll by Haaretz, Israel’s leading English language newspaper:

 

“It emerged that Netanyahu's trip not only put a brake on the drop in his popularity ratings, but actually reversed the trend.

 

“While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.”

 

Second, popular acclaim in Washington.

 

Haaretz columnist, Yoel Marcus:

 

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have read the phone book at the Congress podium and received the same standing ovation. His speech used the advice Moshe Sneh gave to himself . . . on the draft of one of his speeches: ‘weak argument, raise voice.’”

 

That’s the good news for Bibi, the short-term results of his impolitic and injudicious orating, but as columnist Marcus further suggests:

 

“One more victory like that and Israel is done for: A failure of the peace process is not an option. The status quo cannot be maintained. True friends tell each other the truth.”

 

Another commentator, renowned Israeli clinical psychologist Carlo Strenger, who is a blogger at Haaretz, The Guardian, and elsewhere, made this observation:

 

“The clear losers in Netanyahu’s short-sightedness wrapped into grandiose verbal pyrotechnics are the citizens of Israel. Once the dust of the media storm settles down, we will be faced with the stark truth: The specter of Israel’s ever-growing isolation and of increasing international pressure looms large. Once the Palestinians succeed in their bid for statehood, the Netanyahu government will be facing international criticism of its settlement policies unprecedented in force and intensity.”

 

The protagonist in this drama of uncertain length is President Barack Obama, whose reviews for speeches delivered at the State Department and at the AIPAC convention last week range from rabid to supportive – from the scathing criticism of Charles Krauthammer to the tepid rebuke from Congressional Democrats and to the unqualified endorsement of the folks at J Street and elsewhere who heard those speeches via distinctly different antennae.

 

As one insightful TMR reader, a prominent civic leader and respected member of the Jewish community far from the Beltway, put it:

 

“There was an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago describing the responses of Mormons to the new hit Broadway musical, Book of Mormon.  It basically said that conservative Mormons think the play is abominable and liberal Mormons think it’s hilarious.  From what I’ve heard in the last week, this is analogous to Jews’ reactions to the speeches of Obama and Netanyahu.”

 

He went on to say, “After hearing about Obama’s speech, my sister, who is extremely conservative on these issues, said, ‘Obama threw Israel under the bus.  He’s the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to Israel.’”

 

And for those who may have missed the speech, here’s exactly what the President said:

 

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

 

To some that was ‘throwing Israel under the bus,’ and to others it was stating the obvious, the truth as it has been known for years.

 

But to Bibi, the politicaster, these were fighting words.

 

So fight he did – getting them out of their seats up on Capitol Hill 49 times during his speech, and warming up his numbers back home. Right before our eyes, Israel’s most talented orator rose up in righteous indignation rivaling the response to William Jennings Bryan’s stirring “Cross of Gold” speech to the Democratic Party convention 115 years ago.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

 

And with much the same result – thunderous applause, the audience on its feet and cheering wildly, proud men basking in the warm glow of political adulation, and little of substance to show for it all, save for the recordings that retrieve their ‘fifteen minutes of fame.’

 

The most remarkable thing about Binyamin Netanyahu to this observer is that he has achieved fame simply by being elected and ducking when the going gets tough. He has no accomplishments to his name. He has shown no courage on the paramount issue that besets his people and his country. He is rhetorical warrior in an empty suit of armor.

 

There are legitimate questions to raise about Barack Obama’s speech – its timing, its phrasing, and, of course, its impact. He may well have taken the wrong counsel on any of those factors, and there are serious questions to be addressed about whether there is still a beating heart in the process for solutions in this conflict, or whether a third intifada may be just over the horizon.

 

No geopolitical issue of consequence – and particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict – is so simple that there are those who have it right versus those who get it wrong. That’s why diplomacy and politics are central to the life of a democracy and a republic, and to the sustainability of the global order -- tools designed to be used when the issues are seemingly intractable.

 

Bibi’s decision to take the low road, to play to the crowd sensibility, and to engage in artful sophistry and casuistry may be consistent with his “genuine principles,” but as Boswell’s Life of Johnson reminds us:

 

"They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Twain on Foreign Policy

March 1, 2011

 

The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Mark Twain’s Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

Mark Twain and foreign policy?

 Some would say that’s a clear case of ‘never the twain shall meet,’ but if we permit a modicum of poetic license, it might just make sense.

 If you’ve been reading the editorial and op-ed pages of various periodicals during these last few weeks of tumult in Northern Africa and the Middle East, you’ve been treated to an array of thought experiments from various points on the political spectrum suggesting that the Obama administration – and the President himself – have been moving sluggishly, clumsily, uncertainly, and ineptly.

 Many pundits believe that in Egypt and Libya, for example, America should have been out front from the get-go in vocal support of the forces of democracy and against the instruments of oppression, i.e., the ruling regimes and their supporters.

 It’s hard to disagree with this sentiment, but sentiments are not the basis for making policy. The bigger question is: Does it pass the sensibility test? Is it sensible?

 

Twain’s counsel on vocabulary -- ‘the difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter” – provides an analog for evaluating foreign policy. That the difference between the almost right foreign policy and the right foreign policy is really a large matter, and a subtlety lost on more than one American president.

 

It is, for example, captured in the difference between two words that seem almost the same: simple and simplistic.

 

The former means, “easily understood or done, presenting no difficulty; plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature or design.

 

Whereas the latter is about, “treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.”

 

Now, to the claims about America’s failure to lead the parade on Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere.

 

Is this a simple matter or a simplistic notion?

 

Of course America belongs with the forces of freedom and democracy wherever they are opposed by autocrats and kleptocrats. If we’re not always in a position to ‘stand’ for that, we certainly do ‘speak’ for it?

 

Of course we deplore the brutality of despots and autocrats, wherever and whenever they are found -- in the USSR, the PRC, Latin America, Africa, throughout the Middle East and across the Mahgreb. How we actually deal with them is another matter, indeed.

 

In the Arab and Muslim world, America has a checkered history stretching back for decades and decades that cannot be expunged in the short term, even with the most artful ‘public diplomacy.’

 

However, on each occasion of political awakening in the Middle East, including many false starts over many years, the world looks to America to strut the stage on behalf of the forces for democratization and liberalization. If not the United States, then who? And if not visibly and vocally, then how?

 

Well, there are multiple reasons why leading a rhetorical parade can be a trap for the U. S, and damaging to the forces for moderation and secular governance in the region, as well-- a cross between a “Catch 22” and a “Trojan horse,” ergo a “lose-lose proposition.”

 

Americans need to understand the profusion of complexities and contradictions that come with “Made in the USA” throughout the region. On the one hand, it is our values that people admire and wish to emulate; and on the other hand, it is our policies that have created so much ill will for so long with “the Arab street.”

 

Over the course of modern history in the Middle East – following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the eventual withering away of colonial powers – America’s paramount interest has been about oil. Period. As a consequence, our policies have been driven by that interest, creating an irremediable discontinuity – or “the mother of all contradictions,” if you prefer.

 

But let us not simplify our history: oil was vital to the national security interest, so we did what nation-states do. We acted in our national interest, but with policies that put our democratic values and national security interests at loggerheads -- hence, the indelible tarnish that stains the American brand in the Middle East.

 

Does that mean that America must t-h-i-n-k v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y before it insinuates itself in circumstances such as the popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran, Bahrain and elsewhere?

 

Of course.

 

In most of the Arab-Muslim world, an American ‘endorsement’ is a double-edged sword, at best, and the kiss of death, to many – a reinforcement of the duality of our walk and our talk. Millions throughout the region know precisely which side we’ve been on – talking democracy and freedom while walking the status quo and support for autocrats who have made the Middle East safe for petroleum-driven economies in the western hemisphere and elsewhere.

 

What happens next in each of these countries is a matter for Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and whoever else may follow to determine on their own, despite the risk potential to the global economy and the transnational community.

 

Instead of intervening, even with the best of intentions, America would do well to take this moment to commence a major policy realignment – one that matches its walk with its talk, and that looks ahead to a new era in Arab Middle East governance, recognizing that this may be years and even decades in the making. And that would suggest waiting for a formal invitation to help while eschewing another intervention – preemptive, preventive, presumptive, or otherwise.

 

 

R. Garrett Mitchell

The Mitchell Report

March 1, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Case You Were Wondering

Dear Friends,

In case you were wondering what happened to The Mitchell Report, rest assured that it is alive and well. The only change is that TMR is no longer "posting" on this site, but if you'd like to become a regular reader, send an e-mail with your request, some background information, including where you live, what you do, and anything else that seems relevant. We like to know who are readers are, and what they care about.

Many thanks

RGM

SARAH, PALE IN COMPARISON

“To govern is to choose.”

Pierre Mendes France

The Envelope, Please

I'm going to want somebody with integrity; I'm going to want somebody with independence, who's willing to tell me where he thinks or she thinks I'm wrong; and I'm, I'm going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country where we need to go, that we've got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how our politics works, how business is done in Washington."

Barack Obama
Meet The Press
7/27/08

Early Morning Thoughts on Rereading Lewis Thomas

“

There is a short passage near the very end of the Mahler in which the almost vanishing violins, all engaged in a sustained backward glance, are edged aside for a few bars by the cellos. Those lower notes pick up fragments from the first movement, as though prepared to begin everything all over again, and then the cellos subside and disappear, like an exhalation. I used to hear this as a wonderful few seconds of encouragement: we'll be back, we're still here, keep going, keep going.”

“Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony”
Lewis Thomas

Her Finest Hour

They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel.”

One for My Baby

It's quarter to three, there's no one in the place
Except you and me
We're drinking my friend, to the end
Of a brief episode
Make it one for my baby
And one more for the road
Music and lyrics by Johnny Mercer and Harold Arlen

The Speech

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”
Mahatma Gandhi

The Clinton Genome

The media are marvelling at the Clintons' several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn't it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s -- with a war on.
Andrew Sullivan
Sunday Times of London
March 9, 2008