******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Jeezy-Hawks Against Israel

Joe Klein, sometimes hero, sometimes villain to just about everyone, wrote a lengthy article about all the problems Hillary Clinton is having in just about every part of the world with just about everyone over just about every foreign policy issue.

But one sentence in the lengthy article incited Spencer Ackerman (aka Attackerman) to demand that we get tough with Israel because Israel has "disrepected" U.S. Middle East Envoy George Mitchell.

To prove what it means to be a man in the world, at least when it comes to Israel, Ackerman quotes at length from an interview with Young Jeezey:
"This is a really unbelievable display of disrespect, conveyed in a new Joe Klein piece:
'The Israelis have been difficult, as always: whenever Mitchell raises East Jerusalem in talks with the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli stands up and walks out of the room.'
"Can you believe that shit! Here’s the fucking U.S. special envoy, an emissary of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, discussing what everyone knows will have to be a subject of a final-status negotiation ... and the Israeli foreign minister, like a toddler, gets cranky and huffs out! Routinely! And Mitchell, like a bitch, takes it!

"The first thing my mind turns to is Young Jeezy’s recent Complex interview.
'... Young Jeezy: Grown, baby, we moving on. I ain’t really no nigga to search for attention or do shit to get attention. I never mentioned niggas’ names, or said anything about anything throughout my career to get no cool points—I just mind my business. But at the same time, I’m a man first. If I feel offended, I’ma speak on it. Like you, you’re not gonna be walking along and a motherfucker just say something crazy to you in the middle of Manhattan and you gonna just keep it moving? You’re gonna say your piece or what? [Laughs.]'
"Someone needs to print out and slip this interview into Mitchell’s briefing package the next time he shuttles to Tel Aviv. Avigdor Lieberman is not going to respect Mitchell if Mitchell allows himself to be disrespected, and the Israelis are not going to respect the Obama administration if it can disrespect it without consequence."
I don't know if Joe Klein was being straight up on his statement that the Israelis get up and walk out every time East Jerusalem is mentioned. This is Joe Klein, after all.

I also don't know if Mitchell would get up and walk out if the Israelis insisted on discussing the timetable for Texas to be returned to Mexico, or Louisiana to France, or Alaska to Russia.

But give Israel the Young Jeezy treatment? That sounds like a plan.

What do you call someone who invokes Young Jeezy's street talk to prove they can be tough with Israel?

Neo-Jeezy? Chicken-Jeezy? Jeezy-Hawks? J-Street-Jeezy? All of the above?

Related Posts:
J Street Shows Its Hand
J Street: Liberal Bloggers Need To Study History, Not Memory
Will The Left Apologize To Bolton?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. "East Jerusalem."

    That's kinda like "Stimulus-created jobs."

    Completely devoid of foundation or meaning...

  2. If Israel is out ally rather than merely a highly effective foreign lobby for U.S. tax dollars, why are their soliders not dying beside ours like our NATO allies.

    It's time Israel bore their share of this burden; leave Iran to them exclusively.


  3. To Progressive Defensive- you obviously have no understanding of the reality of Middle Eastern politics. If the Israelis served in either Iraq or Afghanistan the US's Arab allies would not participate nor give their blessing to the actions of the US. This includes securing the Straits of Hormuz which secures the flow of oil through the gulf. Oil by the way that is over 25% of what this country uses on a daily basis. It is essential in the Moslem world to have the backing of Moslem governments in order to secure American lives. You also seem to have no idea about the aide given to Israel. Israel's aide is for military weapons bought here in the US. It helps keep the American military machine afloat and provides American jobs. So there is your real stimulus package. I suggest before you start discussing the Middle East you actually learn about geopolitics and before discussing foreign policy appropriations you review what for and wherefore your tax dollars go.

  4. "I also don't know if Mitchell would get up and walk out if the Israelis insisted on discussing the timetable for Texas to be returned to Mexico, or Louisiana to France, or Alaska to Russia."

    Texas fought a war against Mexico for her independence then voted democratically to become part of the United States. Louisiana was acquired from Le Petit Caporal by means of the, well, Louisiana Purchase Treaty, while Nicholas II sold Alaska to the US. East Jerusalem was acquired "vi et armis". The rights and the wrongs of its present status notwithstanding, your analogy does not withstand factual scrutiny and serves only to weaken your argument not illustrate it.

  5. Wouldn't Texas' status have been brought "vi et armis" as well then?

  6. Liamascorcaigh-East Jerusalem was acquired "vi et armis" after Israel asked the Jordanian government to not intervene in the Six Day War which had broken out between Israel, Egypt and Syria. (Internatinal law has already been adjudicated that Israel was defending herself not the aggressor) Jordan refusing to comply declared war and attacked Israel.Israel then defended herself against an aggressor nation thereby gaining East jerusalem and the West Bank. Internatinal law allows a defender nation to retain captured territory. The only time it has ever been considered that territory acquired in a war of self-defense to be returned is the territory Israel gained in the Six-Day War.Also if you had studied the history of the UN resolutions concerning these territories,(242 and 338) the language employed is very specific and leaves open the exact amount of territory to be returned in the advent of peace, to the negotiating parties.

    Furthermore, it is your analogy that does not hold up. If you knew Texas history you would also know that Texas was Mexican territory and that the American settlers illegally revolted against the Mexican government declaring themselves independent. They then gained independence by threatening Santa Ana with death when he was captured. The entire episode being a violation of International law. Therefore, any subsequent vote by a Texas legislature, whether democratic or not, is technically void.So actually according to International law, the Israelis have more right to a unified Jerusalem than the US has a right to Texas.

    Also if you want to be technical, the lands of Louisiana and Alaska belonged to its native inhabitants and the European powers that sold it to the US had no right to do that either. It would be akin to a stranger selling your house and then having you evicted because you no longer owned your home. Therefore, technically the US does not have a right of ownership of those lands.So quite frankly not only does the Professors analogy hold up to factual scrutiny it holds up to international legal scrutiny as well. Not withstanding these relevant legal and historical facts, I believe Mr.Mitchell would probably be insulted if anyone insisted he discuss the return of Texas,Louisiana,or Alaska to anyone.

    I make the same suggestion to you as I did to the previous poster,I suggest you study geopolitics, international law and the appropriate history before you post a comment.

  7. Elise asd2mom - Of course the native Americans have moral standing in any discussion of these issues; indeed their position is analogous to to that of the East Jerusalem inhabitants in so far as their land was conquered and expropriated and they were enrolled in a foreign polity against their will. I was, however, responding to Prof Jacobson's allusions to Mexico, France and Russia being the previous political overlords of Texas, Louisiana and Alaska respectively. Alaska you completely ignore in your comment bcos it can in no way be compared to the East Jerusalem question. It was sold freely by the Russians so what earthly grounds would they have for demanding it back. Similarly for Louisiana vis a vis France. Such demands would rightly be met with laughter and advice to resume the medication.

    As regards Texas: of course I know that it belonged to Mexico. I state in my comment "Texas fought a war with Mexico for her independence". The whole world still remembers The Alamo. But the analogy still doesn't hold. The Mexicans conquered Texas and the Texans subsequently liberated it and when they did so it was their land, they were the inhabitants. They then freely united themselves with the United States. In other words the people living in Texas decided for themselves the destiny of Texas. Any claim that Mexico would make would be derisory and the American Government would be completely justified in responding with indignation.

    This is not at all the case for Bibi Netanyahu. The people of East Jerusalem were annexed to Israel utterly against their will and by reason of military conquest. They neither fought nor voted for separation from the rest of Palestine. Their view of East Jerusalem as conquered territory is completely in accord with the facts. Their demand to be quit of Israeli governance is quite natural. Why on earth should an Israeli leader be "indignant" about this? If you conquer people they want rid of you. Those that don't are despised by their fellows as "Quislings" and "Benedict Arnolds". Conquest, for whatever reason, has its costs. A restive, resentful and often rebellious native population is certainly one of them.

    I'm not, as you seem to imagine, addressing the rights and wrongs of the situation. I'm merely pointing out that facile analogies to supposedly similar American experiences muddy the waters and weaken the argument in the eyes of interested but disinterested observers.

    In respect of the Native Americans, have they a right to demand the return of their lands. Of course they have. Is such a demand feasible? Of course it's not, but it is not morally void. Therefore, if it were made it would be greeted by the American Government not with indignation but with a great deal of hand-wringing, breast-beating, Obamaesque apologifying and scads of Federal moolah! Not to mention many more unedifying shout-outs to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow.

  8. liamascorcaigh- I did not ignore the Russia/Alaska issue read again. It was the same for Louisiana and Alaska, both sold by persons who had no true claim to the land. Therefore an illegal purchase by the US.

    Your analogy towards Texas history is factually incorrect. The American settlers did not liberate Texas.That would imply that Texas was theirs in the first place.It was not. While the Mexican government conquered the land from the native inhabitants the American settlers were interlopers who illegally rebelled against the ruling government. It was not as if they turned the land back to its native inhabitants. Yes,we all Remember the Alamo. But that is because it is the victor who writes the history. If Santa Ana had been the ultimate victor believe me the history books would be very different. Furthermore, since the revolt was illegal any subsequent actions taken by the Texas legislature is void. Therefore, again an illegal acquisition under international law. I also put forth the fact that not all Texicans wanted to be part of the US and while the "white settlers" pushed a joining with the US, the Mexicans and native Americans who resided in Texas were not represented in the legistlature nor asked what their opinion was.

    Israel and Jerusalem is another matter both under interntional law and historically. Again, land conquered in a war of self-defense by a people with 3 thousand year history and attachment to that particular piece of real estate is a legal acquisition.It is also the only time in history that each religion gets to continue its control of its religious holy places. The Jews control the Jewish holy places, the Christians control the Christian holy places and the Moslems control the Moslem holy places. It unfortunately also leads to violence at many times as witnessed in the past month with Palestinian youths attacking Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall during Sukkot at the urging of the Moslem religious authorities. Furthermore, those Palestinians do take advantage of Israel's world reknown higher education, medical care and economic growth. So the label "quislings" or "benedict arnold" becomes a matter of convenience and contrivance.

    Also it is not as you say a facile analogy.It is a relevant analogy given the way the lands were acquired by both countries. In fact I would submit that Israel has more of a legal and moral right to its land as opposed to the US.If you wish a discussion about whether those people living in the land want to be a part of Israel or not that is an entirely different discussion and not the point of the professor's post. Which was to say that Mr.Mitchell has no right to presuppose the outcome of negotiations and decide what will or will not be the final reality. Mr.Mitchell also does not have the right to decide what is or is not the capital of another country.

    Yes, I agree with you that if the native Americans ever asked for their land back, somehow the Obama adminsitration would find itself perplexed as what to do and probably go on another apology tour and find a way to tax us out of more of our money.