Rob Eshman

January 12, 2010

Harman v. Winograd

By Rob Eshman

Tweet

Share

One Shabbat morning several years ago, Dan Shevitz, one of my two favorite Venice rabbis, was walking down Abbot Kinney Boulevard toward his synagogue, Mishkon Tephilo. He came to a narrow stretch of sidewalk in front of Abbot’s Habit, and stopped, not wanting to walk over a large dog standing guard beside its owner.

“Pardon me,” he said. “I just want to get by. Do you mind moving your dog?”

The owner looked up at him in a post-pot, pre-caffeine haze. “Hey, it’s Venice man,” he said. “Step around it.”

If the Chicago Rule, per David Mamet, is, “They send one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue,” the Venice Rule is, “Step around it.”

Last week, the race for California’s 36th Congressional District seat, which includes that stretch of crippled nirvana called Venice, tested the Venice Rule. Incumbent Congresswoman Jane Harman decided to go after challenger Marcy Winograd — really go after her. The primary isn’t until June, but what brought the candidates swinging out of their corners was Israel.

On Harman’s behalf, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) recently sent a letter attacking Winograd’s stand on Israel to Jewish supporters on a list created by the Harman campaign. Waxman quoted liberally from a speech Winograd delivered in February 2008 at the Friends of Sabeel Conference at All Saints Church in Pasadena. In that speech, Winograd said she not only opposes a two-state solution, she supports the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

“Not only do I think a two-state solution is unrealistic,” Winograd said, “but also fundamentally wrong, because it only reinforces heightened nationalism.  You cannot establish a democracy in a state founded on the institutionalized superiority or exclusivity of one of [sic] religion, ethnicity or culture.  I do not support the notion of an Islamic state or a Christian state any more than I support a Jewish state” (for the full text, visit this column at jewishjournal.com).

Winograd went on to accuse Israel of “crimes against humanity,” “institutional racism” and “extermination.”

Waxman’s response was unequivocal. “Ms. Winograd’s views on Israel I find repugnant in the extreme,” he wrote. “Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that U.S. policy be based upon rock-solid support for our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

“In Marcy Winograd’s foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist. In Marcy Winograd’s vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights.”

Waxman’s fundraising letter exploded on the Internet like those Hamas rockets did in Ashkelon last week.

Winograd’s supporters, among them Huffington Post columnist Linda Milazzo, accused Waxman of picking an issue of little concern to the 36th’s constituents to gloss over Harman’s positions on issues that matter more: health care, civil liberties, jobs.

“It’s high time that [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman, Waxman and Harman, who’ve been elected to serve this nation, direct their passions toward the best interests of America, and not the interests of Israel,” Milazzo wrote — forgetting Waxman was often the lone voice against Bush-era secrecy, and the architect of landmark legislation on issues ranging from clean water to open government.

Judging by Milazzo’s post and the comments of other bloggers, this controversy will be a big issue in a campaign taking place more than 7,500 miles from Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The district is solidly Democratic — it’s Venice, man — so it’s a given that whoever wins the primary will likely go to Congress. What isn’t a given is how Democrats will finally face their differences over Israel.

This is not a question of “He said/She said/She said.” Waxman’s, Harman’s and Winograd’s positions on Israel each could not be clearer. Waxman and Harman represent the Jewish, Israeli, American and Palestinian consensus for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s right: An April 2009 poll commissioned by the Israeli-Palestinian peace group OneVoice found that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, many on the left-of-left see America’s support for Israel, and the struggle for a negotiated solution, as part of some colonialist policy that props up a “racist” Israel at the behest of a juggernaut lobby. The danger of such a worldview — beyond the threat it poses to Israel — is that it blinds its believers to the real causes of Islamic extremism and the real reasons much of the Muslim world is blanketed in political oppression and economic backwardness. That blindness endangers all Americans, even Venetians.

Progressives who like Winograd’s stands on many other issues — and there are many to like — will be forced to choose how far they’ll follow her into Blame-Israel-First Land.

“On most issues, we agree with Marcy, who has been a stalwart in the Westside Progessive Democratic Party,” Venice residents Tom Laichas and Donna Malamud e-mailed me after finding Winograd’s Sabeel speech. “And we have since the Iraq War found Jane Harman on what, for us, is the wrong side of a lot of issues. But over the past several years, we’ve seen the idea of a binational unitary state gain even more ground on the left. We can’t vote for someone who will give the idea greater legitimacy.”

I invite Winograd and Harman to discuss this issue in a public forum hosted by The Jewish Journal at a mutually convenient date. Israel, it seems, is a fight the left can no longer just step around.

Let us know what you think.  Comment below.

Read More
“Call For One State” by Marcy Winograd

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Thank you for inviting me to debate my opponent at a public forum on the establishment of a lasting middle east peace.  I gladly accept and look forward to engaging in a community dialogue sponsored by the Jewish Journal.  Ultimately, I believe we all want peace, though we may have different opinions on how to achieve it.  It is time for serious soul-searching and what better time than now.

Comment by Marcy Winograd on 1/12/10 at 8:57 pm

Jane Harman is likely to face an embarrassing investigation, if not an indictment, for her having offered to someone identified by the FBI as an “Israeli agent” to do what she could to assist two former AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who had been charged with passing on classified information by the Justice Dept. That latter case was finally dropped but the case against Harman remains open and, it should be recalled, her phone conversation with the Israeli was recorded.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 1/13/10 at 12:29 am

Reading this article one might wonder whether this was an election for the U.S. Congress or for the Israeli Knesset. Seemingly the total allegiance to Israel seems to be the question rather than issues of importance to all the people of the district.

As for Waxman’s and Harman’s preference for the two state solution, it should be obvious that Israeli actions have rendered a two-state solution all but impossible. I think Waxman and Harman know that.

Comment by Janice on 1/13/10 at 1:20 am

I live in the same congressional district as Rob, but disagree that the seat is automatically democrat.  Though it’s true that Democrat incumbents have easily won re-election, the last time there was no incumbent running (Kuykendall vs. Hahn), a Republican won the seat, something that I could see happening again if Ms. Winograd is the candidate for the Dem’s.

Comment by bobby meth on 1/13/10 at 9:05 am

“Meanwhile, many on the left-of-left see America’s support…That blindness endangers all Americans, even Venetians.”

This statement says it all. The progressive Venetians indicate that the Israel issue may be more than just a “little concern to the 36th’s constituents.” It is the foundation of Winograd’s thinking and her “blindness” that is truly a danger to the office regardless of what side of the line, on any topic, she ultimately falls.

Comment by Trevor L on 1/14/10 at 6:20 pm

Winograd’s position is nuts! Is her goal the extinction of Israel? Wouldn’t a single state become like today’s Palestine? Israel is a deeply flawed, often brutal and shameful, a stain on Jewish history.Empowering those who already behave worse is absurd. What rights do Palestinians have now: Rule of law? Free speech? Free press? Women’s rights? Gay rights? Corrupt as Israel is, Palestine is worse. Let them rule themselves in their way. I assume Winograd will lose, as she should.

Comment by Der K'naker on 1/15/10 at 9:01 am

Ms Winograd’s support for a one state solution is both naive and dangerous.  Arab opposition to Jewish settlement dates back to the first riots in 1920. Anyone that ignorant of history and who presents an idea unacceptable to both parties should not be in the Congress of the United States.

Comment by Norm on 1/16/10 at 2:19 pm

It is not surprising that the Israel Uber Alles crowd start circling the wagons when one theirs is criticized and may be in jeopardy. They may also have no problem with Harman having expressed her willingness to an Israeli agent (a foreign agent to everyone else)to help get an espionage case dropped against two AIPAC officials which would was a violation of US law and her oath office, but those who put American priorities first may not be so forgiving.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 1/21/10 at 6:42 pm

It is ironic how the biggest Israel-haters in the USA are liberal Jews. I would vote for a conservative Christian over any Jewish politician, with the exception of maybe Eric Cantor.

Comment by RB on 1/26/10 at 12:05 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?