Is It Ever Safe to Criticize Israel?
Conservative pro-Israel types like to say that it is a giant myth that criticizing the policies of Israel will get you in trouble. They are wrong. I know people who lost their jobs for participating in organizations that are opposed to the occupation. I know one young fellow who lost his job at the State Department when it was discovered that his uncle was an Arab-American activist (and, by the way, in no way hostile to Israel).
Yes, criticizing Israel can cost a person his or her livelihood. That does not happen often but it happens.
But there are other things, almost as unpleasant, that happen all the time: like publicly being called a Nazi.
This is a column written by an Arab-American in the Arizona Republic criticizing, in strong terms, the Gaza war.
This is a response written by a respected and prominent local rabbi, published in the temple bulletin, along with a letter he sent to the Arizona Republic. Note especially the language used in the letter to the newspaper.
Draw your own conclusions (as you guys always do)
MJ: Here is the money quote from the Rabbi's letter:
"Hamas needs to surrender unconditionally, abstain from all terrorist activity, and begin to deal with Israel in the arena of diplomacy. Until they do, every loss of life and limb, every ounce of innocent blood spilled on both sides of the border, should rightfully be attributed to the murderers of Hamas."
Surrender unconditionally and then negotiate? Abbas has already done that. I guess that's why the Settlements have stopped in the West Bank and Abbas is president of the Republic of Palestine.
February 12, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
M. ‘Abbás is no longer President of anything, nicht wahr?
Exporting Rulalaw or ‘democracy’ to the neo-Levant may be a hopeless task, yet anybody who cares to attempt it ought not to neglect these little nits.
Happy days.
February 13, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
I assume you are aware that Reform Judaism was originally anti-zionist.
What are your views on their original anti-zionist position and the rationale for the switch to pro-zionist?
February 12, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the holocaust was the rationale. As for most Jews, the holocaust made Zionism appear to be the only answer. Except, the problem it was designed to solve had been rendered moot by the slaughter.
But the holocaust was the deciding factor.
February 12, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, MJ, but you answered too quickly. Reform switched before the holocaust happened. I was hoping you would actually examine the rationales before responding. I was asking what I consider a very serious question.
February 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey MJ, the rabbi's letter was certainly over the top (I'd even say "frothing"), but the prospect of being met with unpleasant or offensive speech doesn't make criticism of Israel "unsafe." Supporters of Israel are also called Nazis on a regular basis; is their world also unsafe now?
February 12, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that pro-Israel folks are not publicly called Nazis by decent respectable and honored figures in the community but rather by nutcases.
Big difference.
February 12, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do professors count as respectable and honored figures in the community? And does it count when someone who voices a pro-Israel opinion, although not called a Nazi, is accused by virtue of such opinion of being a fifth columnist? Mearsheimer and Walt, although not going so far themselves, have made the latter sort of accusation very fashionable.
Anyway, I think it's all a tempest in a teapot. I, Meretz refugee and now Hadashnik that I am, am willing to accept the risk of being called a Nazi or a child-killer or an apartheid supporter by people who don't know better, because that's part of living in a country where speech is free. If I am called that by a respected member of the community, so be it. I don't believe that freedom from offensive speech is the kind of safety that Americans have a right to demand.
February 12, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, does anyone have a clue how to post on TPM Cafe? I'd like to post something about Lieberman but haven't been able to get to the "create entry" page.
February 12, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you're signed in, you'll see a bar near the top of the page, just below the "TPM Cafe" logo. On the left, it should say, "Hi Jonathan," and over to the right it has several links, starting with "Your Dashboard." The link you want is "Blog Now." Click it and you'll go to a page where you can write your blog.
Note: there's a preview button down at the bottom. If you preview, but aren't happy with something, you need to use your browser's "back" button in order to go back to the edit screen. (At least I think that's the only way to re-edit - it's the only way I've found.) It's not so difficult once you get the hang of it, and if you make a mistake, you can edit even after you've posted.
February 12, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what wasn't working properly. Someone on another thread pointed me to Al Shaw, who straightened out the glitch and enabled me to post. Thanks for your help.
February 13, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do professors count as respectable and honored figures in the community? And does it count when someone who voices a pro-Israel opinion, although not called a Nazi, is accused by virtue of such opinion of being a fifth columnist? Mearsheimer and Walt, although not going so far themselves, have made the latter sort of accusation very fashionable.
Anyway, I think it's all a tempest in a teapot. I, Meretz refugee and now Hadashnik that I am, am willing to accept the risk of being called a Nazi or a child-killer or an apartheid supporter by people who don't know better, because that's part of living in a country where speech is free. If I am called that by a respected member of the community, so be it. I don't believe that freedom from offensive speech is the kind of safety that Americans have a right to demand.
February 12, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know Walt and Mearsheimer. They say nothing like that. Nor have they made such language respectable.
On the contrary, they have made it respectable to talk about these issues in a detached academic way without name calling or libelous accusations.
February 12, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mearsheimer and Walt are right on a lot of points, and I have no quarrel with their thesis that lobbies in general can influence a country contrary to its interests, but I think that (1) they painted with way too broad a brush, and (2) they used terminology - particularly the capital-L "Lobby" - which creates the impression of a unified force that does not in fact exist. I believe, although I'm in no position to look up the citation right now, that one or the other of them acknowledged this in a subsequent British interview and regretted the use of that term.
In any event, there has been more than one occasion where I've seen pro-Israel opinions expressed on left web sites met with responses like "is that the Lobby point of view" or "the Lobby must be here." I'm thinking of Helena Cobban's site in particular (she herself doesn't say such things, but several of her regular commenters do), and I've seen similar things elsewhere.
Of course, the Israeli government has also poisoned the well recently by recruiting bloggers to make pro-Israel comments, but the one preceded the other.
February 12, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan said:
It really isn't just recently, Jonathan. Israeli hasbara activities have been going on for a very long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
February 12, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between the Lobby activists and supporters of Israel as most of us who have closely followed the former for years well know.
Jonathan, as a supporter of Hadash, are you also a Zionist? I realise that Hadash is more than the labels applied to it, but anti-Zionist is one of them.
The gains of Hadash, especially post Gaza and among Israeli Jews, are one of the positive signs coming out of the recent election.
February 12, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I consider myself a Zionist, albeit an unorthodox one. (I once wrote an essay about exactly what sort of Zionist I am - to oversimplify, one who defines the term "Jewish state" as a measure of values rather than ethnicity, Emmanuel Levinas-style - but it's been lost in the ether.)
Hadash straddles the line between Zionism and post-Zionism, but I wouldn't call it anti-Zionist. It's pro-two-state, believes that Israel should be a state of all its citizens (as does Meretz, which I used to support but which is too elitist and not sufficiently class-conscious for my taste) and has a fair amount of flexibility on issues like the Law of Return and the degree to which the state should promote and preserve Jewish culture. The party has both Zionists and non-Zionists in it and has worked with Zionist factions in the past, as with Dov Khenin's campaign for the Tel Aviv mayoralty. Like everything else in Israel, defining Hadash's place on the spectrum is complicated.
February 13, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, in case it isn't clear, I don't think for a minute that either Mearsheimer or Walt intended to make that sort of accusation respectable.
February 12, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first letter uses the terms "mass-murdered" and "atrocities." So he doesn't come out and call the Israelis Nazis, but he accuses them of the same things the Nazis did.
The rabbi's letter is over the top in terms of linking the letter writer to Hamas, and I would imagine that most readers would catch that.
However, his point about Hamas, which MJ has rightfully denounced recently as "murderous thugs," is well taken. The civilian casualties that the Palestinians suffered were an indirect result of Hamas's tactics. I believe that there were some (not many) trigger-happy 19-year-old Israeli kids that shot up Palestinian families, and I believe that some families were hit by stray white phosphorus shells meant for smokescreens. Similar things have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. But overall the IDF was not gunning for civilians, and the first writer's language-- as does most of the criticism of Israel-- implies that it was deliberate Israeli policy to "mass-murder" civilians and commit "atrocities."
It is very "safe" to criticize Israel-- I am unaware of any harm the first writer has suffered by being linked to Hamas-- but it is entirely unhelpful to not recognize that the Israelis are engaged with an enemy that plays by very different rules than we do, that are more than willing to sacrifice children as "martyrs." And the first letter writer is incorrect as well. Hamas has support of about 28% of the population-- slightly higher than Fatah, but hardly "soaring." And Hamas support is lower in Gaza, where the people actually enjoyed the fruits of Hamas leadership, than it is in the West Bank.
Let Israel kick Hamas's ass some more, and you will have a better chance for peace than if you limit Israeli military action to tit-for-tat reprisals. That allows Hamas to claim that they are holding the Israelis off by their bravery and the will of Allah, and about a quarter of the Palestinians are stupid enough to believe them.
MJ means well, but he can't have it both ways. If Hamas are truly "murderous thugs," then the rabbi is right, and the first writer is misguided.
February 12, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The respected community leader started his essay by implying that the editorialist was a Nazi:
The Rabbi then distorted Bahbah's point, saying:
You'd never guess from the essay that Bahbah had criticized Hamas at all. He did, in fact, criticize both Hamas and Israel. But then, even "even-handedness" can draw public fire -- as Howard Dean can testify.
February 12, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
somibear: MJ means well, but he can't have it both ways. If Hamas are truly "murderous thugs," then the rabbi is right, and the first writer is misguided.
No, rabbi is not right. "Murderous thugs" did honor the ceasefire to a larger extend then Israel, their fault was incomplete control of some splinter groups that managed to lob few harmless rockets, Israel fault -- keeping the blockade basically intact. Then Israel BLANTANTLY broke the truce by killing 6 Hamas.
But even so, aren't they murderous thugs? This is judging the events by pre-ordained labels. If murderous thugs kill 9 persons, this is slaugher. If a noble government kills 1300, it is blameless -- because we already know who bear the blame, the thugs.
Then rabbi elliptically alludes to "[Israel has taken] unprecedented measures to minimize the number of civilian casualties even among its enemies." Well, as a MEASURE OF MINIMIZING CASUALTIES, white phosphorus is definitely an innovation, perhaps indeed without precedent.
Given their history, perhaps Hamas deserve to be called "murderous thugs", but it does not change the lies about what happened with the last ceasefire and the slaughter that followed.
The most sad thing is that good Rabbi probably believes in his claims, after all, he did not invent them.
In any case, professors were loosing jobs, and worse, over taking stands like that. The good news is that within USA, the hysteria seems to be abaiting. But Israel is a totally different story, and the same goes for American "supporters". (Like MJ, I think about myself as a supporter of Israel, but not a believer in the "official story", and unfortunately, this official story is propagated very energetically.)
February 12, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rabbi makes a lot of sense. I'm surprised that there are so many people that deny that their criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitism, and, indeed, awfully close to the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. It's more than obvious and very, very well documented. The criticisms of Jews are not just similar to what the Nazis said, in many case they are word for word identical. Protocols of Zion and everything else. There's no question that this rising anti-Semitism is related to Nazism, and exists for many of the same reasons. Jews need to be aware of this and especially need to be aware of the need to use armed force to fight these monsters. They are no different from the Nazis of the 30s and are clearly intent on the elimination of all Jews. Hamas says so openly in its charter, as does the PLO, and it is also stated repeatedly in the comments of the so-called "leftist" blogosphere. Jews shouldn't be fooled.
February 12, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now any criticism of Israel is unacknowledged anti-Semitism. And everybody knows that denying you're anti-Semitic is the most telling sign of it.
February 12, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's even funnier is the mandatory WWII analogy and the comparision of Palestinian refugees to Nazis. Because as we all know, in 1939 the Germans were living in refugee camps and their former homes were occupied by by German and Polish Jews.
And you know "mikep" probably is an Evil-gelical who thinks Jesus commands real Christians to hate Arabs. Ironically, the only "Christians" who think that way are sad it's no longer socially acceptable for them to hate Blacks. Times sure is rough for the whiteys.
February 12, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mike P is joking. But his humor is a little forced. I don't think joking about the Holocaust and anti-semitism is funny. But, to each his own.
February 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making MJ's point better than MJ himself ever could have, mikep says:
As a person who has been critical of Israel, I guess I better go lock my door.
February 12, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
i hope this is your idea of a joke.
February 12, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how so many people can see a rising tide of Anti-Semitism and then ascribe it wholly to the natural and widespread existence of Anti-Semitism.
Even if you hold Israel completely blameless and believe it's military operations in Lebanon and Gaza were appropriate and judicious uses of force, surely you have to concede that Israel's more aggressive stance is at a minimum providing some excuse and cover to the Anti Semites?
As a long-term strategy, calling everyone Anti-Semites whether their arguments have merit may well cause people to remain silent out of distaste for being perceived as an Anti-Semite and may even cause them to examine their criticisms, but it also serves to provide a lot of cover for the real Anti-Semites, and is clearly diluting the strength of the charge. Simply pointing out casualty rates is almost guaranteed to raise that charge. How long until pointing out that both observant Jews and Muslims eschew pork is labeled a dangerous example of false equivalence?
If Anti Semitism is so on the rise, and Israel is being used as a false excuse to simply attack Jews, a charge I see made often, then must one not ask what practically Israel can do to neutralize that dangerous and false propaganda?
My first suggestion would be to show less certainty that collective punishment is perfectly okay.
February 13, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point is, I guess, one can never know.
And the problem is, anti-Semitism has a long, vibrant, and un-illustrious history, so it always could be.
The Post reported on a wave of anti-Jewish action in Venezuela. What Venezuelan Jews have to do with Gaza, I'll never know.
I didn't notice of wave Venezuelan anger toward, say, Chadians...or Rwandans...even though the atrocities there were much worse.
So Jews are often "the other," but conveniently, they are often near to hand and easy to hate.
February 13, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Myth is derived from the Greek word mythos, which means "word of mouth." Here is some word of mouth, for you.
Michael Scheuer loses position and income for saying Israel relationship threatens our national interest. LINK
Anthony Zinni's name was removed from consideration in working for the State Department "after Clinton came under pressure from some major supporters in New York State who told her that the appointment was unacceptable to Israel because Zinni is perceived as 'hostile' to the Jewish state." LINK
February 12, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There can be no doubt that Israel and its hit squads roam the world preventing critical speech regarding Israel and its actions.
I could fill my hard drive with examples.
People are in jail for breaking speech laws and pressure is used at all levels to ruin the reputation of anyone who would question Israel.
Even former president Carter had speaking engagements cancelled under pressure of Israel groups in this country.
To ignore the obvious is to ignore the truth.
Calling people anti-Semitic for speaking the truth his now routine.
There will come a point when the "last straw' has been reached.
Prediction: if Obama fails to stand up to Israel and Iran gets attacked that will be the last straw and no one will be able to prevent world wide retaliation using germ, chemical and whatever else warfare that can only be imagined.
In these perilous times as the world slips further into depression people will be on a short fuse that will take little to ignite .
6 months from now an event such as bombing Iran or a terrorist incident could easily start a tidal wave of world wide anarchy.
February 12, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, the Rabbi has a right to be concerned about the future of Israel - and be passionate about it. Yes, even to the point of getting out of line with his accusations and namecalling.
Israel's worst enemies are its professional lobbying "friends" here in the U.S. Returning our relationship to a more normal, independent status would be as big a break for Israel as it would for the U.S.
February 12, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite its despicable smear of Bishara A. Bahbah's thoughtful and insightful commentary, the second pitiful and paranoid rant has little to do with what Bahbah actually said, or indeed much to do with any kind of balanced and objective view of the Mideast whatever. Of course, Hamas is partly to blame, as Bahbah himself certainly intimated; this is however absolutely not proof that IDF and the Israel ruling coalition are therefore blameless, as the unAmerican and knee-jerk "rebuttal" ridiculously pretends. Thanks for exposing this, MJ. It is only a small example, and it is doubtful whether any jobs or livelihoods are at stake, nonetheless it is a good example of the kind of unhinged mentality that can cause some people -members of Congress in particular- to lose their jobs.
February 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The separation of Gaza and the West Bank has provided a great "control" experiment for most Zionist Arguments. If Hamas was the problem--and not the Isareli's insatiable desire for Palestinian land--the West Bank would be seeing fewer settlements, a Palestinian "Yeshuv," and the path to statehood would be clear. Instead, we are seeing more settlements, more restrictions, more land confiscations, and Abbas has no peace partner in Jerusalem.
The truth is hiding in plain sight.
February 13, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you wait until you have become an ex-President, would not that insure a reasonable degree of safety?
Happy days.
February 13, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink