Finally, some moral clarity
Anti-Israel types love to lecture the public about the difference between opposition to Israel's policies/interests and anti-Semitism. The former, we are told, is not tantamount to the latter.
As one activist puts it,
The issue is certainly a complicated one. Indeed, it is often difficult to determine whether anti-Israel sentiment is - in intent or in effect - anti-Semitic as well. All of which makes Charley Reese's August 12 column ever-so-refresehing.
Entitled "A Taste of What is to Come," the article erases any doubt as to where Reese stands on the Israel-Judaism equation. In short, Reese (implicitly) argues, "Israel" and "the Jews" are synonymous. Consider his rhetoric. After explaining that Israel's policies have embittered the Palestinians, and that American support of Israel has cost America dearly, Reese asserts,
See how clearly Reese paints his picture! It's simple, really. The US refuses to criticize Israel because of the Jewish lobby. Get it? Israel=Jewish. It's not an Israel problem; it's a "Jewish problem." It's not an Israel lobby; it's a "Jewish lobby." Whose interests are being served? The Jews' ("3 percent of the population") and Israel's ("a foreign country"). Sure, Reese seems to be trafficking in the forged czarist "Protocols," but his honesty must be applauded.
A bit less honest is a site called "antiwar.com," whose proprieters are apparently a bit uneasy with Reese's unvarnished view. In its presentation of Reese's column, the words "Jewish problem" and "Jewish lobby" have been magically airbrushed to "Israel problem" and "Israel lobby." Why, antiwar.com, why? Just when the picture was becoming clearer, you muddy it up once again!?
As one activist puts it,
Those of us who are involved in activism around Israel/Palestine, and take a position critical of the standard American and Israeli views of the conflict are constantly peppered with accusations of anti-Semitism...it becomes incumbent upon us to prominently and frequently argue that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.Tom Friedman, in a 2002 column quoted here, comments, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile..." [We'll let the grammar slide just this once, but it seems worth pointing out that Friedman likely didn't mean to call his own statement vile]. Countless other critics of Israel have issued similar protestations.
The issue is certainly a complicated one. Indeed, it is often difficult to determine whether anti-Israel sentiment is - in intent or in effect - anti-Semitic as well. All of which makes Charley Reese's August 12 column ever-so-refresehing.
Entitled "A Taste of What is to Come," the article erases any doubt as to where Reese stands on the Israel-Judaism equation. In short, Reese (implicitly) argues, "Israel" and "the Jews" are synonymous. Consider his rhetoric. After explaining that Israel's policies have embittered the Palestinians, and that American support of Israel has cost America dearly, Reese asserts,
Today there is no avoiding the plain truth: We have a Jewish problem. The government is totally paralyzed and is unwilling to issue even the mildest rebuke to Israel, no matter how outrageous its behavior. Why? Because the Jewish lobby is so powerful, American politicians are afraid of it...we don't elect politicians to serve 3 percent of the population and a foreign country.
See how clearly Reese paints his picture! It's simple, really. The US refuses to criticize Israel because of the Jewish lobby. Get it? Israel=Jewish. It's not an Israel problem; it's a "Jewish problem." It's not an Israel lobby; it's a "Jewish lobby." Whose interests are being served? The Jews' ("3 percent of the population") and Israel's ("a foreign country"). Sure, Reese seems to be trafficking in the forged czarist "Protocols," but his honesty must be applauded.
A bit less honest is a site called "antiwar.com," whose proprieters are apparently a bit uneasy with Reese's unvarnished view. In its presentation of Reese's column, the words "Jewish problem" and "Jewish lobby" have been magically airbrushed to "Israel problem" and "Israel lobby." Why, antiwar.com, why? Just when the picture was becoming clearer, you muddy it up once again!?
posted by Deranged GOT Fan at 8:05 PM
2 Comments:
you truncated the end of that friedman quote, where he goes on to say that unfairly singling out israel is in fact anti-semitic and not saying so is dishonest. didnt think anyone would know the quote by heart and be able to call you on it, did you?
Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry for the delay in my response. I've been pretty busy.
I'm also sorry that you feel like I did something that needed to be called out. And I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that your observation is accurate. The full paragraph in question reads:
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
But if you look at the specific context in which I was quoting Friedman--as an example that critics of Israel often proclaim that criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-Semitic--I think you'll find that I am quoting and explaining Friedman perfectly accurately. That is exactly what he meant in his (poorly written) sentence.
The subsequent sentence to which you allude has nothing to do with the specific topic I was discussing. Your complaint would make sense if I had accused Friedman of being anti-Semitic, but I did not. My only characterization of him was that I included him among "other critics of Israel." Since he himself defends criticism of Israel in the quote I included, I think I was entirely justified in characterizing him as a "critic of Israel."
And indeed, I followed up my quote of Friedman by saying, "The issue is certainly a complicated one. Indeed, it is often difficult to determine whether anti-Israel sentiment is - in intent or in effect - anti-Semitic as well."
Now, it is true that I began the post by saying "Anti-Israel types love to lecture the public" about the distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. But the example I brought to substantiate this claim was a quote from a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace. As that organization is a public backer of the BDS movement, I think it was fair to call its representative an "anti-Israel type."
Did you understand me to be saying that Friedman is also an "anti-Israel type"? If so, I apologize for any confusion, but that was not my intent. And if I'm remembering correctly, I purposely switched from "anti-Israel" (in the 1st paragraph) to "critic(s) of Israel" (in the second paragraph) in order to avoid classifying Friedman as "anti-Israel." As it happens I do think that Friedman sometimes does criticize Israel more than is deserved, but I would not classify him as "anti-Israel."
All of this said, to answer your question -- hot damn, I am quite surprised (and impressed) that you were familiar enough with the Friedman article to register your dissatisfaction with my quote.
K
Post a Comment
<< Home