Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Israel Lobby Nutjobs on the Loose

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2006.


The abuse heaped on two academics by America's Israel lobby only proves the point that we need an honest debate on the topic.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.

A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "The Israel Lobby" was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe.

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious -- that there is an Israel lobby in the United States -- Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky academic work." Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them "liars" and "bigots."

Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America -- its leading working group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and it attempts to influence U.S. legislation and policy.

Several national Jewish organizations lobby from time to time. Big deal -- why is anyone pretending this non-news requires falling on the floor and howling? Because of this weird deformity of debate.

In the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle debate about Israel. In Israel, they have it as a matter of course, but the truth is that the accusation of anti-Semitism is far too often raised in this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel.

Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost. Now I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled "self-hating Jews." As I have often pointed out, that must mean there are a lot of self-hating Israelis, because those folks raise hell over their own government's policies all the time.

I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk "you're anti-Semitic" charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.

And I wonder if that doesn't produce the same result: giving up on the discussion.

It's the sheer disproportion and the vehemence of the denunciations of those perceived as criticizing Israel that make the attacks so odious. Mearsheimer and Walt are both widely respected political scientists -- comparing their writing to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is just silly.

Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, including a too-broad use of the term "Israel lobby" -- those of us who are pro-Israel differ widely -- and having perhaps overemphasized the clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby.

It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.

But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but rather its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me the authors' arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past.

Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of "anti-Semitism." In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism -- it's about rational discussion of American interests. And, in my case, being pro-Israel. I'm looking forward to hearing from all you nutjobs again.

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
laredo
Posted by: laredo on Apr 26, 2006 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a semantic issue: One is anti-Nazi, not anti-German. Those Germans who opposed Hitler were not self-hating Germans, they were true patriots.
Alas, (NB to the Palestinians) perhaps we only learn from our oppressors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Israel is the problem
Posted by: waves999 on Apr 26, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Israel is the problem in the Middle East. The Palestinians, who certainly deserve their own country, are simply responding to a critical situation perpetrated by guess who? I was particularly appalled by the nasty and petty little land grabs perpetrated by Israel as they were building their so-called security wall. Shame on Israel, they are almost as bad as the late great USA!

Karma is a bitch ya don't wanna mess with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They Are All Human Beings
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Apr 26, 2006 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take away the labels and they are all human beings. Factually the only organized Jewish resistance to the Holocaust was in Warsaw, Poland. Certainly after being offered a place to live after WWII (there were too many "displaced persons" in Europe that were placing burdens on the already devastated infrastructure. Since most were Jewish Isreal became the logical solution. Once there however the realization of oppression and genocide must have sunk in. What happens is these situations is what is called "identifying with the aggressor" (Anna Freud). It appears that is what happened with the Jewish population in the beginning of the state of Isreal. The British bore the brunt of this new found resistance and violence and once they were removed the Jewish population was surrounded by what can only be seen as their brothers (Arabs and Jews have a shared history). As brothers and sisters they saw in each other what they most diliked in themselves. The Jewish population saw a poor and subordinate culture and the Arabs saw a aggressive and economically properous culture. The conflict goes deeper than ethnic labels. It becomes an issue of being secure in who and what you are rather than some ideological or institutional identity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They Are All Human Beings Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: They Are All Human Beings Posted by: tkwilson
» Mr_Dude Posted by: mikespindell
» mikespindell Posted by: Mr_dude
» Prophit's Questions, My Answers Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: Identifying with the aggressor Posted by: afrothetics
» RE: Identifying with the aggressor Posted by: ChristopherLL
» excellent post Posted by: deborama
Interesting observations; let's clarify terms here
Posted by: xbj on Apr 26, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting that anti-semitic, which technically should mean against ANY semitic people, i.e. Jews AND Arabs and many more people from the near and middle east, has come to mean anti-Jewish, which it most decidedly is not. In fact, by changing the meaning of this word to mean anti-Jewish only, it implies an unconsicous conceit that the Jewish people, no matter their origin, are the only "true" semitic peoples that belong in the Mideast.

It is also interesting that "anti-semitic" card is most played when the target of the attack is actually anti-Zionist.

Anti-Zionist is definitely NOT the same as either anti-Jewish OR anti-semitic.

And everyone must remember that Israeli citizens, just like Americans, are victims of a government they did NOT elect and that does NOT represent them, through a corrupt and phony so-called "democratic" election process that hides, facilitates, and props up a rabid military-industrial-corporate one-party fascist government, now, thankfully, finally at war with itself over the factions that want to actually win wars and those that want to perpetuate them endlessly as moneyminting windfalls of raping taxpayers.

The killing that both the Israeli and American governments do in the name of their people, and worse yet, in the name of God, are not supported by the majority of the citizens in either country, but because of no longer valid and accurate voting machines and methods, they cannot do anything to stop them short of revolution.

The lobbies of the military-industrial-corporate cabal own both governments completely and utterly and ultimately, fatally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Etymologically, you're wrong Posted by: brunowe
Dershowitz is a hack
Posted by: redstarwraith on Apr 26, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's to the point that if you want to know what the truth is in Israel all you need do is see who intellectual hack Alan Dershowitz is railing against. Remember him trying to block the release of Norman Finklestein's excellent book, "Beyond Chutzpah"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dershowitz IS a hack, c'mon Posted by: deborama
» RE: Dershowitz is a hack Posted by: evesegal
» great post Posted by: deborama
What do you mean pro-Israel?
Posted by: Alladin on Apr 26, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree w/Ms. Ivins except for the comment "I'm pro-Israel." This obligatory phrase is similar to other obligatory actions taken by public persons in order to avoid the wrath of the "non-existent" Israel lobby. In the case of politicians, a visit to Israel and a prayer at the Wailing Wall or the new "Jailing" Wall has become de riguer for a favorable election outcome. (e.g. Hillary Clinton.) Supressing debate is of course the best indicator that one's activities can't bear the lightof day. How someone can, in good conscience say "I'm pro-Israel" after observing the daily atrocities committed against a people whose only sin is being born on a land that is coveted by people who weren't is beyond me. Wasn't it Camus who said, "Yesterday's opressed are today's oppressors?" BTW the Israeli apologists have taken ownership of the word Semitic, which is a linguistic categorization not a genetic one. Anyone who speaks a language derived from the original Semitic is by definition Semitic. Therefore Jews who don't speak Hebrew aren't even Semites. It is an attempt by said apologists to set themselves up as a homogenious people when they are really quite divergent and come from various racial, ethnic and national backgrounds. They have also taken ownership of Hitler--witness the outcry whenever anyone compares someone else to Hitler. Hitler, anti-Semitism, the Holocaust--they belong to the Jews and don't you dare try to use them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do you mean pro-Israel? Posted by: fictionalizmo
» RE: What do you mean pro-Israel? Posted by: BeaKreloff
eneri
Posted by: eneri on Apr 26, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would be happier if Ms. Ivins mentioned the anti-American demonstration in New York by Islamofascists than her rant against a legal group who has never threatened this country with anything worse than great computer/medical discoveries.

I have yet to see her write anything against the Saudi/oil lobby, the anti-semitism on college campuses, and the car dealership lobby.

I generally love her writings and I own her books, but in the subject of Israel she disappoints me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eneri Posted by: accountability
» FYI Posted by: giles
» FYI Posted by: giles
» RE: eneri Posted by: lonpine
» RE: eneri Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: eneri Posted by: lonpine
» RE: eneri Posted by: eneri
» RE: eneri Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: eneri....Doubtom Posted by: mikespindell
» Israel vs. china Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Israel vs. china Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Israel vs. china Posted by: codingguy
» RE: eneri Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: eneri Posted by: yellow
Why little debate on Israel?
Posted by: bruce@schimmel.com on Apr 26, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ivins is right on target to say that there is an appalling lack of discussion about Israel in the USA.

Ivins is wrong on the reason why.

Ivin's theory that Jews, themselves victimized, find it "especially diffcult for them to admit they have victimized others" is simply not borne out by abundent evidence to the contrary. Many Jews -- Israeli and American -- have a deeply painful understanding of the agony that Palestinians feel. Jews, too, were once homeless; and the irony that they are now oppressors (however unwillinging) is hardly lost on most Jews

The dialogue is stymied, I think, because many Jews (and others) find it difficult to reconcile their love of Israel with their loathing for its oppression of the Palestinian people. They see a options without a choice, and so remain silent.

Some Jews want to break that silence. Among themselves, and with others. For one example, check out the Jewish Dialogue Group in Philadelphia PA.

Bruce
bruce@schimmel.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why little debate on Israel? Posted by: brasilaron
thank you Ms. Molly
Posted by: accountability on Apr 26, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for saying what needs to be said over and over again.
And thanks for saying it in such a calm, thoughtful way.
We all ought to be allowed to come to the table, break bread, and speak of things uncomfortablely divisive, while we foge the bonds of trust in creating solutions not further bile!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thank you Ms. Molly Posted by: Prophit
» RE: thank you Ms. Molly Posted by: yellow
Aaah, Molly, your a breath of fresh air! Have you ever thought of...
Posted by: Prophit on Apr 26, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
running for Congress or the Senate???? I remember when the Congressman from Maryland questioned the unprecedented power and influence AIPAC had in Congress and he was frustrated about it from a political stand point based on his honorable desire to represent his constituents in issues that were in direct conflict with Israel. He said he felt that pressure when in fact it was a simple matter to vote his conscience except where this was concerned.

He, like Molly mentioned the conflict in some cases against American interests that we ended up supporting in favor of Isreal and her issues. I never saw anything like it. He was attacked brutally by an editorial in the NY Times and other national publications and it was the most coordinated and oppressive thing I had ever seen. Many such Israeli supporting organizations jumped on the band wagon as well (the poverty law center, the ADL etc.)

I dont' remember how that ended up, but I do know he was forced to "apologize" for his comments. That was the first time I noticed this use of "antisemitism" against anyone who criticized the AIPAC lobby or Israel.

I started paying more attention and saw it WHENEVER these issues were raised, including the invasion of Iraq. Since then I have used a Jaundiced eye toward that term when its thrown out there and now finally believe that there is no difference anymore between true racism which still exists and simple disagreement with or criticism of Israel and its actions involving its best friend, the US.

That makes the power they have much more onerous and dangerous. It needs to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Molly
Posted by: eileenflmng on Apr 26, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Debate is great

WAWA has the exclusive, explosive and uncensored by the Israeli Military the DVD

30 Minutes with Vanunu

guaranteed to be abhored by the Israeli Lobby


Available as a FREE Public Service message from WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dear Molly Posted by: Llama11
AIPAC = Jewish Zionists First
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Apr 26, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without a doubt, the Christian Zionist and AIPAC contingency has brought stupid decision making by our elected "leaders" that has gone way overboard for the last few decades culminating in what is increasingly looking like a world wide holy war of Abrahamic faiths to the detriment of peace.

The history of Israel is a sordid one that starts out in WW I With the Belfor declaration for the World Zionist Organization which he called apon in that war when the Jewish community at large in Russia didn't show any interest in helping this Christian Zionist. This declaration (a must read) was made after promises were made to the arabs for autonomous states if they helped push back the Turks. President Wilson was no better and in many was, was the architect of WW II, believing also that the feable minded should be limited on childbearing. He too was a religious fanatic.

Fast forward to post WW II and the Truman administration and we find that, against all recommendations, Truman follows his Press Secretary, Clark Clifford's recommendation to recognize Israel to help win the 1948 elections with the Jewish vote. It woud bring him the support of the Senate of which 25 Zionist supporters wrote to him directly as well, but was against all recommendations of his staff (George C. Marshall was furious) and the Allies who considered the move far to much to fast.

The whole affair of AiPAC is based upon religious zealotry, end of times wingnuts and poor decisions made by weak leaders at a time when good judgement was needed most.

Jewish Zionists, Christian Zionists and Islamic Jihadist are the the most dangerous groups of people pushing the buttons in heading to war today. AIPAC has shown they are a leading integral group of the Neocon insiders and fully support wars of aggression. Moral Jews, Christians and Muslims need to step up NOW if we are to avoid a possible WW III.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AIPAC = Jewish Zionists First Posted by: siriuschange
Jealousy
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 26, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a pro-Israel gentile. Pre-WWII Eurropean anti-Semitism made it seem logical to help them to emigrate to their historic homeland after WWII. This location was their choice.

I think the problems arose because the Israelis were given preferential treatment. Money was funneled to the Israelis that made Israel a diamond in a pile of crap.

Hindsight makes me believe that the aid should have been spread throughout the entire area. Had the surrounding countries been made equally prosperous and had commercial ties been established between them and Israel, I think we would have peace there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jealousy Posted by: mythbuster
» Careful what you say... Posted by: chasaturn
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: fictionalizmo
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: lonpine
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: Jealousy Posted by: codingguy
Great Article, Great Responses.. Great video here...
Posted by: sln70 on Apr 26, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at youtube - I forget why this originally caught my eye, but it really made me think, and wonder, and get more interested in the whole "Israel Lobby" "Zionism" "Jewish" debate in all its forms:

Anti-Zionist Jewish Protesters Shows a group of rabbis being accosted by a very angry man, whom they call a Zionist.

Very interesting, you should take a look.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first step in this discussion is not to speak in generalities
Posted by: Maxwellst on Apr 26, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mollie Ivins has done us a service by opening this discussion.

It is one that is not well-served by speaking in broad generalities and a forceful tone. My experience is that approach usually end up misportraying the truth.

AIPAC ill represents the majority of American Jews, who voted 80-20% for Gore and Kerry., when it cozies up to the likes of Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the activist evangelicals. It also ill-serves Israel when it pushes a radical agenda that most Israelis do not support.

For a more nuanced discussion of the topic of pro-peace Zionism, visit www.peacenow.org. American Friends of Peace Now is the spokesperson for those of us who support the best interests of Israel and Palestine through negotiation and compromise.

We face a very difficult challenge in the Hamas leadership, and I am not sure it is very productive to observe that it could have been avoided had Israel and the US been smarter and more effective after the death of Arafat. But there is still progress that can be made if cool heads prevail on all sides. It is a debate that would be welcome on these shores. Shouting down the discussion, however, with cries of "anti-Semitism" or "Zionist faschism," however, does not get us very far down that road. One day, maybe we'll all observe that screaming in righteous indignation is not very much of a solution to anything, on any side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Courage & Clarity
Posted by: charlesfrith on Apr 26, 2006 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo Molly! It goes without saying that you will now be in the thick of one unholy shit fight and I fully expect the calumny to be heaped upon you by the fanatics.

No other topic generates such an asymmetric response, than stating opinions or worse still, the truth, than with regard to Israel or it's formidably international followers of the Jewish faith.

Silence under criticism or debate is for many people in the third millennium a hallmark of the dignified state. Look no further than what Germany has achieved since 1945. Thus providing it's future generations the chance to live in peace with their neighbours.

Did not Germany at some point, have to forgive itself for the past to get on with the future?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Courage & Clarity Posted by: codingguy
Solo cambian los uniformes
Posted by: racozel on Apr 26, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
La cosa es simple, los israelies (su gobierno) se están comportando y actuando con los palestinos como los nazis lo hicieron con ellos. Mientras no admitan y corrijan esta situación las cosas solo iran para peor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Solo cambian los uniformes Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: Solo cambian los uniformes Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Solo cambian los uniformes Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Solo cambian los uniformes Posted by: scribe10
» RE: Solo cambian los uniformes Posted by: scribe10
More Israeli Whine?
Posted by: abqbabe on Apr 26, 2006 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heck, I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm just anti-Israel. And this uproar by the (nonexistant?) Israeli lobby is just more of the prissy, paranoid, drama queen histrionics we should have come to expect from that country.

Israel was founded on hype and thievery and it maintains it's existence the same way. It is hardly a surprise that Israelis have come to believe their own propoganda: that they are sacrosanct, hero/victims fulfilling destiny by stealing back their "historic homeland". (Israel had planned from it's very inception in the late 19th century to displace the [Palestinian] Arabs and rob them of their land. Even in the 1890's the founders and creators of the Jewish state in Israel had this in mind. Just read some of their stuff: they made no bones about it. And most of the world was happy to solve their own "Jewish problem" by letting it happen: let the trouble makers go to Israel. And they did.)

So what else should we expect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here, here! Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: scribe10
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: lonpine
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: codingguy
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: codingguy
» RE: More Israeli Whine? Posted by: yellow
Ironies abound
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 26, 2006 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk "you're anti-Semitic" charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.

I wonder if Molly thought of this sentiment when she wrote this in her Immigration 101 column:

"Racists seem obsessed by the idea that illegal workers -- the hardest-working, poorest people in America -- are somehow getting away with something, sneaking goodies that should be for Americans. You can always avoid this problem by having no social services. This is the refreshing Texas model, and it works a treat."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not "nut jobs at all" just people with a different point of view:
Posted by: scribe10 on Apr 26, 2006 8:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize that I am posting on a leftist website not friendly to Zionism.

However, Molly Ivens contention that the the critics of the M&W paper are "a nut job" is way over the top.


Many of the critics of the paper like Chomsky have been critical of Israeli policy longer than M&W. Besides when Chomsky and Dershowitz agree on something than it's time to sit up and take not. The truth is that the paper is flawed in more ways than one.

Ms. Ivin's contention that to criticize the Jewish State is not anti-Semitic would be ture if one's criticized merely its policies and not its right to exist.

Her other assertion that it's time to debate policy on Israel assumes that such debates haven't been held in the past and are being held today. They have been and they are.

Just because Ms. Ivins along with M&W do not like the outcome of these debates doesn't mean that they haven't been held.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ??? Posted by: codingguy
» RE: ??? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: ??? Posted by: codingguy
the right to debate anti-Semitism
Posted by: n_friedman on Apr 26, 2006 9:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly forgot to mention that David Duke (very famous right-wing anti-Semite) was one of the first to publically applaud the paper.

Molly forgot to mention that the paper was riddled with errors to such an extent that academics who defended W&M against charges of anti-Semitism felt compelled to mention that they themselves had qualms with the paper.

Jews have the right to call a paper, an article, an idea, a movie, etc. anti-Semitic -- just as much as an African American has the right to call something racist.

Jews are not necessarily being irrational or emotional when they call something anti-Semitic.

Americans react strongly and emotionally to accusations of anti-Semitism because they associate it primarily with Nazis and the Holocaust.

But anti-Semitism, like all things, lies along a continuum.

Jewish leftist in our community discussed the issue of when anti-Israel-ism or any communication becomes anti-Semitism and identified three criteria:

1. the deliberate or careless spread of misinformation that blackens the image of Jewish leaders and institutions

2. the application of the double standard (one standard for Jews and/or Israel) and another for the rest of the world

3. the dehumanization of Jews and/or Jewish institutions

An issue raised by the paper may be a valid one while at the same time the paper may be anti-Semitic.

Certainly, the American public has as much right to debate what is anti-Semitic as they have to debate whether American policy in the Middle East violates American interests.

And finally, if each of us were to spend just a little time examining the ways in which we are -- each of us -- racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, then we would -- each of us -- be doing a little to help eliminate these unfortunate phenomena. But together, we would doing a very powerful thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

prairdog
Posted by: prairdog on Apr 26, 2006 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Molly for provoking a dialogue that has taught me much about Israel's history and the diversity of voices in the Jewish community in the US.
My sadness with the hyper-sensitivity of some Jews to criticism of Israel, stems from the the kind of pressure that caused a theatre company in NYC to scrap a play about Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while she was defending the homes of Palestinians.
I am a theologically educated Christian who is grounded in the Torah -- the Hebrew scriptures -- and knows that Jesus was a Jew whose teachings taught him compassion for the widows and poor, anger at injustice and loving one's neighbour. I don't see those qualities in so many of Israel's actions in regard to the Palestinians. I , therefore, cannot support blind US support for an ever-expanding Israel. The Palestinians deserve a viable state too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: prairdog Posted by: codingguy
What a Board
Posted by: RBS on Apr 27, 2006 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great Article!

Great comments!

Great board!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: