Thursday, February 12, 2009
If you tuned into the live stream of the Harvard Kennedy School's Gaza "debate" ["The Road to Peace After Gaza" -- A conversation with: Shai Feldman, Rashid Khalidi, Moderated by: Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns] last night, you got an earful of what's wrong with the University culture of Israel bashing. In spite of the virtual shutout of Israeli and Zionist arguments, ideologues like Rashid Khalidi, President Barack Hussein Obama's dinner party buddy and their apologists like the evening's moderator, Nick Burns, Foggy Bottom's unofficial Secretary of State, perpetuate the interminable whine that their opinions never get heard by the American public. Spare me. Of the dozen questions fielded by the speakers, 10 were hostile to the Jewish State.
Burns set the tone for the evening by citing The Twin Horrors That Justify-Every-Horrendous-Act-of-Arab-Violence: THE OCCUPATION and THE SETTLEMENTS. There is no longer any debate, any questioning these axioms. If you disagree with these eternal truths, you will be banished to the dark realm of "fascists", "colonialists" or into the ninth circle inhabited by "Zionists", child molesters and serial killers.
In this corner we have Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Middle East Studies at that bastion of free speech and non-intimidation, Columbia University, those folks that gave us Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's evening of honor. The Brooklyn- born Khalidi is coming off one of his more embarrassing bouts having been caught fabricating a quote by Moshe Ya'alon. In addition to the revealed truth of THE OCCUPATION and THE SETTLEMENTS he has added GAZA AS A GIANT PRISON. With rare objections these axioms are unassailable in the university culture.
And in this corner we have Shai Feldman, Director of Brandeis University's Crown Center for Middle East Studies. Shai is typical of Israeli intellectuals abroad who, almost to a person, seem to exist only to validate the arguments of their strident Arab opponents. It's the fulfillment of the old saw, "One lies and the other swears to it." Yes, THE OCCUPATION is horrendous, yes, THE SETTLEMENTS are the chief obstacle to peace, yes, GAZA IS A BIG PRISON and yes, Israel is an APARTHEID STATE - they dutifully parrot. Feldman certainly is not so groveling as most, for example, Naomi Chazan, Ilan Peleg, Gershom Gorenberg, to name a few, but he failed to answer the repeated slanders hurled at Israel by Khalidi and his sympathetic audience. This charade has been played out on college campuses for decades. Strong speakers like Ephraim Karsh, Ephraim Inbar, Martin Kramer and even Natan Sharanksy rarely make it onto Middle East Studies rolodexes.
The bout was entirely predictable:
- Arab excoriates Israel as oppressor, occupier, Apartheid monger and wagger of the US tail (the poor Palestinians, having to resort to lobbing rockets every 5 minutes for 6 years at Jewish children - all because they don't have F-16's and tanks).
- Jew takes it on the chin, agrees with his Arab accuser most of the time with an occasional "But Israel wants peace, peace, peace..."
The roles are from central casting and the dialogue rarely varies. The Jew is the engineer of peace. He is the tireless analyst, working Plan A, but always with the central theme that Israel must make PC's (painful concessions), concessions that always entail real, concrete actions like returning to the June, 1967 borders, releasing thousands of Palestinian prisoners, dismantling settlements or supplying goods to their enemy during a hot war (the question is never asked how many medical convoys crossed into Sderot from Gaza during years of rocket attacks).
The Jew is the supreme logician. And if Plan A is not working, then he pulls out Plan B, C, etc. Feldman came across more as a policy wonk than a defender of a country that has been under siege for 60 years. He can design a logical peace. And no rational opponent can resist logic, can he? If the Palestinians' answer to Painful Concessions is increased terror, then it must be some strategic failing of the Jews. Not to worry, we'll just ratchet up the analysis and self-incrimination. Logic will win out.
The Arab, on the other hand, knows how to play to the balcony. He emotes, accuses, excoriates and prevaricates. As the perennially aggrieved party, he wins the audience by annealing the Palestinian national, theocratic and fascist movement to the crowd's self congratulatory "Progressive" feelings, no matter how intrinsically absurd that marriage is. The crowd doesn't want to hear, "Well, we can take practical steps to address the Palestinian right of return", or "we can discuss and adjust the route of the security fence". I call it the "Tel Aviv University monotone", devoid of emotion and conviction. Audiences don't want to go to a debate to hear a cost/benefit analysis of this conflict. They want to hear from their Arab interlocutor, "Israel and Zionism are fundamentally evil, stooges of a capitalist USA, jailers of Arab children and perpetrators of genocide." With the occasional exception of Alan Dershowitz they've never heard an impassioned argument from the other side. And Guess which debater almost always wins on college campuses (and ultimately in 99% of the world)?
Until Israel fields strong spokespersons who can vigorously defend and articulate historical reality, Arab and Muslim debaters on campus will score knockouts whenever they appear. Israel and Jews in The Middle East have been under siege for over 100 years; Most Palestinian Arabs have never given up their dream of annihilating every Jew in Israel; Israel has made overture after overture and scores of concrete concessions (the Gaza evacuation, prisoner release, etc.) for decades. The only demand put on Palestinians by Israel is to cease their addiction to killing Jews on sight, a nasty habit they have never been able to break. Palestinian Arabs have not made one concession for peace in 60 years, but they know how to sway a crowd. Until strong, emotive Israeli speakers venture out to enunciate their defense of The Jewish State, the case for Israel will always lose on college campuses.
I agree with your analysis of the difference between Israeli advocates and Arab ones. I have been observing for a few years now how American audience is being swayed by crude appeal to raw emotions. In Europe it is even worse. They are already like lanes to the fabulous Arab street, of which everyone is so afraid.
Nietzsche said:
"A Jew, on the other hand, in keeping with the business circles and the past of his people, is least of all used to being believed. Consider Jewish scholars in this light: All of them have a high regard for logic, that is for compelling agreement by force of reason; they know, with that they are bound to win even where they encounter race and class prejudices and when one does not like to believe them. For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses" (The Gay Science, 348)
Very hard to sway people at the college level. They have already been indoctrinated in the thought processes of PC victimology politics.
Any suggestion that responsible adult action is necessary on personal or (inter)national levels of human affairs is just not part of the worldview.
Remember, Falastin is a part of the Dar al-Islam. Muslim once, Muslim forever.
So ANY Israel of ANY sort is "occupation" and "settlements".
It's impossible to even begin to have a conversation if you don't understand the other guy's terminology. In this case, it's the doctrine of a Texas land-grabber ("What's mine is mine, what's yours is subject to argument!") granted the authority of religion.
Israel is in a War of bullets AND ideas. Israel needs ARTICULATE spokesmen/women, with less pronounced Israeli accents. I remember hearing Ehud Barak speak. AWFUL. Every other word was "Ehh", "Ehh". I'm not exaggerating.
Why wan't Dershowitz at this get together?
Was he firewalled out like he was at the jimmy "ONE-TERM WORST PRESIDENT EVER" carter monologue at Brandeis?
Joe Major,
do you know if Muslims consider any neighborhood/part of Britain that is now majority Muslim,
"part of the Dar al-Islam. Muslim once, Muslim forever"?
Hillel,
Let me be the first commenter to disagree.
First, there is nothing wrong with "Tel Aviv University monotone." In fact, it is a skill that one should take pride in. It is such dispassionate arguments that have allowed Israel's success. It is such disinterested logical reasoning that has allowed Jews to survive in harsh conditions and profit immensely in freedom.
Second, the issue of Hasbara. Israelis abroad often end up being spokespeople for their country, whether they like it or not. Often, as well, these Israelis believe what they say. They are Meretz voters who believe that Israel should stop at the Green Line. They've served in the IDF and have full right to say that they do not want their families and their tax dollars serving a cause in the West Bank and Gaza that they feel is alien to the Zionism.
The problem is understanding what the debate is about to begin with. The reason for these sessions is not to come to a solution, which what the Israeli generally thinks. These sessions generally occur to explain why incredible violence has occurred. The Palestinian side is going to be far more emotional. The Israeli side has to be more rational. The Israeli side needs to explain some difficult concepts to people who know little about the specifics of the debate aside from what the Palestinian is presenting.
Emoting is the way to lose the debate. Understanding the pain of the aggrieved Palestinian, but justifying the reasons for Israel's actions is what is necessary in these debates.
Of course, there are plenty of things that are unjustifiable, like the wild rampage through Hebron a few months ago, or bombing Tel Aviv youth nightclubs or Netanya hotel dining rooms during Passover seders, and the heinous nature of these acts must be portrayed. However, the emotional argument undermines any possibility of solution. Hysteria does not serve well in an environment where law enforcement must reign.
Predictability and a certain logic are rightly hi-lighted.
The predictability is so absolute, so striking, that it reads like a pro forma checklist, wherein thought at any very conscientious level is no longer applied.
The "logic" in question prides itself in a certain "realism" and "humanism," all of which terms are ironized because our wouldbe protagonists fail to better conceive and clarify these terms, allowing them to be coopted by the Khalidis of the world, among others still.
One example of what is allowed to pass for "realism" was reflected upon recently by Judea Pearl when, in turn, he quoted Jimmy Carter, the latter indicating: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel."
Iow, for the Carters, the Khalidis, et al., together with their variegated but very real, de facto alliances (as well as the Shai Feldmans of the world who variously allow this type of "logic" and "realism" to subsist within the overall calculus), barbarity and utterly debased forms of terror need to be "understood" and broadly accepted as a part of a political calculus, rather than better understood in the starkly barbarous terms they do in fact reflect. That is not emphasized for purposes of suggesting merely reactionary formulations are warranted, mere incitements - rather it's emphasized for purposes of simple moral illumination.
Or, from a slightly different angle still and as Z-word recently put it in a piece hi-lighting Judea Pearl's op-ed and a piece fittingly titled "Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil," we need to be re-reminded of one of the primary motivating factors involved here, precisely because it is not a reasonable or rational or worthy factor in any sense whatsoever. As Z-word put it, "In the gruesome video which culminated in Pearl's beheading by a gang of Islamist terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, he was heard saying, 'My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish.'"
That's it, folks. That's it. That. Is. It.
On one level I hesitate to put it in those simple and stark terms, despite the reality it reflects, because 1) other factors are of course involved, ranging from the entire Dar al-Islam vs. dar al-harb conception to complicating factors on the Israeli side which cannot merely be tout court dismissed and because 2) better conceptions of realism, humanism, etc. do of course need to be upheld. Still, while simplistic reductions and mere reactions and incitements obviously need to be avoided, primary realities and motivating factors need to be acknowledged for what they are, not rationalized away or placed within a mere political calculus when it is no such thing.
If it's still not utterly clear (and it's revealing that, for some, it may still not be clear), one need only imagine how similar tactics and motivations would be dealt with if they were being initiated from Canada's or Mexico's border with the U.S., against U.S. citizens, instead of Israeli citizens (roughly 22% of which are Arab, btw).
Or, in simpler terms, basic realities need to be acknowledged for what they are, not what they are not. For too many wouldbe sophisticates and late-moderns in general, that's problematic, or, rather, it needs to be problematized.
Charles makes some good points. I'm not Hillel, but I don't think his point is so much that Israel-advocates need to be more shrill, just that it would be nice if some of them could at least hold up their side of the argument.
Khalidi doesn't rant and rave. That's what makes him so insidious. He has the dispassionate academic cadence down. It sounds so reasonable unless you really "know". Feldman is an amiable enough fellow, but he simply doesn't hold up his side of the argument sufficiently. It's not that he needs to emote more -- a style issue (though Feldman loses on this level as well with his strong accent compared to Khalidi's native English) -- it's just that he and others like him simply tend to leave the opposition seat vacant even while they sit in it.