Sunday, February 28, 2010
[The following, by David Adler, is crossposted from Z Word.]
To find journalist-ideologue John Pilger ranting about "the criminality of the Israeli state" and "the murderous, racist toll of Zionism" is all too routine. (Hat tip Oliver Kamm.) What's new is this:
Pilger trots out "the expatriate Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon" as a representative good Jew, emblematic of "the heroes of Israel" and "the moral courage of Israeli dissidents." Either Pilger is fool enough to be unaware of Atzmon's vicious anti-Jewish bigotry, or he has consciously praised an apologist for the Third Reich, who has declared:
"One of the things that happened to us was that stupidly we interpreted the Nazi defeat as a vindication of the Jewish ideology and the Jewish people."
And:
"Carpet bombing and total erasure of populated areas that is so trendy amongst Israeli military and politicians (as well as Anglo-Americans) has never been a Nazi tactic or strategy."
For more on Atzmon's record of Holocaust revisionism, here. I won't waste further time documenting Atzmon's hate, because he continues to document it for us time and again.
As for John Pilger's excuse, I'd love to hear it. And if Amy Goodman, who frequently greets Pilger as an eminence on her program Democracy Now!, weren't a hack posing as a toughminded media critic, she would ask Pilger about his high regard for Atzmon next time she has him on.
I've said it often and I'll do it again: the familiar complaint that critics of Israel are being silenced or cowed by charges of antisemitism is in some ways the reverse of the truth. It's people who call attention to antisemitism, and the enabling or papering over of antisemitism so vividly illustrated by Pilger's rant, who are being dismissed as Zionist agents, Arab haters, people who can't possibly be arguing in good faith. We're not opposing bigotry, the logic goes; we're employing "the usual tactic," as Caryl Churchill said of Howard Jacobson when he condemned her ugly play Seven Jewish Children.
The "tactic" charge has a long history. In 1972, Huey Newton, sounding very much like the communist functionary he aspired to be, wrote:
We realize that some people who happen to be Jewish and who support Israel will use the Black Panther Party's position that is against imperialism and against the agents of the imperialist as an attack of anti-Semitism. We think that is a backbiting racist underhanded tactic and we will treat it as such.
In other words, we categorically refuse to discuss or acknowledge antisemitism, and we will greet anyone who attempts to do so with unthinking hostility. This attitude dies hard.
Today, in a very different political context, the debate has flared up in an epic, nasty and long-brewing exchange between Leon Wieseltier and Andrew Sullivan, which is way too labyrinthine to deal with here. But one thing that struck me was Glenn Greenwald's reaction, which included the argument - also familiar - that reckless accusations of antisemitism pose an "obvious danger." "[C]heapening the charge of anti-semitism through frivolous and politically manipulative uses," wrote Greenwald, "weakens the ability to combat actual, real anti-semitism, which does still exist."
Well, Mr. Greenwald, here's your chance to combat actual, real antisemitism, which does still exist. Will you call out John Pilger, your fellow frequent guest on Democracy Now!, for praising an avowed antisemite?
Imagine if John Pilger, in the pages of the New Statesman, praised someone who had said: "Stupidly we interpreted the defeat of slavery as a vindication of black ideology and black people." Greenwald would have piped up immediately, no?
Holy ****.
You know this starts out sounding reasonable, beautiful even - the touching idea that bereaved parents can bridge the gap between peoples. I happen to agree with this and that contacts between Arabs and Israelis on a personal level are the only way the peace will eventually blossom between them - that plus a lot of therapy as both peoples are traumatized.
But the article rapidly goes downhill from there. For example the comment that morally there is no difference between the suicide bomber who murders innocent people deliberately and the Israeli soldier at the crossing point who, searching for terrorists, prevents a pregnant woman from getting to the hospital on time. So she loses the baby.
What about: there is a huge difference between the deliberate, homicidal/suicidal murder of innocent people and the inadvertent loss of life due to counterterrorism, which is the attempt to save lives?
This is sophistry carried to a truly nauseating degree. I'm appalled that anybody would actually think this way.
Also, Gilad Atzmon is Beyond The Pale. He is a notorious antisemite (yes the real kind). What his motives are I have no idea. But nobody should pay any attention to him period.
As far as the convoluted Weiseltier/Sullivan discussion is concerned it is worth reading both on the subject.
I wrote a piece for Harry's about this, trying to tie together a range of ideas - the suppression of free speech at Irvine, hate speech against Jews and Israel from various sources, and the ease with which a person like Andrew Sullivan, who I do not consider a bigot, can nevertheless slide into the edges of antisemitic memes - for example conspiracy theories and the portrayal of Israel as evil, worthless, a state which the US should either abandon or actually even attack.
Sullivan has gone from being a hard-line neocon to somebody who honestly doesn't see what's wrong with Mearscheimer/Walt conspiracy theories, who has stated in print that in his opinion Cast Lead was all about harming Obama's peace plan - we've discussed these issues here too. There isn't a lot of common sense to this pendulum swing - going from being blindly prowar, including against Iraq, to blindly anti-Israel, anti-Iraq war - well to some degree I can understand the bitterness of a betrayed lover. Israel isn't perfect. There are times I just want to scream and Cast Lead was one of them. However, I also know about the rockets and other terrorist attacks and don't really have a better idea as to how to stop them any more than being nice to the Germans stopped WWII.
I was for the record ALWAYS against the Iraq war but that was a war of choice and Israel's wars usually are not. Eventually the terrorist attacks demand a response.
Were Lebanon and Cast Lead too violent? Maybe. That's debatable. It's also possible that a protracted involvement in Lebanon was a bad idea, in fact this led to a lot of anguish and polarized the Shi'a against Israel.
Regardless, I don't think either Lebanon or Gaza should have made a well-informed, thinking person so outraged, or given the provocation and the suffering of Israeli civilians and the increasingly dangerous situation, or caused someone turn on Israel like this. So it's kind of puzzling especially given the nature of Gaza's ruling party.
And, it's a thin line between over the top, careless, impassioned rhetoric including strong opinions about Israeli policy, and the demonization of the state and the people of Israel.
Many of us are often very uncomfortable with violence period and tend to be antiwar but - we understand the consequences should antiterrorism tactics fail. And, we don't hold Israel to higher standards than, say, the NATO powers who are fighting in Afghanistan and the US which attacked Iraq, and pretty much pulverized it twice.
Israel is way more threatened than NATO or the US. That has to be taken into account. Nobody is firing rockets into British houses! and when somebody did the blowback was enormous. We would do the same - if somebody shot at us, across the border - thousands of times - I think the B-52's would be out there carpet bombing. At any rate the citizens would demand a strong response and rightly so! and nobody would question our right to try and suppress the fire let alone bring us up for war crimes!
Similarly - especially in Britain - the very term "Zionism" has been distorted beyond recognition and now commonly means something truly evil.
That in my opinion is antisemitic, period.
Harry's sometimes is a little slow so if you can't access this right away give it another try. The comment thread is worth reading too as there are links embedded in various comments that are worth pursuing.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/02/16/hate-speech-israel%e2%80%99s-legitimacy-and-the-war-on-andrew-sullivan/
At any rate, British antisemitism is something old, deep and wicked and it's had an effect on the Jewish community for hundreds of years. I absolutely believe that British foreign policy, ie ambiguity if not outright hostility to Israel and the way state media like BBC portray Israel and also "realism" regarding oil and the sheer number of Muslims have combined to make things increasingly toxic there, and I fear for the future. Britain continues to be a potent state regardless of its reduced circumstances, and might be all the more dangerous for that. One can read, just on Harry's for example, how apologetic and fearful of rocking the boat are many British Jews including some who write regularly for Harry's.
How on earth can non-Jews like Andrew Sullivan or even Israelis who grew up in Britain, like Benny Morris and other "new historians" escape antisemitic indoctrination at least to some degree?
I don't think they can. It's just so all pervasive in the culture - though it's often pretty subtle.
So it's easy for an Andrew Sullivan to recognize as antisemitic Baroness Jenny Tonge's vileness but not so easy to see more subtle manifestations and unconsciously slide into the muck - given that even British Jews/Israelis are not immune.
Either Pilger is fool enough to be unaware of Atzmon's vicious anti-Jewish bigotry, or he has consciously praised an apologist for the Third Reich, ......
Why don't you come out and say it: Pilger is a nasty antisemite and agrees wholeheartedly with Atzmon?
Sophia,
Sullivan has gone from being a hard-line neocon
:-) Is Sullivan Jewish? If not he cannot, in Washington terms, be a neocon.
Sol and Sophia,
If you haven't seen this yet here's ignorance at play
The Jokes on You Little Dickie
The problem is that the source for Silverstein’s bogpost was a prank article in Ha’aretz that was clearly intended as a joke:
The posting was bad enough. The excuse is just lame.
This business with Silverstein is the funniest thing I've seen maybe ever.
The fact that he believed this speaks volumes though does it not?
This is the same jackass who got Hillel Stavis kicked out of session for bloggers at J Street's confab back on October: Video: Audience Member Booted from Silverstein's J Street Blogger Panel (Update)
That he's conclusively demonstrated that he lacks any sechel at all about politics or Israel seems not to have deterred him in the slightest. Right now, this lame Tikkunista's blog is fulminating against the good work done by Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor.
Well, it is certainly true that the Anti Semitism charge is and has been frequently used to silence criticism of Jews and Israel.
That is what has disempowered the charge. Now real anti Semites are hiding behind this shield.
Spurious charges of racism and McCarthyism are similarly disempowering the charges themselves, when they are legitmate.
That's hilarious Cynic!