The Charles Freeman affair demonstrated yet again the link between anti-Israel sentiment, and anti-Semitism, as if we needed another example. Is it possible in the U.S. to be critical of Israel, or even to be anti-Israel without being an anti-Semite? Yes it is. For example, one could simply subscribe to a position that Israel is a liability to the U.S., and therefore the U.S. should drop it as an ally, and instead work on improving relations with Israel's enemies. In my opinion such a theory is highly flawed, but it isn't necessarily anti-Semitic. But if your criticism of Israel relies at least in part on condemning the "Israel Lobby," the "Jewish Lobby," AIPAC, or whatever term you choose to use, expect to be seen as an anti-Semite. Why? Because anti-Semites have long argued that sinister Jewish cabals exercise undue influence in the world. If your criticism adopts the same sort of language, it is not unreasonable for people to assume that you might be an anti-Semite.
Anti-Israel types, particularly on the left, are indignant that pro-Israel political opponents (even pro-Israel compatriots on the left),often see them as anti-Semitic. They regard the charge as a slur, even though they use the same language as anti-Semites, indulging in conspiracy-theory thinking that exaggerates the influence of Jews, and focusing on that supposed influence while dismissing other obvious factors as unimportant. This is particularly ironic coming from left-wingers, who regularly accuse political opponents of racism, homophobia, sexism, or whatever, with little or no evidence to back up such charges. Yet when they use the language of anti-Semitism, they are appalled that people would dare accuse them of being anti-Semites. Now it's possible that they aren't actually anti-Semites. They could be illogical, or just plain stupid. Sometimes it is difficult to tell. But if you act like an anti-Semite, expect to be called one.
Here's a scenario to think about. It's 2022; the GOP has the presidency, and U.S. aid and support for Africa is a major political issue. A significant portion of the political right wants to sharply reduce our aid efforts in Africa, but there is broad bipartisan backing for African aid, particularly among African-Americans. The Republican president appoints someone to the National Intelligence Council who is a former Ambassador to China, has tight and questionable ties to the Chinese government, as well as to another country that is inimical to African interests. Plus he's on record stating that a recent egregious Israeli massacre of Palestinians was necessary and justified. And he wants to cut-off or sharply reduce aid to Africa. His nomination creates a firestorm and he's forced to withdraw. His right-wing supporters scream and howl about the "African American Lobby," or the "Black Lobby," and how it has undue influence over U.S. policy. They ignore every other criticism of the ambassador and maintain that this experienced realist thinker was torpedoed because of the Black Lobby. What are the odds that the same people supporting Freeman now would be screaming racism in response to that argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your flaw is equating the Israel Lobby with a conspiracy or cabal and pretending that everyone who criticizes Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel or points out the influence of this lobby are guilty of this.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not what defines this lobby. And the lobby's composition here in the U.S. isn't even majority Jewish. Broadly, some small parts of the Israel Lobby may have some conspiratorial aspects, but I have not seen any evidence that this is common or important.
Nay, the Israel Lobby is just an extremely large and influential bloc in U.S. politics that drives most U.S. policy towards anything to do with Israel.
This lobby, with groups like AIPAC as its chief representatives, is like most other influential lobbies, such as teacher's unions and the military-industrial complex. There are some differences, of course -- AIPAC is concerned with a foreign rather than domestic issue.
In the case teachers unions, they lobby against competition from vouchers for private schools. In the case of the military-industrial complex, they lobby for more funds for large projects. In the case of the agricultural lobby, they want to preserve subsidies.
Fundamentally, the Israel Lobby desires near-total financial, diplomatic, and military support for Israel. That's its ultimate goal, and a fair portion of it has been secured over the years. I don't know any reasonable person who believes this to be a Protocols of the Elders sort of thing, despite the fact that the right often claims that belief is held.
Instead the point Walt and Mearsheimer frequently make, and which I suppose Mr. Freeman agrees with, is that the effect of the Israel Lobby has been at odds with realist foreign policy ideas -- which, being realists, their calculus occasionally deems to be harmful.
A reasonable person ought to be able to disagree with their ideas and proscriptions without labeling them anti-Semites or anti-Israel, just like I ought to be able to disagree with some neoconish indictments of Muslim nations without labeling them anti-Muslim.
Your idea that "if you act like an anti-Semite, expect to be called one." is nonsense. It's true that there exist some people on the left who are anti-Semitic. They're on the right, too (just not as visible nowadays). And there are anti-Muslim people as well, most of whom are part of the Republican party's new base. But such people are hardly representative of the broad thinking of any side of the political spectrum, and I often see you committing the fallacy of generalizing the left to be anti-Israel based on the existence of some bad apples. That would be roughly like my generalizing the neoconservative right to be anti-Muslim.
People like Goldberg and Rothkopf and (presumedly) yourself who accuse realists like Walt of "cashing in" in anti-Semitism because some anti-Semites happen to like what they write are not doing reasoned discussion any favors.
"Your flaw is equating the Israel Lobby with a conspiracy or cabal and pretending that everyone who criticizes Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel or points out the influence of this lobby are guilty of this."
ReplyDeleteExcept that's not what I said at all. I don't think the Israel lobby is a conspiracy or cabal -- anti-Semites do. That's kind of the point.
"A reasonable person ought to be able to disagree with their ideas and proscriptions without labeling them anti-Semites or anti-Israel,"
And that's possible, as I already pointed out.
"Your idea that "if you act like an anti-Semite, expect to be called one." is nonsense"
Really? I call it basic common sense.
"d I often see you committing the fallacy of generalizing the left to be anti-Israel based on the existence of some bad apples."
Except that I don't do that. There is a strong element of the left that is anti-Israel. I base that on their own words and actions. There are also some on the left that are pro-Israel, as I mentioned in the post.
"That would be roughly like my generalizing the neoconservative right to be anti-Muslim."
A significant number of people on the right are in fact anti-Muslim. I can point them out to you, just as I can point out people on the left who are anti-Israel. All you have to do is read what they say.
"yourself who accuse realists like Walt of "cashing in" in anti-Semitism"
Didn't do that either. But you might want to read this The Israel Lobby, and then see if you want to pretend that Walt doesn't think there is a sinister cabal of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy.
"are not doing reasoned discussion any favors."\
Neither are those who make strawmen arguments.
> But you might want to read this The Israel Lobby, and then see if you want to pretend that Walt doesn't think there is a sinister cabal of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteSinister? I don't think so. Cabal? If so a very poor one: their actions are as much in the open as most other lobbies. But very powerful and often misguided and harmful to the very interests they claim to represent? Walt and I would say yes.
> "Except that's not what I said at all. I don't think the Israel lobby is a conspiracy or cabal -- anti-Semites do. That's kind of the point."
You don't, but you accuse others like Freemans and Walts of believing this, which they don't -- and they've taken great pains to explain that they don't, in The Israel Lobby and elsewhere. Even Jeffrey Golberg understands this, which is why he occasionally frames spurious complaints as being that they use "anti-Semitic-like langauage" etc. You do the same kind of thing, and it's just nonsense.
I am aware that there are real anti-Israel and anti-Muslim people on the left and the right, and they have more influence than any fair-minded person will approve of. That's life. Yet you have repeatedly discussed "the left" in the context of being anti-Israel or anti-Semetic, and this is a ridiculously flawed generalization that will not move any discussion forward.
"You don't, but you accuse others like Freemans and Walts of believing this, which they don't"
ReplyDeleteOf course they do. They come right out and say so. Did you even read that article I linked? Here's Freeman himself (from Foreignpolicy.com): "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."
He obviously thinks there was a sinister cabal conspiring against him.
" You do the same kind of thing, and it's just nonsense."
People who use the language of anti-Semities should expected to be labeled as such. That's how it works. Those who ignore every other factor involving why people oppose Freeman, and focus only on the Israel lobby, should expect their motives to be questioned. They sound like anti-Semites, whether they are or not.
"Yet you have repeatedly discussed "the left" in the context of being anti-Israel or anti-Semetic, and this is a ridiculously flawed generalization that will not move any discussion forward."
I haven't overgeneralized. I noted that part of the left is pro-Israel. I'm not attacking that part.
To the Walt quote, I agree with it. I suppose you might want to consider his idea of this lobby as being sinister, but I don't get how it's a cabal. Cabals operate in secret. The Israel Lobby operates as much in the open as any other lobby and suppresses dissent. I don't think there's anything secret or conspiratorial about it. It's simply often misguided and dishonest, like many other powerful lobbies.
ReplyDelete"The Israel Lobby operates as much in the open as any other lobby and suppresses dissent."
ReplyDeleteLobbies don't supress dissent. A lobby has no power to supress anything; it can only make its case and persuade people to support its positions. Obviously dissent on Israel policy has certainly not been supressed. You can read all sorts of differing views on Israel.
Questioning the U.S./Israel relationship is one thing. Different people can reasonably disagree over what extent the U.S. should support Israel, or even whether we should ally with it at all. That's not what people like Walt do. They build conspiracy theories arguing that a particular lobby exerts as sinister influence and control over U.S. policy -- as if there weren't all sorts of good reasons for supporting Israel. Their conspiracy theories sound a whole lot like the typical anti-Semitic "Jews control everything" type of argument. In the Freeman case they ignore evidence that doesn't fit in with their theories. They completely dismiss as reasons for Freeman's forced withdrawal, his major finanical ties to the Saudis, his relationship and statements regarding China, and every other factor except the supposed influence of the nebulous Israel lobby.
They also ignore the fact that the Obama administration already contains important members who have been sharply critical of Israel, such as Samantha Power. Somehow the mighty Israel lobby was unable to block her. It might have something to do with the fact that she didn't appear to be a paid Saudi mouthpiece.