The New York Times reports on the Andrew Sullivan vs. Leon Wieseltier controversy. The report is not quite right; it says that Wieseltier accused Sullivan of anti-Semitism, when Wieseltier actually accused Sullivan of recklessly engaging in venomous rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to anti-Semites and stokes anti-Semitism. This may be cold comfort to Sullivan and his defenders, but we might as well get the story right, and the difference is important for reasons discussed below. You can read Wieseltier’s original article here, Sullivan’s response here, and Wieseltier’s rejoinder (much better than his original piece, IMHO) here.
I have a few small contributions to make to the debate. One is that I find it extremely odd that Sullivan is so vociferous in attacking Israel’s defenders (rather than just Israel’s policies) when, as Jonathan Chait points out, he himself rather recently was one of Israel’s most vociferous defenders. If Sullivan himself was once persuaded that Israel’s cause is just, shouldn’t that lead him to some circumspection about attributing Israel’s support in the U.S. to a nefarious cabal of “neocons”, the “Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing” of the Jewish community, AIPAC, and so forth? Maybe a lot of people find Israel’s case compelling for the exact same reasons Sullivan did as recently as eight years ago. But Sullivan is almost uniquely uncharitable to people who hold the views he himself held just a few years ago, so this probably reflects a general “convert going after the heretics” mentality on his part. Plus, given his blogging about Sarah Palin, Trig, et al., is there much reason to think he hasn’t gone off the deep end generally?
Second, Wieseltier’s notes, in his rejoinder, that Sullivan has apologized a couple of times for engaging in rhetoric perceived to be anti-Semitic, and adds, “There is a lot of this prejudice in the world right now, and this is really no time to be sloppy, or South Parky, about it.” Wieseltier has stumbled, perhaps inadvertently, on one of the key bones of contention between many Jewish (and some non-Jewish) advocates for Israel and their adversaries (including Jewish adversaries). The pro-Israel forces note that anti-Semitism is rampant in the Arab/Muslim world, still has a fair number of supporters in the West, that Iran is threatening to wipe out Israel, and so forth. The plea, then, is to take this into account when criticizing Israel, and try to keep your criticism reasonable, and take care not to invoke anti-Semitic tropes, even by accident. Otherwise you risk stirring additional anti-Semitism, perhaps even leading to a “Second Holocaust.” After all, the “progressives” who harshly attack Israel are generally the same people who are most sensitive about other forms of racism.
From the critics’ perspective, however, Israel and its perceived bellicosity, and its perceived alliance with bellicose forces in the U.S., is not just a significant violator of Palestinian human rights, but a serious threat to world peace. [UPDATE: Consider Sullivan--Israeli policy is a "danger to itself and the entire world".] When you are dealing with a country so dangerous, that has such a reservoir of (to them inexplicable) support in the U.S., you can’t treat it with kid gloves. If a critic of Israel occasionally steps over the line,that’s an understandable reaction to the frustration of beating your head against the wall of pro-Israel public opinion, and pales in comparison to the sins of the “right-wingers” whose “unconditional” support of Israel threatens all of humanity with nuclear annihilation. And such critics are contemptuous of the idea that care should be taken when discussing legitimate topics that relate to Jewish stereotypes, such as the “Jewish Lobby”–we are supposed to worry, they suggest, about the long-term consequences of legitimate criticism of Israel, when [they think] Israel and its supporters are trying to push the U.S. into a new and disastrous war with Iran?
Finally, and related to the second point, there is a reason why some critics of Israel (some of whom I’ve discussed in this blog) are tempted to use venomous rhetoric against Israel and its supporters that sometimes crosses the line, to various degrees, into hostility to Jews, even if they are personally not only not anti-Semitic, but find it repulsive. And that is that such rhetoric works. Arguments based on pure reason are often less successful than arguments that provide reasoned arguments but also appeal to the emotions. Our civilization has a two thousand year old reservoir of anti-Jewish sentiment that is part of our societal DNA, and appealing to that cultural baggage, even if it’s just latent, makes anti-Israel arguments more powerful and persuasive. Being anti-Israel doesn’t make one anti-Semitic, but appealing to anti-Semitism does make it easier to persuade people to be anti-Israel. The very effectiveness of appealing to societal anti-Semitism in criticizing Israel is good reason to avoid it, but also the reason it’s all too common.
Patrick says:
I recognize what you’re trying to do here, but aren’t your fists even hammier than Sullivan’s (that’s REALLY saying something), to state that a blog post, or dozens of them, could lead to a second holocaust?
Sullivan’s an important blogger. You’re an important blogger. I’m not, but I can tell you that in the long run, you and Sullivan are but earth. Neither of you is as important as you may believe, and neither of you will cause, or stave off, a holocaust.
If you’re going to criticize someone for his rhetoric, it pays to be very careful about your own.
February 12, 2010, 9:51 amDavid Bernstein says:
Patrick, I hardly said that Sullivan is going to cause a second Holocaust. I said that pro-Israel people suggest to anti-Israel critics that they should modulate their criticism so as not to stir/encourage anti-Semitism which could help cause a Second Holocaust. This would be the result of what one might call an army of Sullivans, not Sullivan himself. Personally, I think the “Second Holocaust” type of rhetoric is overblown, but it’s important to note the sensitivity about the Holocaust in this context. If you didn’t know about the Holocaust, and the world’s contemporary (non-)reaction to it, you would be a lot more likely to think that Israel’s defenders are being paranoid/crazily hypersensitive.
February 12, 2010, 9:57 amMaryG says:
Re. “the effectiveness of appealing to societal anti-Semitism…”
Meh. One man’s appeal to societal anti-Semitism is another man’s appeal to reason.
Israel’s policies have fared poorly for their country, the Middle East region, and the necessarily involved United States. The stakes are high, as you’ve noted.
Pro-Israel arguments often work, appealing to the not-so-distant Holocaust and invoking a “a two thousand year old reservoir of anti-Jewish sentiment that is part of our societal DNA.”
Or, it could be … Israel’s leadership is as paralyzed on how to proceed forward effectively as the United States Congress. Whatever they’ve been doing, it’s not working. Picking sides … if Iran/Israel escalates, necessarily means examining critically and arguing vociferously America’s role with and relationship to Israel in achieving current foreing policy objectives.
Energy here at home is high on that list, and thus understanding how to operate better — and more effectively — in the region is key. I REPEAT: What America has been doing so far this century, appears not to be working. Change is gonna come, we all see that. Will the current adminstration help to shape it, and will pro-Israel voices understand it is not just those with stakes in the homeland that have an interest in proceeding reasonably, not emotionally perhaps in the direction we have been marching.
February 12, 2010, 10:22 amsceptic says:
I wonder about the overlap between those who are quick to assume anti-semitism in criticism of Israel and those who bemoan that criticism of Obama is painted as racism. Surely at least David Bernstein is in both categories.
February 12, 2010, 10:23 amDavid Bernstein says:
Evidence? (And I mean “evidence that I am quick to assume anti-Semitism in criticism of Israel.” Given that I criticize Israel all the time, albeit more in discussions with family and friends than in my blogging, that would be an amusing psychological phenomenon. I’ll accept examples of where I said that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, and you think that I was “quick to assume it.”)
February 12, 2010, 10:24 amArthur Kirkland says:
Getting emotional about, or fighting about, anything that happened thousands of years ago does not seem sensible to me — in part because I have little confidence anyone alive today can know enough about events that distant to make a reliable conclusion.
In the less ancient context, anyone pushing war with Iran, for any reason, seems readily excludable from productive debate.
February 12, 2010, 10:25 amMaryG says:
You don’t need “evidence” to wonder about something.
But a common trait between the two might be such a great removal of cultures between those doing the honest criticizing, and those far removed from the criticizers, who just can’t understand where they are coming from other than to chalk it up to minority resentment and group hate.
February 12, 2010, 10:27 amMaryG says:
(And I mean “evidence that I am quick to assume anti-Semitism in criticism of Israel.” Given that I criticize Israel all the time, albeit more in discussions with family and friends than in my blogging, that would be an amusing psychological phenomenon.)
I want to note: my 10:27 comment was written before you updated with the parenthetical explanation, when the original response just read, “Evidence?”
February 12, 2010, 10:32 amRob in CT says:
The primary reason, I think, that those who critize Israel (or rather Israeli government policies) might sometimes “cross the line” as you put it is not that Israel is this horrible danger to world peace and thus has to be treated harshly (hence excesses are to be excused). No.
It’s because criticism of Israeli policy is consistently met with the charge of anti-semitism (or self-hate if you’re Jewish). That’s immensely frustrating. Imagine, for a moment, that you actually want the best for both Israel and the USA, but have decided that Israeli policy is counter-productive and immoral as well. You state this. You are then called a Jew-hater and accused of being buddy-buddy with, say, Hamas. That might piss you off, no?
Conservatives should understand this, given how they tend to feel about liberals playing the racism card. In both cases, there is a lot of historical baggage that’s important to recognize and respect. Also in both cases, people use history as a cudgel to gain political advantage.
February 12, 2010, 10:35 amHipposGoBeserk says:
MaryG – I’m very confused about what you think could be done differently by the Israelis.
As best I can tell, Israeli policy is to minimize violence in the region while hoping that the Palestinians will eventually accept land for peace.
What do you propose they do differently so as not to appear paralyzed?
HGB
February 12, 2010, 10:37 amDavid Bernstein says:
Rob, that’s a fair point, though if true, it’s not exactly defensible. What would the “Progressive” critics of Israel say about a white conservative who “sometimes crosses the line” into racist rhetoric because he is frustrated about being called a racist when engaging in legitimate criticisms of affirmative action?
February 12, 2010, 10:39 amSeth M. says:
Israel’s policies have fared poorly for their country
WAT?
Fared poorly for their reputation amongst Europeans. But the country still exists despite being surrounded by many larger countries committed to its destruction for decades. As a matter of fact, there’s even a fair degree of safety and security that’s been attained for its citizens.
And it has by far the highest standard of living in its region. Life expectancy, literacy, availability of technology, education, etc, are on par with the most developed world.
You can claim Israel has been bad for the region, bad for the world, bad for the U.S. You’d be wrong, of course, but you could make the claim reasonably.
You can’t claim Israel hasn’t done well for itself.
February 12, 2010, 10:50 amMaryG says:
I’m very confused about what you think could be done differently by the Israelis.
Explain to the settlers why they cannot currently build on contested land, and stop all future building (and the ones just embarked on recently) in East Jerusalem.
For starters.
February 12, 2010, 10:53 amMaryG says:
But the country still exists despite being surrounded by many larger countries committed to its destruction for decades.
Not securely, as the showdown with Iran demonstrates.
And even if you think there were no human rights violations, surely the Lebanon campaign isn’t considered an effective way of enforcing future aims?
February 12, 2010, 10:54 amRob in CT says:
David,
They would likely be pretty unforgiving. Which was why I brought up the parallel.
We each draw these lines in our own minds. Mine likely differ from yours, such that I might not think Sullivan has crossed one, but (for instance), Rush Limbaugh has. Before today, oddly enough, I hadn’t seen just how parallel these two examples are (shockingly blind, really). I will, therefore, endeavor to be a bit more careful in assuming latent racism on the part of Conservatives (does not include El Rushbo. Special case, that :) ).
Also, I will say that your “danger to world peace” argument probably does have an impact (especially when one ponders the possibility of kicking off a lovely war with Iran), I just think it’s secondary to people getting pissed off b/c they’re (seemingly) automatically called racists because they advocate a different policy than Likud (warning: some exaggeration).
February 12, 2010, 10:56 amMaryG says:
You can’t claim Israel hasn’t done well for itself.
Think more long term, and about how bubbles can pop.
February 12, 2010, 11:07 amRob in CT says:
Israel was, from the moment of its creation (to me, this means by the UN, not some biblical event), in a very difficult situation. What could it have done better?
Occupying the West Bank and Gaza might have been a mistake. This made the Palestinians Israel’s problem. Before that, it’s not clear they were.
Then add in the settlements. To me, they are clearly counterproductive wrt to the goal of a 2-state solution to the conflict.
February 12, 2010, 11:23 amHipposGoBeserk says:
Mary,
What comes after “for starters”?
First, I don’t understand why Israel has to figure out the fine points of its Jerusalem redlines outside of a serious negotiation with the Palestinians.
Second, what do you think that will accomplish? So israel stops building some apartments – what does that benefit any one? Will Israel still be paralyzed if it doesn’t tear down the separation barrier that stopped suicide bombings? Will the US suddenly be loved?
I think the problem at the root of the name calling is the unwillingness to acknowledge baseline assumptions. The short hand that results over reaches.
I think Mary is naïve to think the apartments in Jerusalem matter right now. But I couls as easily attribute base motives to her, since her expectations aren’t stated.
The real debate isn’t about policy choices, but perceptions of the Palestinian intentions. I think there is no evidence supporting a belief that the Palestinians want peace. Mary, I suspect, believes something different. That fundamental difference is the basis of all we say and thr root of the heated rhetoric.
HGB
February 12, 2010, 11:24 amIlec says:
Professor,
As someone who finds myself often not in agreement with your posts on the Middle East, I would like to say that I found your treatment of this Sullivan v. Wiesltier matter to be very even handed and one of the more insightful pieces I have read on it thus far.
Many thanks!
February 12, 2010, 11:25 amAutist says:
That’s just Sullivan being Sullivan. He was one of W’s most vociferous defenders before he became one of his most vociferous critics. Sullivan is fickle. It’s one reason why I stopped reading him years ago, and I recommend simply ignoring him.
February 12, 2010, 11:33 amegd says:
How is it not in Israel’s long-term interest to maintain a defense against aggressors?
Israel appears to be doing very well for itself, the only flaw in their long-term strategy that I can see is their inability to work with the U.S. government to promote democracy throughout the Middle East. However, given the general anti-Jewish opinions of most of the rest of the Middle East, this can be excused.
Really, this sounds more like the “voting against their interest” claptrap that we always hear from the nutroots. “Everything would be better if the leftist elites were in charge, why don’t people see that and vote for us?”
On a related note, does anyone seriously believe Sullivan is not anti-Israel? (anti-Semite might be a bit much)
February 12, 2010, 11:34 amHipposGoBeserk says:
Egd – I think Sullivan is not anti-Israel. He has bought Palestinian propoganda abpout Cast Lead hook, line, and sinker. And he is hopelessly naïve about how to get to the right outcome – but he appears to want a stable, peaceful 2 state solution. And who in the US or Israel (to 90% confidence) doesn’t want that?
HGB
February 12, 2010, 11:44 amlgm says:
Sullivan is almost unique in blogosphere in that his opinions change over time. He started as a by the book conservative but has broken with conservatives position by position over time.
As for criticism of Israel being anti-semitic, which of the following truths qualifies:
1. The land of Israel was stolen from Palestinians acre by acre mostly over the past century and in the face of constant opposition. That process is ongoing — land theft occurs weekly in the occupied territories.
2. Israel has violated international norms in its brutal suppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Today Gaza is virtually under siege.
3. Israel has never offered to return to the 67 borders, even in the supposedly wonderful deal Arafat declined.
February 12, 2010, 11:44 amDavid Bernstein says:
This one has the advantage of being neither anti-Semitic nor true,unless you consider buying land in pre-State of Israel Palestine to be “stealing.”
As for the 1967 borders, there is no such thing. There are 1967 armistice lines.
But let’s not turn this into a forum on Palestine/Israel, shall we?
February 12, 2010, 11:54 amthirdeblue says:
What’s the endgame for Israel? Does anyone believe the current situation is at all sustainable long-term? Israel doesn’t have the stomach or the international backing to ethnically cleanse itself and the Palestinians aren’t much interested in playing second fiddle to a Jewish state. Maybe they’ll continue to bomb each other forever…but I doubt it. Mark me a huge proponent of a unified Israel with guaranteed constitutional protections of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (although the demographics favor the Muslims). I think it’s the only viable long-term solution.
February 12, 2010, 12:05 pmorca says:
The report is not quite right; it says that Wieseltier accused Sullivan of anti-Semitism, when Wieseltier actually accused Sullivan of…
In the first linked article, Wieseltier writes:
And this is not all that is disgusting about Sullivan’s approach. His assumption, in his outburst about “the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing,” that every thought that a Jew thinks is a Jewish thought is an anti-Semitic assumption, and a rather classical one.
Sure sounds like an accusation of anti-Semitism to me…no doubt it counted towards Wieseltier’s daily quota.
February 12, 2010, 12:10 pmGordo says:
There’s a solution to the Israel-Arab conflict that is being stymied primarily by religious extremism in the three “religions of the book.”
The Israelis are being led by the nose by messianic settler groups who believe that all land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean belongs to the Jewish people, and that the non-Jewish peoples in this area need to be “transferred” or worse.
The Palestinians/Arabs are being led by the nose by Islamic fundamentalists who believe that land once within the “Ummah” is always within the “Ummah,” and that non-Muslims in this area need to be expelled, or worse.
And American public and policy opinion on this issue is being dragged by Christianists who have an insane belief that making sure Jews control all of “the Holy Land” is a necessary step toward biblical armageddon and the second coming.
It’s enough to make someone appreciate Christopher Hitchens.
February 12, 2010, 12:11 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Rob and Mary claim that even legitimate criticism of Israel is called anti-semitic, and that’s just so unfair, because they, the reasonable people, are prevented from having a voice in the discussion. Then they mention that Israel’s actions are immoral (but hey, we’re really trying to only talk about practical effects here, so don’t call us biased), with no mention of Palestinian or Arab actions. Even a polite, hypocritical attempt to show that you have considered another POV would be progress.
Here’s the challenge: I have read many defenders and semi-defenders of Israel’s policies question themselves and their own motives. Find me one on the other side who does that, and if you can’t, then do it yourself and be the first.
lgm, don’t even consider trying that. It’s way beyond you.
I am no foreign policy, military, or international law expert. I can offer nothing of value there. But I can observe two sides of an argument and see which individuals have the courage to question not only the wisdom, but the social value of their beliefs to themselves personally.
Predicted response: Oh no. It’s Israel and American neocons who are unable to question their own righteousness. Let’s get back to the real discussion about gestures the Israelis might make which would have no effect on their enemies, but would make us feel better.
The lack of any gesture by the Palestinians is just so uninteresting to talk about.
Granted, I bring the level of discussion down by making it personal like this. I plead exemption because certain political beliefs are held entirely for personal (social, self-gratification) reasons and cannot be addressed without an initial call for humility. Take the challenge. Question yourself. I dare ya.
February 12, 2010, 12:19 pmpmk says:
[DELETED. There are few more annoying commenter traits than "rephrasing" the OP in an obviously inaccurate way, and then using the "rephrased" quote for a snarky comment]
February 12, 2010, 12:25 pmMC says:
I want to respect Professor Bernstein’s wishes to not turn this into a forum on Israel/Arab relations, so I’ll just add in a brief factual correction.
Not only was pre-state Jewish migration to Israel mostly legal, in the sense that they were in fact purchasing land (as opposed to stealing it), but much of this land was previously “stolen” by Hijaz Arabs only a few hundred years before.
When exactly does the statutue of limitations run on “land stealing?” The Hijaz Arabs “stole” land previously settled by Jews starting around 637 AD. Is this stealing considered proper, only because a few hundred years have passed? If the answer is yes, then I assume that the Israelis only have to wait-out some amount of time until the “stolen” Palestinian land becomes legitimately theirs.
February 12, 2010, 12:33 pmpmk says:
I put the original quote right there for everybody to infer what they chose to infer. Deleting is one way to avoid discussion.
February 12, 2010, 12:46 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein:
Argumentum ad hominem … in a post about anti-Semitism.
* * * * *
FWIW, Glenn Greenwald chimes in here.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:09 pmSeth M. says:
Well, that’s not true. The UN may have voted to create Israel, but the means of its creation was the Haganah. What, precisely, did the UN DO to create the State of Israel?
February 12, 2010, 1:17 pmAutist says:
To answer your question: no.
February 12, 2010, 1:18 pmReader says:
Very interesting, although Wieseltier totally dodges the “ringing” question at the end. He points to atheists that criticize religion – what Sullivan was asking about was how he would react to Christians or Muslims criticizing Judaism.
February 12, 2010, 1:20 pmHipposGoBeserk says:
thirdeblue
History is rife with century long border disputes. The current situation is largely stable and could continue indefinitely if Israel doesn’t give up. In time, I hope, Palestinians will come to prefer peace with Israel to war with Israel. Before 1945, who would’ve expected Germany and France to be at peace for 65 years?
HGB
February 12, 2010, 1:20 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein:
Isn’t this a bit like a plea to tone it down and avoid conversations that might rile the “crazy uncle” at Thanksgiving?
That may be fine for the dinner table, but at some point, the plates are stacked and the Tupperware ensconced in the refrigerator, the kids go to bed, and Uncle Ralph is snoring, and we can go back to adult conversations on serious topics again around the coffee table, chocolates, and brandy snifters.
So I guess the question is then, what is “… when criticizing Israel, [...] keep[ing] your criticism reasonable”. I seem to recall one instance where Prof. Bernstein was a little bit quick on the gun to shout “anti-Semitism” recently….
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:20 pmorca says:
Good creation myths are hard to come up with. In general, the more heroic and mystical the better, though.
February 12, 2010, 1:23 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein:
I agree that this would be unseemly. But most of the commentaries I’ve seen (at least by the more thoughtful critics) use the terms “AIPAC lobby” (which, given AIPAC’s nature, seems perfectly appropriate) or “Likud lobby” (which might be a bit farther afield, but really gets far closer to the actual situation than “Jewish lobby”).
Did Sullivan ever use “Jewish lobby”?
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:27 pmDilan Esper says:
I disagree with prof. Bernstein’s ‘second holocaust’ reference, but generally he is entirely correct. It should be possible to criticize israel without launching into conspiracy rhetoric about jewish cabals and the like. And responsible critics of israel should understand the historical pedigree of such statements.
February 12, 2010, 1:29 pmzuch says:
Prof. Bernstein:
Sorry, I must have missed it. Could you repeat it again? Supporting evidence as well, thanks.
Huh?!?!? I mean, “Huh?!?!?“….
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:33 pmzuch says:
Why, yes. Glenn Greenwald shows that to be true rather easily.
It should also be possible to discuss the situation without some “conspira[torial]” lumping critics of policy toward Israel into a bunch that have some unconscious-at-best tendency to talk about “jewish cabals and the like”.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:37 pmSeth M. says:
Sullivan said:
“Is this so hard to understand? Jews of all people – the victims of war crimes of unimaginable evil – should know this. And exchange anger and paranoia for the integrity they once had.”
I don’t know if you can place that neatly in the “criticism about Israel” box. And that’s a big part of the problem. The statement is explicitly anti-Semitic, whether Andrew Sullivan is or not.
And Professor — I believe you are referring to the 1949 armistice lines.
“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” That’s the Jordanian-Israeli one.
“The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” The Egyptian-Israeli one.
February 12, 2010, 1:37 pmzuch says:
OIC. It’s not “Sullivan”. It’s “Sullivan and his buddies”. Glad that’s cleared up.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 1:40 pmMaryG says:
Rob and Mary claim that even legitimate criticism of Israel is called anti-semitic, and that’s just so unfair, because they, the reasonable people, are prevented from having a voice in the discussion. Then they mention that Israel’s actions are immoral
Cite my exact words please. For whatever reason, you have misunderstood my comments, and you are battling strawmen in your head. Keep me out of it, please.
February 12, 2010, 1:43 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
I am puzzled by the reasoning that whenever the US does something that AIPAC generally agrees with, its lobbying power is the entire cause. That people might be persuaded on the merits of their argument, or that US interests might parallel Israel’s – or even Likud’s – seems not to warrant consideration.
The ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, even if only on a theoretical basis, is a minimum requirement for reasonable discussion.
February 12, 2010, 1:45 pmzuch says:
Care to take this question to a blog post concerned with that topic?
Same goes for the people that are insisting on arguing the “merits” of Israeli criticism above….
Thanks,
February 12, 2010, 1:52 pmlgm says:
Professor Bernstein,
Sometimes money was paid for land, other times not. Sometimes when money did change hands, it went to the person living on the land, but more often it was more like a bribe to a Turkish official. In either case, you should read Isaiah about the practice of buying land for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.
The phrase “1967 border” has a definite agreed upon meaning, in terms of where it is and who has rights to land on the other side. It is internationally recognized as the legitimate border of Israel, even if Israel doesn’t think so.
February 12, 2010, 2:03 pmAnonsters says:
Of course it’s silly to think that if the US does something AIPAC agrees with, then the US did it because of AIPAC’s lobbying power.
Just like it’s silly to think that AIPAC’s lobbying power has no influence on what the US does.
February 12, 2010, 2:07 pmAnonsters says:
The more important point is that it’s universally agreed (by everyone except Israel) that Israeli settlements in the West Bank (and formerly in Gaza) were and are illegal, and it’s pretty obtuse to pretend otherwise.
February 12, 2010, 2:08 pmHipposGoBeserk says:
lgm – that was really funny, abouit the ’67 borders being recognized! You know, leaving out how all the Arabs except the Egyptian and Jordanian govts don’t recognize -Israel’s right to exist at all.
I have little evidence, but I suspecthat if the Arabs appeared sufficiently sincere in offering full recognition, open access to Jerusalem, and the ’67 borders (no right of return) that israel would take it, despite the wrenching dislocation around Jerusalem. The only problem is how to appear sincere at all after preaching genocide for 100 years.
HGB
February 12, 2010, 2:19 pmorca says:
The pro-Israel forces note that anti-Semitism is rampant in the Arab/Muslim world, still has a fair number of supporters in the West, that Iran is threatening to wipe out Israel, and so forth. The plea, then, is to take this into account when criticizing Israel, and try to keep your criticism reasonable, and take care not to invoke anti-Semitic tropes, even by accident.
Should the fact that Christian fanatics approve when a right-winger declares America is at war with all of Islam, not just the terrorists, cause Republicans to “take care” as well?
February 12, 2010, 2:21 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The original message evokes wise words from perhaps the greatest judge in the history of Alabama:
“That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.”
I am as pleasantly surprised as Judge Haller was.
February 12, 2010, 2:45 pmAnonsters says:
I was afraid something from Roy Moore was on the way.
February 12, 2010, 2:53 pmAnonsters says:
BTW, I should also point out, I was pleasantly surprised by this post by Bernstein. Not what I’ve come to expect from his part of the VC blogocube. So here’s to pleasant surprises.
I do want to add, though, that some people do tend to elide criticism of Israel into criticism of Jews more generally, so that it’s (sadly) pretty common to have to say things like, “Now, I’m only talking about Israel here, not Jews generally, but [criticism].” I wonder to what extent that’s due to Israel being “the Jewish state,” and how people consequently perceive it (whether it represents all Jews, or something). I doubt anyone with any serious interest in anything that happens in Israel would think that, but I also suspect that a large proportion of people in the U.S. are not members of that set.
February 12, 2010, 2:58 pmKevin! says:
Wow, it’s so weird to read a reasonable and fair-minded post by Bernstein!
February 12, 2010, 3:28 pmDavid Bernstein says:
“Jewish lobby” gets more than twice as many google hits as AIPAC lobby, which in turn gets more than seven times as many hits as “Likud lobby.”
February 12, 2010, 3:52 pmDavid Bernstein says:
But in fairness, “Israel lobby” gets by far the most hits (but still 120K for “Jewish lobby”), not surprising, given it was popularized by Walt and Mearsheimer.
February 12, 2010, 3:54 pmMiguel Dickson says:
Did anybody else find Wieseltier’s argument – that [excuse the long quote here] “…there is no such thing as Jewish fundamentalism, and there has been no such thing as Jewish fundamentalism since early Karaism. (He can Google it.) The settlers on the West Bank and the religious fascists in their midst are not fundamentalists. They represent a particular school of interpretation of scriptural and rabbinical authorities–a debatable one and a deplorable one. But they are not fundamentalists” – a little ridiculous and high-strung?
Claiming that none of these groups understand themselves to be ‘fundamentalists’ or claim to be ‘fundamentalists’ is one thing – saying that categorically it would be inaccurate to call them fundamentalists is another. I think it’s perfectly legitimate for outsiders to characterize particular ‘schools of interpretation’ as fundamentalist, regardless of their self-regard. Substantially, and even-handedly, some settler groups clearly do adhere to recognizably fundamentalist approaches, notwithstanding some subtle theological arguments to the contrary.
February 12, 2010, 4:04 pmAnonsters says:
“Likud lobby.” That made me laugh for some reason.
February 12, 2010, 4:09 pmYankev says:
I don’t know which of them qualifies as anti-Semitic, but each of them qualifies as oft-refuted lies. Shall we talk about the ‘settlement” of Gush Etzion, which was built on land purchased by Jews in the 1920s, and razed by the Jordanian and Iranian armies in the 1948 war after slaughtering the adult defenders, the children having been evacuated before the 1948 war? And the village having been rebuilt after 1967 by the children of those who had been slaugthered? Shall we talk about Jews living in what is now Israel since the 1200s, and land purchases by those who began arriving from Europe in the 1800s and 1900s? Or the compensation paid to Arabs whose land was taken by eminent domain? #2 is too long to go into here. As to #3, shall we talk about Israel’ offer in 1967 to withdraw from every cm. sq, except Jerusalem, in return for recognition of its right to resist? As you know, the Arab states responded with the 3 Noes of Karthoum — no peace with Israel, no negotiation with Israel, and no recognition with Israel.
February 12, 2010, 4:14 pmYankev says:
People who use that term often haven’t the slightest idea what Likud is and use the term to describe people who have nothing to do with Likud or its policies. Too often, “Likud” means not Likud but “Israeli policies of which I don’t approve.”
February 12, 2010, 4:22 pmYankev says:
Not according to Security Resolution 242, and not according to the armistices that were signed in 1949.
February 12, 2010, 4:25 pmYankev says:
It may be legitimate, but it does show a cerain thrological ignorance on the critic’s part, and a disregard of the fact that fundamentalism is a theological concept.
February 12, 2010, 4:30 pmAnonsters says:
SCRes 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict” (i.e., the 6-day war.) That’s pretty definite and recognized.
What’s more, U.S. diplomatic practice, with few exceptions, has advocated precisely that position on 242. Even Reagan thought so.
(I should note that East Jerusalem has always been a big sticking point for everyone. That we maintain our embassy in Tel Aviv, and that we refuse to put “State of Israel” on passports for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, but simply put, “Jerusalem,” tell you everything you need to know about that little bit of complexity.)
February 12, 2010, 4:39 pmYankev says:
The word “the” territories was rejected from drafts of the resolution. So was the word “all” . According to US and British diplomats who negotiated the resolution, this was done in recognition that there would be adjustments resulting in secure and recognized borders.
February 12, 2010, 4:46 pmAnonsters says:
And yet U.S. diplomatic practice has consistently called for withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. See William Quandt’s Peace Process.
February 12, 2010, 4:49 pmMiguel Dickson says:
“It may be legitimate, but it does show a cerain thrological ignorance on the critic’s part, and a disregard of the fact that fundamentalism is a theological concept.”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. Fundamentalism is a theological concept, yes – it describes the relation that an interpreter takes with respect to certain texts, and the bindingness of previous interpretations of that text or the privilege of particular interpreters. [Incidentally, I'm happy to have a theological debate in a more appropriate forum, though I must admit that I certainly am not an insider to Jewish theology.]
Nevertheless, your response didn’t at all reply to my point, which was that a group’s self-description (using whatever concepts they like, theological or no) does not necessarily have to limit the scope of others’ description of that group. It’s silly to try to make others adhere to a belief that a particular descriptive term can never be appropriately used to characterize a particular belief simply because it’s a religious belief, and that is what Wieseltier was doing, in categorically claim there’s no such thing as Jewish fundamentalism, and there can be no such thing as Jewish fundamentalism. (Either that, or Wiseltier engages in a petty game in which he arbitrates by himself, sans argument, what is or isn’t ‘actually Jewish’ which is a vexing question in itself that I doubt he means to bring up.)
A retreat to ‘difference in kind’ such that Jewish fundamentalism is a logical impossibility seems to me both counterproductive and overly defensive.
February 12, 2010, 4:52 pmYankev says:
The inviolalbe nature of the Green Line is one of thise factoids that has incredible tenacity despite beeing untrue. GWB stated that 242 allowed for adjustments. If I recall, even J.E. Carter recently said it was contemplated by his administration that Israel would keep some towns on the post-1967 side of the Green Line.
February 12, 2010, 4:53 pmAnonsters says:
And yet he said no such thing while in office, and that was never his negotiating position.
[Edit: But since this is pretty much OT, I'll refrain from going further down this line of argument. For now, we can agree to disagree.]
February 12, 2010, 4:59 pmlgm says:
Now there’s a reliable source of high quality intel.
February 12, 2010, 5:59 pmzuch says:
How does that rank against “Dubya is a doofus” (or “big tatas”, for that matter)?
Did you limit your search to “commentaries”?
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 7:36 pmMC says:
Right, back to the whole “Nothing Bush says could possibly be true, because he was so clearly an idiot.”
No matter that the President was advised by some of the country’s most brilliant legal minds (John Yoo, et al), and the contention that “242 allowed for adjustments” was the position of the US since the day it was implemented, was the position of 242 co-drafter Arthur Goldberg, and was the position of renowned international law scholar Julius Stone.
Yeah that “non-high quality source of intelligence” George W. Bush sure had an “unreliable” understanding of Resolution 242.
February 12, 2010, 7:38 pmzuch says:
I don’t approve of many Likud policies. The Israeli RW (of which Likud has been the most prominent branch for quite some time) has been engaged in quite a few policies and actions that I find objectionable. That said, this is not anti-Semitic.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 7:41 pmTGGP says:
My impression is that Andrew Sullivan has always been off the deep end. I could put him in a similar category with David Brock or Dick Morris: equally discreditable before and after their political reversals.
Luckily I’m not a progressive and thus immune to charges of hypocrisy on the issue. Speak the truth and damn anyone who says differently.
Wouldn’t “AIPAC lobby” be somewhat redundant? Like saying “NRA lobby” instead of “gun lobby”.
February 12, 2010, 8:39 pmDavid Nieporent says:
No, it went to the land’s owner. Who was frequently not the “person living on the land,” who was just a tenant.
1) There is no such phrase. The phrase is “pre-1967 borders.”
February 12, 2010, 9:51 pm2) Does it really matter what is “internationally recognized”? Borders are not defined by “international recognition,” but by guns. See, e.g., Abzakhia or South Ossetia.
3) In any case, it is “internationally recognized” by exactly nobody who counts.
required says:
Well it’s nice to see someone else didn’t see Wieseltier accuse Sullivan of anti-semitism. I thought I just missed something since everything I else I’ve read about this says Wieseltier did.
February 12, 2010, 10:33 pmSuzy says:
orca made an excellent factual point above that is not being addressed. Wieseltier says, “[Sullivan's] assumption, in his outburst about “the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing,” that every thought that a Jew thinks is a Jewish thought is an anti-Semitic assumption.” It’s also an unfair characterization of what Sullivan was saying (and by the way, I disagree with most of what Sullivan says about Israel and its policies). S. was trying to mark off those people with whom he disagrees about torture; he did it in a particularly dumb and sloppy way. However, anyone who reads Sullivan for a day knows that “whether you support torture” is one of the primary ways he distinguishes anyone who writes about policy.
In addition, Wieseltier says, “About the Jews, is Sullivan a bigot, or is he just moronically insensitive? To me, he looks increasingly like the Buchanan of the left.” It’s hard to know whether this is a thumbs up or down on the bigotry question, but since Buchanan is often accused of it, I’d say it’s a fair assumption that W. is accusing S. of being a “bigot” here. In case there’s any doubt about that, he goes on to say, “Of course, it is impossible to know what is in a man’s heart; but on the basis of what Sullivan has written, I would urge him to search his heart.” If S. needs to search his heart, then I don’t know if W. is saying he’s “an anti-semite”, but it’s something darn close.
Sullivan has changed his views on Israel as part of an overall change in his views on foreign policy, and in particular his rejection of the neo-con advocacy of torture. I think he’s right to reject torture and wrong to change his views about Israel; however, I don’t see any foundation for bandying around accusations of bigotry, as W. has done.
In addition, W.’s article is laughably ill-supported. He spends a few pages on a kind of pseudo-mind-reading excavation of deep ill-motives in one of Sullivan’s asides, quoting Auden. If that’s your big evidentiary lead, in a piece slamming someone’s dark motives, you’ve got a lot more work to do. In short, W. doesn’t like S.’s views about Israel. Great, I tend to agree with W. But he’s mounting an inappropriate attack on S. here as a result.
February 13, 2010, 1:53 pmSuzy says:
Now that I’ve read W’s response, his second piece, I’m afraid it only further confirms the initial assessment. He calls S. to task for trivial issues regarding his handling of apologies (the evidence presented, I might add, in a distortedly one-sided manner). Then for reasons surely “occult” to me, he launches into an intellectually vacuous attack on Christian Trinitarianism as crude polytheism! This sort of anti-Christian bigotry is excused, however, because W. is a serious philosopher, with serious reasons! Yet he won’t extend the same interpretive courtesy to Sullivan’s remarks about Goldfarb and Krauthammer? After all, S’s sloppy “South Parkish” reference was to a much more serious analysis, supported by serious reasons (i.e. argument about the differences between those who advocate torture and those who reject it).
The upshot: W. doesn’t think S. is a serious philosopher, and he rejects his silly, sloppy comments as a result. Trouble is, now we are all invited to think the same thing about W., thanks to his ideas about Christian theology. All those years of study apparently were for naught.
February 14, 2010, 8:22 pmRob in CT says:
Assistant Village Idiot:
I didn’t mention the immoral and/or counterproductive actions by various Palestinian (or external) groups because it’s blindingly obvious that those acts are immoral and counterproductive. Also because it didn’t really apply to the topic of the initial post (to which my comment was directed).
As I mentioned in my first post, it seems that hand-in-hand with the accusation of anti-semitism (or at least anti-Israeliness) is the accusation that you’re a terrorist apologist. You went with the tried-and-true passive-aggressive approach: question why that one post of mine failed to criticise Palestinian terror organizations. Implication: that I left them out because I’m generally fine with their actions (false) and because all I want to do here is to rip on Israel (false).
I left them out because it’s obvious that terror attacks are immoral (and, IMO, counterproductive to the goal I hope for: peace) and also because it wasn’t really on-topic. Also, I don’t sense that there are many people (particularly in the USA) who need convincing that Hamas does bad things that hamper the prospects for peace. Finally, my country has very little influence over Hamas. It has some influence on Israel. We give Israel a bunch of aid and also back them up diplomatically. We have a lot less… invested (?) in the Palestianian groups (I do know we’ve given some money to the PLO, though it’s tiny comparatively). Therefore, if both sides are doing things I’d rather they didn’t do, I might reasonably expect my government can (if it chooses to) apply pressure on Israel, and I might expect my government to (continue to) yell ineffectually at Hamas.
I do not hate Jews. I do not blame “the Jews” for American foreign policy I disagree with (noting that AIPAC has influence does not equate to accusing Jews of something nefarious). I do not blame Jews for Israeli policy I disagree with. At most I blame some Israelis, the way I’d blame some Americans for our policies that I dislike. Just like us, any given Israeli might have simply been outvoted and be furious at his/her government. Which is why collective punishment is crap. It’s the same logic used by the nutbars who did 9/11.
I am not anti-Israel. I want to see a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though I don’t expect one). I want this for both selfish and unselfish reasons.
The defense rests. By the way, AVI, thanks for illustrating my point.
February 15, 2010, 1:49 pm