The Hot Blog: Anti-Semetic Vs Anti-Zionist

« BYOB - Apolitical | Main | Another Truly Insane Ad »

October 30, 2008

Anti-Semetic Vs Anti-Zionist

As a jew, I find it profoundly disturbing that anyone uses "anti-Semitic" as a phrase referring to anyone who is anti-Israel.

I just want to make this point.

I am Semitic. And I am a general supporter of Israel. I believe that the sympathy for the Palestinian cause with a near-exclusive focus on Israeli behavior misses the mark. It is more complex than that.

However, it is my personal belief that since Meir Kahane's extremely conservation and Jewish-protectionist views became a dominant force in Israeli politics in the 80s, that Israel has not acted as a straight-forward democracy. Since Kahane, a number of important Israeli leaders have died in the pursuit of turning the country back towards its best self.

I am sympathetic to the feeling of desperation inside Israel that by population, Israel would stop being a jewish state in the near future had they not changed the rules of what was once a pure(r) democracy. My generation and the next didn't live through the jewish holocaust and do not carry the same fear of "never forget" and being a tribe without a homeland. We live in a world full of biases, including anti-semitism, and we do not see our oppression as being that much more important than the oppression of others. I see that as progress. Some see it as being short-sighted... that we should continue, as a culture, to fear the hatred that has been so much a part of our history.

So it is not an easy issue.

Still... having even severe anti-Israel views is not the same as being an anti-Semite. And listening to the views of severe anti-Israel views without leaving a room or throwing a drink in someone’s face is not a sign being anti-Israel.

My best friend in this world is a guy who thinks that Israel has no right to exist in the first place… that it is simply a reflection of England’s overreaching idea that it had a right to abuse the sovereignty of others. And lo and behold… we became friends in the evil burg of Chicago (albeit on the north side, in Evanston).

The challenge of coming to peace with all of this, without demonizing others, is a part of what this election is all about.

I have never been more embarrassed for a fellow jew than when Michael Goldfarb appeared on CNN Newsroom today, spouting off that Obama regularly pals around with anti-Semites and people who are anti-Israel. When the host qualified (I think too easily) Khalidi as an anti-Semite and asked Goldfarb to name one other anti-Semite that Obama has hung around with, Goldfarb went silent, then added, “I think you know who I am talking about.” Presumably, he was referring to Reverend Wright, who is the only tactical reference that McCain has continued to disallow in his campaign. But he sat there in silent, smirking, unable or unwilling to offer a name.

And that is the level to which we have sunk. Association politics that can’t even be named… and even if it could be, the count would be up to TWO people that the McCain camp things are anti-Israel… and this, my friends, is how you define smearing.

CNN, I am happy to say, offered “fact check” information after this interview, as they felt they had to after the McCain interview last night. They pointed out that McCain’s committee supporting Khalidi’s organization was no indicator that McCain was a supported of Khalidi… and that there is also no indication whatsoever that Obama, a friend and colleague of Khalidi in Chicago, agrees with any of Khalidi’s anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian politics.

I disagree, profoundly, with mysteryperfecta and other right wingers who come in here in support of the extreme right and/or Palin and/or McCain ’08. But I honor their right to take a position, no matter how intensely I disagree. And when they offer talking points, often false, we debate them, sometimes ferociously.

But this stuff is real bottom of the barrel. And I don’t actually believe that McCain actually believes any of this shit. But I do think he has been convinced that he can at least close the margin significantly and avoid a blow out. And he is taking that advice and running with it. He is also showing his true stripes and bending his message backwards repeatedly. He confirmed that there were internal comments against Palin a day after his campaign claimed that these reports were lies. He admits now that Obama is not a socialist… and that Obama never really compared Sarah Palin to a pig with lipstick. He is clearly choking on the rhetoric. And more power to his slow return to humanity. Some day, he should be forgiven.

But the is just keep rolling out, get batted down, and die off. Today, leaving Iraq is a “retreat dividend.” Scummy.

Anyway… all of this started with me hating the loose use of “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust” as political fodder in an election where non-jews are throwing this stuff around to scare older jews in Florida. It would be unacceptable on either side of the political aisle. A serious discussion of Israel? Sure. But this? No. I would even be okay with a guy like Goldfarb going one-issue and pushing McCain because he honestly felt that he wasn’t sure enough about Obama… without the abusive embellishment.

Onward…

Posted by dpoland at October 30, 2008 12:25 PM

Comments

Arabs and Palestinians literally cannot be anti-Semitic since they are Semitic peoples. Unless they are so in the same way a self-loathing Jew may be termed anti-Semitic. As Krusty said, "I thought I was a self-hating Jew, but it turns out I was just a plain old anti-Semite."

Posted by: Blackcloud at October 30, 2008 03:38 PM

It's funny with so many jewish people in the entertainment industry, they lack any sense of humor on Israel. If you bring up the point that the Palestinians and Jews hardly need a reason to fight anymore, though the formation of Israel and the carving up of the territory by the Brits is what has led them to this constant state of tension.

I just can't figure out the logic of taking your people into a region where everyone at every border believes it's a moral and religious imperative to wipe them off the face of the earth. They believe that land is their right and their privilege, and that will not change until someone finally detonates a nuke in the holy land. It's only a matter of time. They say that it is diffcult to fight an opponent who is willing to die for their cause. The same applies to people of Israel and their leaders who put every one of their lives at risk at the hand of jihadists.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the jewish people began to try and take back their land and through war and political manuevering were able to declare their sovreignty. But the people of that region have a long, long memory. I hear people say why the other countries in the region can't 'get over it', and i tell them that Israel, as a country, hasn't even been in existence for 100 years. That's a grain of sand in the hourglass to the Arabs. And while I have no horse in this race, i often find myself wondering what would drive someone to carve themselves out a country where you are surrounded by nations who want to see nothing more than the streets littered with the dead.

Posted by: anghus at October 30, 2008 03:45 PM

Probably emerging from the aftermath of a government-sponsored program to murder as many of your fellow co-religionists, after multiple centuries of pogroms and discrimination, would have something to do with it.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 30, 2008 03:56 PM

DP- What exactly qualifies a person as "extreme right"?

Do you consider yourself 'extreme left'?

Posted by: mysteryperfecta at October 30, 2008 04:05 PM

jeff, good point. still, after so much death and suffering, wouldnt you think you would look for someplace a little more peaceful?

guess i'll never get it.

Posted by: anghus at October 30, 2008 04:19 PM

Like where, Alaska?

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 30, 2008 04:21 PM

Michael Chabon had a similar idea.

And honestly, i don't know. A whole lot of persecuted people came to America. Seemed to work out a little better thus far.

Fighting for grains of sand in the desert. Putting your life at risk for real estate. There are righteous battles, without a doubt, but it seems as if they are locked into a struggle that has no positive resolution.

Posted by: anghus at October 30, 2008 04:28 PM

And the portions are so small.

Posted by: christian at October 30, 2008 11:21 PM

"I just can't figure out the logic of taking your people into a region where everyone at every border believes it's a moral and religious imperative to wipe them off the face of the earth."

Anghus, nobody in that region felt it was a moral or religious imperative to wipe the Jews off the earth UNTIL they were given the land of Israel. If you read the Quran, which is the book of Abraham, you'll see that there are a lot of similarities to the Torah. There is nothing in Islam that says they must hate the Jews more than they must hate any other religion.

So, to say it was silly for the Jews to move to that region or whatever is kind of inaccurate because it's only "silly" in hindsight.

Posted by: Noah at October 31, 2008 12:01 AM

mysteryperfecta -- I'll tell you what I think of as "extreme left": Ward Churchill.

Someone so political that he cannot shed a tear for the victims of 9-11, but rather regards all of them as part of a corrupt system worthy of destruction.

I'm fairly left by U.S. standards, but that kind of belief loses me.

Posted by: LYT at October 31, 2008 02:22 AM

And the extreme right, to my mind, are the segregationists, the clinic bombers (so rare), theocrats, etc. DP asserts that I support the extreme right, which tells me that he's using a broad definition in an attempt to marginalize.

Posted by: mysteryperfecta at October 31, 2008 05:35 AM

I would say the extreme right is epitomized by Sarah Palin, hence McCain's failure to capture moderate/independent vote. As well as losing some faithful GOP members.

Posted by: christian at October 31, 2008 11:17 AM

Palin's problem isn't that she's too far to the right (which she is, although I wouldn't go so far as to say 'extreme', depending on the policy issue) but rather that she's an arrogant lying demagogue with contempt for those more intelligent than her and a thin handle on the major issues.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 31, 2008 11:55 AM

The extreme right in Israel is something completely different than the extreme right here.

In Israel, I would define it, in this case, by pushing the agenda of actually diminishing the rights of non-jewish citizens by either devaluing their votes of removing them from the state.

As for my politics in the U.S., no... not even close to being an extreme lefty. I am a left-leaning centrist. I am also a strict constitutionalist, though there are obviously some disagreements from me about interpretation. For instance, I do believe the is a right to be armed, but I do not believe that this means there can be no limit on the restriction of ownership or that registration is verbotten.

Posted by: David Poland at October 31, 2008 12:57 PM

Jerusalem is a very, very contentious piece of land for reasons that reach beyond anti-semitism. Israel has, mostly, been much more generous about the city to non-Jews than the arabs were to the jews when they controlled that land.

But jews feeling a need for a homeland certainly wanted that piece of land as their homeland. This fuels the rage. But there is no doubt that Israel would be a target in that region no matter where the land was.

Posted by: David Poland at October 31, 2008 01:02 PM

The Hot Blog

October 30, 2008

Anti-Semetic Vs Anti-Zionist

Comments

Post a comment