April 2002 Archives

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post apparently wants you to know that he is definitely not an anti-Semite:

If I weren't a Jew, I might be called an anti-Semite. I have occasionally been critical of Israel. I have occasionally taken the Palestinians' side. I have always maintained that the occupation of the West Bank is wrong and while I am, to my marrow, a supporter of Israel, I insist that the Palestinian cause -- although sullied by terrorism -- is a worthy one.

Mr. Cohen's raises a valid point: thoughtful, discriminating analysis and dissent should not be punished by ostracizing the speaker.

I know how he feels. I have felt the same way when speaking up about this administration's prosecution of the war on terror. We don't like being called unpatriotic by anybody, especially AG John Ashcroft.

However, I found Mr. Cohen's piece to be oddly self-centered and self-absorbed. He fashions a test for anti-Semitism ("are you anti-Semitic or not?") in terms of the qualities he himself possesses ("are you like Mr. Cohen or not?") In other words, it is a given that Mr. Cohen is not an anti-Semite. So, if you are like Mr. Cohen, then you cannot be anti-Semitic. So, if you criticize Israel, you cannot be anti-Semitic. (Because Mr. Cohen criticizes Israel and he is not an anti-Semite). If you are an anti-Zionist, you cannot be anti-Semitic. (Because Mr. Cohen is, presumably, an anti-Zionist.) If you think the Palestinians deserve a homeland, you cannot be anti-Semitic. (Because of the example of Mr. Cohen.) If you think that Israel wrongfully violated the rights of pro-Palestinian foreigners...If you think it is wrong for Israel to tune out all foreign criticism...If you think it is wrong for American Jews to dehumanize all Palestinians...If you condemn the encroachment of Jewish settlements...If you protest "the cuffing" (whatever that is) that the Israelis give the international press...If you suggest that Ariel Sharon is a rejectionist who provocatively egged on the Palestinians.......and on and on.

I admire Mr. Cohen's ability to thoughtfully express his case. However, his argument is beside the point. Because the only time we actually find the word "terror" in Mr. Cohen's calm, well-stated piece is in the opening paragraph: "I insist that the Palestinian cause -- although sullied by terrorism -- is a worthy one."

"Although sullied by terrorism?" Mr. Cohen, if you think that terrorism is something so minor that it can only sully a worthy cause, then we have nothing more to talk about. Because your views give political cover to a band of thugs and murderers who will stop at nothing as they strive to destroy Israel and (eventually) you and your way of life.

Speaking at an Economic Empowerment Forum in Detroit on Saturday was Eric Dyson, a professor of religious studies at DePaul University:

Evaluating Clinton's performance in a fast-paced, hip-hop delivery, Dyson said he "loved our culture but hated our politics." "He exploited black sentiment because he knew the rituals of black culture," Dyson said. "Bill Clinton exploited us like no president before him."

Dyson no doubt is referring to Clinton's well-documented penchant for splitting things down the middle to cut a deal; his trademark welfare reform bill is still unpopular among many in the African American community. But the reference to Dyson's hip-hop delivery brings to mind the breakaway moment in the 1992 campaign when Clinton dissed Sister Souljah in a bid to appeal to more conservative voters. I think it was James Joyce who said: "There is no present, there is no future. Just the past, happening again and again and again. Right now."

Michael Duffy writes in Time magazine about CP Abdullah's visit to Crawford, and its aftermath:

Accounts of the 5-hr. meeting vary dramatically. According to two sources, Abdullah surprised Bush with three handouts — a photo album and two videocassettes — each containing powerful images of the destruction of Palestinian homes by Israeli troops.

Oddly reminiscent of the documents PM Sharon flashed in front of Sec. Powell just before the two of them sat down to breakfast recently. It is said that Powell lost his appetite.

The two men looked through the book and watched the videos, the sources said. Abdullah wanted Bush to see what people in Arab countries were waking up to every day in local newspaper and television reports — and then contemplate the anger those images generated and the pressure that placed on Arab leaders.

Pressure? Bush is feeling some pressure himself right about now.

Bush isn't courting Jewish votes with his tilt toward Israel; he is courting Christian conservatives in his party's base who are deeply pro-Jerusalem. Many Republicans who are willing to accept Bush's rightward tilt on domestic matters are growing increasingly impatient with its influence on foreign policy.

Elsewhere in Time, Tony Karon wrote about Tom DeLay's recent boffo appearance in front of the AIPAC convention:

DeLay told [them] that Israel should hold on to lands it captured in 1967 [saying] ..."I've walked Judea and Samaria [Biblical terms for the West Bank]. I've stood on the Golan Heights. I didn't see an occupied territory. I saw Israel."

Caught between polar opposites like Abdullah and DeLay, Bush must rely on his instincts more and more; as it turns out his much-vaunted staff is deeply divided, and hasn't been much help. And now, Karen Hughes is leaving. It isn't clear if Bush can (even if he wanted to) mediate the squabble and delineate a clear course of leadership. I get the impression that he is making it up as he goes along, reflecting back on whoever is talking to him at the moment. I sure hope he is going for something more than a C+ here; there's too much at stake.

Meanwhile over at the New York Times Editorial Page, they had this to say about Israel's self-defensive role in the War on Terror:

Israel's long-term interest lies in nurturing Palestinian development, not demolishing it. While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to strike back at terrorists is understandable, Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and public utilities is not. Knocking down houses, destroying electricity pylons and interfering with health care, as Israeli forces have done across the West Bank, cannot be justified by any compelling military need.

This stunningly arrogant and condescending view is typical of the Times. But let's be charitable; they are correct in saying that it is in Israel's interest to nurture a Palestinian development. The Marshall Plan was also a good idea, but only after Nazi Germany had been totally crushed and defeated.

This just in from USATODAY.com:

JERUSALEM (AP) — A suicide bomber Friday killed at least six people and wounded 62 near a crowded market, Israeli police said. Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the militant faction of Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, claimed responsibility. The explosion occured shortly after Secretary of State Colin Powell met in another part of town with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss defusing the volatile situation. Powell is set to speak with Arafat on Saturday and it wasn't immediately known how the latest bombing would affect the agenda.

Here's a thought: If Powell meets with Arafat on Saturday, then there won't have to be any more agendas, because the War on Terror will be over. Period. And we'll have lost.

Jonathan Alter writes about the images of war and terror and how these are working against Israel in the world media. Since how things look (as opposed to what they are) is a key concept in postmodern politics, we should give Alter a listen:

What matters is what people see on television, and right now that’s Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships seeming to wage war on civilians. When you combine those pictures with Arafat’s peerless ability to play the victim, Sharon’s brutal history and obliviousness to the futility of his military strategy and a flaring up of anti-Semitism around the world, it gives life to Arafat’s Nazi analogy. It shouldn’t. For any fair-minded student of history, the comparison is an outrage. But it does matter.

Alter makes it sound like the Israelis problem is one of bad PR (a perennial complaint among supporters of Israel). It's not bad PR. Unfortunately, it goes deeper than that.

Murder-suicide bombings also make great TV; I just watched another one unfold this morning. The picture of the dead Israeli man lying in the street, with his shirt off, his pants in tatters up to his knees and his legs a bloody mess, was on the screen for just a moment. Yet the image was so brutal, so immediately raw, that even the network anchor's face buckled under the shock, her mouth actually hanging open for an instant. I clapped my hand over my mouth, as tears sprang to my eyes. I had the same reaction on 9/11 when I saw the second plane hit the WTC. Does this kind of image turn public opinion? Maybe for a few days, but not much after that.

Why not? Because the political heft isn't there. World opinion (like the American news media) loves an underdog and the Israelis are perceived to be the top dog. Arafat is very good at playing the victim, but truth be told, he has a lot of sympathizers out there. Europe still feels guilty for first appeasing the Nazis and then turning a blind eye to the Holacaust; now that the Israelis are engaged in a war with modern technology on their side, this absolves the EU-niks of their residual guilt feelings.

Also, the anti-global crowd already sees multi-national capitalism as evil. And since the Jews control capitalism, they must be the root of evil. Anti-Semitism has found an excuse to trot out its favorite old chestnuts in an effort to pile on. The ancient stories of blood-libel ironically sprang up in the mainstream Arab press right around the time of the Netanya murder-suicide bombing on the eve of Passover.

Alter makes a glancing reference to Sharon's "brutal history"; no doubt he is referring to the incident at Sabra and Chatilla in Lebanon, c. 1982. World opinion will not let Israel forget that misbegotten episode. But again, that isn't bad PR. That is willful blindness to Arafat's own long and storied "brutal history" including the murder of the Israeli atheletes at Munich in 1972 and his pivotal role in the murder of a US ambassador a few years later. But you see, just by mentioning Sharon and Arafat in the same sentence, we lose all sense of scale and discrimination. The easy response is to say, "a pox on both your houses! Self-defense against terror is morally equivalent to the terror itself. There is good terror and there is bad terror." And so forth. It absolves some of us from making the difficult choice between good and evil.

The fact remains that there is NO excuse for terror, no matter how extreme the grievance. We didn't listen to Osama when he complained about Israeli occupation of the West Bank or US occupation of military bases in Saudi Arabia. And we shouldn't listen now.