|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2009-05-22
© 2009 Peter Belmont
Some people, usually hard-line supporters of Israel (the “my country right or wrong, my mother drunk or sober” folks, who, even when they are Americans, seem to believe that Israel is their country), use the accusation of “anti-Semite” against people who criticise what Israel does—and even the nonsensical sounding accusation of “self-hating Jew” against Jews who criticise Israeli actions.[1]
Imagine a world in which everyone was silenced (as to criticism of what Israel does) either by law (direct censorship laws or laws against anti-Semitism) or by custom (the effective social-censorship often called “political correctness”).
If criticism of what Israel does were not allowed world-wide,
then no-one inside Israel could criticise what its own government was doing. That would be the end of the much-vaunted democracy in Israel.(NB: There has been an upsurge of intimidation of the peace-camp in Israel since the Gaza war—of Jews as well as non-Jews. I’ve had emails on this and am searching for web-info. 5-22-09.)
If criticism of what Israel does were not allowed world-wide, then no-one in the US could criticise what Israel does. This is very close to the generally prevailing situation, of course, even though, as a matter of law, Americans are still usually free to speak their minds on political matters.
The outrageous interferences by AIPAC and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby (“The Lobby”) in American governance [2] and the supine refusal of the US media to break through the so-called “politically correct” attitude (of refusing to criticise what Israel does) and its irresponsibility in largely declining even to make factual reports of what Israel does (presumably on the grounds that to describe what Israel does is to criticise what Israel does) has led to an almost complete black-out in the main-stream media (MSM) on opinion and fact on “what Israel does”. This is not government censorship, but it defeats American democracy just as surely as if it were.
But, all in all, Americans are still free (in a legal sense) to criticise what Israel does, and so, in this purely formal sense, American democracy has not been defeated in this respect.
However, if criticism of Israeli actions were to be criminalized (or if civil lawsuits could extract damages from those who criticise what Israel does) then American democracy would become very restricted indeed.
Imagine this conversation between a citizen and her Congressperson. Citizen: “I respectfully ask you to eliminate all annual aid payments from the US to Israel.” Congressperson: “Why do you take that view?” C: “Well, its a lot of money and we could be spending it for other things.” CP: “But, you know, people in my district love Israel. They tell me so all the time.” C:”Yes, but there is no law forbidding people to praise what Israel does. As of last year, there is a law forbidding people to criticise what Israel does. C:”Yes, but tell me, would you like to criticise what Israel does?” C:”Yes, but I am not allowed to do so.” C:”Well, seeing as how many of my constituents praise what Israel does and none of them criticise, I’ll keep the money flowing. What else can I do?”
Might it be that criticism of what Israel does is anti-Semitic even though to forbid it would be to destroy democracy?
No. The many Jews inhabit the world and among them is a wide disparity of views about the propriety, the legality, the morality, the wisdom, and the effectiveness of what Israel does. And they express themselves. And they do not all live in Israel. And they do not all think that Israel should ever have been created.[3]
-----------
[1] The idea seems to be that Jews, collectively, are a single entity, a tribe, a nation, and that for a Jew to criticise so important a Jewish enterprise as Israel is to hate the collective and, thus, to hate the self. Baloney. As we will see..
-----------
[2] Such as the recent overwhelming onslaught by The Lobby forces which caused Charles W. Freeman to withdraw his nomination to become Chair of the US National Intelligence Council is, by now, a very well-known example of this exercise of bludgeon-like social power.
Wikipedia had this to say(5-21-2009):
On February 26, 2009 the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair named Freeman chair of the National Intelligence Council,[8] which culls intelligence from sixteen US agencies and compiles them into National Intelligence Estimates. Blair cited his “diverse background in defense, diplomacy and intelligence.”[9]
News of Freeman’s nomination met with criticism from a number of pro-Israel commentators of his views about Israel and Arab nations and his ties to Saudi Arabia and China, with Steve J. Rosen, a former top official with AIPAC, and presently under investigation for alleged espionage on behalf of Israel, conducting the “opening salvo” according to professor John Mearsheimer.[6][10][11][12][13] The Zionist Organization of America called for rescinding “the reported appointment.”[14] U.S. Representative Steve Israel wrote to the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence calling for an investigation of Freeman’s “relationship with the Saudi government” given his “prejudicial public statements” against the state of Israel.[15] All seven Republican members of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence signed a letter raising “concerns about Mr. Freeman’s lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity.”[2][16] 87 Chinese dissidents wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to reconsider the appointment.[17] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was said to be “incensed” by Freeman’s alleged views of the Tiananmen Square massacre, reportedly urged President Obama against the selection.[18] Freeman explained that the remarks were taken out of context and represented “his assessment of how Chinese leaders had seen things.”[2]
Freeman then issued a full statement on his reasons for withdrawal, stating, “I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country;” he identified the country as Israel. He questioned whether the “outrageous agitation” following the leak of his pending appointment meant that the Obama administration would be able to make independent decisions “about the Middle East and related issues.” He cited especially interference by Israel supporters, writing: “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. The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.” He also wrote: “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 favours.”[19][20]
After his withdrawal Freeman gave an interview to Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation saying he regretted did not identify his attackers as “right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here,” what he called the “(Avigdor) Lieberman lobby.” He also said that if President Obama had stepped in earlier he might have deflected attacks by Democrats, but that he and the National Intelligence Council still “would have been subjected to a slanderous attack.” He said these attacks were as the “Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys,” to dissuade other critics of Israel from accepting government positions, but he had received messages from a number of Jews who also disagreed with Israel’s policies.[21] In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN he repeated many of the some points, adding a defense of past comments about the September 11 attacks, saying US past actions had “catalyzed—perhaps not caused, but catalyzed—a radicalization of Arab and Muslim politics that facilitates the activities of terrorists with global reach.” He stated he was “deeply insulted” by those charging antisemitism and that he had a “great respect for Judaism and its adherents.” He also said Saudi Arabia has “definitely been successfully vilified in our politics,” despite efforts by the current Saudi king to reform his country and promote peace with Israel. He ended by expressing optimism about President Obama saying he has a “strategic mind” and that what America needs is a “strategic review of the policies that have brought us to this sorry pass in which we now find ourselves—not just in the Middle East, but in many other places, as well.”[22][23]
In an interview quoted in the New York Times Freeman said “Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.” In the same article Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper substantiate Freeman’s accusations, writing: “The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steve J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.”[24] While some members of Congress denied that the Israel lobby played a significant role,[25][26] The Forward said “Many of the lawmakers demanding an investigation into Freeman’s qualifications for the intelligence post are known as strong supporters of Israel.”[27]
On March 11 the Washington Post printed two opposing editorials on the subject. An unattributed editorial opinion charged Freeman and those with similar opinons were “conspiracy theorists” issuing “crackpot tirades.”[28] The same day the Post also published a piece by regular columnist David Broder, entitled “The Country’s Loss”, stating “The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists [that] the president vowed to keep in their place, and their friends on Capitol Hill.” [29]
-----------
[3] It is a point of ultr-orthodox Judaism that the ingathering of Jews to Zion was strictly a matter for God to accomplish, and so very much NOT a matter for men (Jews) to accomplish that Jews should not even pray for God to bring it about. See here
Orthodox Jews Denounce Israel – Seek Peace With Palestinians
New York, (November 2, 2000) – Neturei Karta International, a worldwide organization of Orthodox Jews opposed to Zionism, will be staging a counter – protest outside the Palestinian Mission at 65th Street between Park and Lexington on Thursday at twelve noon in response to the planned demonstration of a New York board of “rabbis” in support of Israel. The Orthodox will ‘present to the public an alternative view of the turmoil in the Middle East’.
“All Jews do not support Israel,” said Rabbi Yisroel Weiss the Neturei Karta spokesman. “Some of us view it as terribly immoral. We see Zionism as a violation of the Creator’s decree that we remain in Exile.”
Moreover, he continued, “Zionism has for over a century sought to strip the Palestinian people of their rights as a people and as individuals. There is no lasting solution to the terrible sufferings in the Middle East short of a peaceful dismantling of the state.
“How many wars? How much killing? How many dead on both sides will it take until we have learnt the lesson that Zionism was a great tragedy for all men.
“We ask those Jews, confused by Zionism, to examine the bloody record of the Israeli state. Has it helped or harmed Jewish - Gentile relations?”
Neturei Karta has often demonstrated side by side with Palestinians against Israeli occupation. They feel that all attempts to end Jewish exile by human means are illegitimate and doomed to failure.
Rabbi Weiss added, “Thinking logically, Zionism has failed. It is time to rethink our positions by the light of the guidance offered us by the Torah.”
|
