Thursday, October 03, 2002
4:01 pm
Israel & Anti-Semitism. 3rd October, 2002.
My good Cde Goldstein dismisses as absurd the allegations that are often made that criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semitic, or, more precisely, anti-Jewish. Logically, of course, he is right to do so: there is no necessary connexion between opposition to a government & hatred of a race. But empirically, I am not so sure.
Some of the most trenchant criticism of Israel comes from the isolationist right, a group with whom Airstrip One is generally in sympathy; yet I find it perplexing & perturbing that our friends should be so exercised about Israel when, coolly considered, their avowed principles seem to enjoin a more neutral stance. What, after all, has the Arab-Israeli conflict to do with Britain? How are British interests affected by the non-existence or otherwise of a Palestinian state? Why should we care? By all means argue for the elimination of pro-Israeli bias from policy-making, but why go so far beyond that?
Very well, the anti-Zionist answers; we are not arguing about government policy, merely expressing our private opinion of the rights & wrongs of a conflict in another part of the world. Fair enough. But I cannot help wondering why this conflict. Palestinian sympathisers are for ever bleating, “What about the Palestinians?” whenever any oppressed group anywhere in the world is mentioned; I find myself sorely tempted, whenever the Palestinian question is raised yet again, to bleat in reply, “What about Tibet? East Timor? Kashmir? Zimbabwe? Chechnya?” Our friends seem to be selective in the conflicts they comment on, & I wonder what their principle of selection is.
Easy, the anti-Zionist answers: the Arab-Israeli conflict is by some distance the world’s most “high-profile” conflict; everybody else is talking about it, so why shouldn’t we? Fair enough again. But what about the way they talk about it? Think of all the sticks the right-wing isolationist uses to beat Israel with: Israel defies U.N. resolutions; Israel breaches “human rights”; Israel has “weapons of mass destruction”; Israel doesn’t allow in weapons inspectors; Israel restricts the movements of the international press; Israel blah blah blah. When similar accusations are made against Iraq, these very same right-wing isolationists regard them as so unimportant that they question the motives of those who make them; they can hardly complain, then, when I question their motives when they make precisely the same accusations against Israel, especially when – this is the nub of the thing – U.N. resolutions & human rights seem to acquire importance only when Israel infringes them, whereas the rest of the time, right-wing isolationists quite rightly couldn’t give a damn about U.N. resolutions & human rights. There must be an ulterior motive, & the odds are it is anti-Semitism.
It would, of course, be a genetic fallacy to reject criticism of Israel because we disliked its motive. The motive does not affect the truth of the criticism. But it should give us pause.
My good Cde Goldstein dismisses as absurd the allegations that are often made that criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semitic, or, more precisely, anti-Jewish. Logically, of course, he is right to do so: there is no necessary connexion between opposition to a government & hatred of a race. But empirically, I am not so sure.
Some of the most trenchant criticism of Israel comes from the isolationist right, a group with whom Airstrip One is generally in sympathy; yet I find it perplexing & perturbing that our friends should be so exercised about Israel when, coolly considered, their avowed principles seem to enjoin a more neutral stance. What, after all, has the Arab-Israeli conflict to do with Britain? How are British interests affected by the non-existence or otherwise of a Palestinian state? Why should we care? By all means argue for the elimination of pro-Israeli bias from policy-making, but why go so far beyond that?
Very well, the anti-Zionist answers; we are not arguing about government policy, merely expressing our private opinion of the rights & wrongs of a conflict in another part of the world. Fair enough. But I cannot help wondering why this conflict. Palestinian sympathisers are for ever bleating, “What about the Palestinians?” whenever any oppressed group anywhere in the world is mentioned; I find myself sorely tempted, whenever the Palestinian question is raised yet again, to bleat in reply, “What about Tibet? East Timor? Kashmir? Zimbabwe? Chechnya?” Our friends seem to be selective in the conflicts they comment on, & I wonder what their principle of selection is.
Easy, the anti-Zionist answers: the Arab-Israeli conflict is by some distance the world’s most “high-profile” conflict; everybody else is talking about it, so why shouldn’t we? Fair enough again. But what about the way they talk about it? Think of all the sticks the right-wing isolationist uses to beat Israel with: Israel defies U.N. resolutions; Israel breaches “human rights”; Israel has “weapons of mass destruction”; Israel doesn’t allow in weapons inspectors; Israel restricts the movements of the international press; Israel blah blah blah. When similar accusations are made against Iraq, these very same right-wing isolationists regard them as so unimportant that they question the motives of those who make them; they can hardly complain, then, when I question their motives when they make precisely the same accusations against Israel, especially when – this is the nub of the thing – U.N. resolutions & human rights seem to acquire importance only when Israel infringes them, whereas the rest of the time, right-wing isolationists quite rightly couldn’t give a damn about U.N. resolutions & human rights. There must be an ulterior motive, & the odds are it is anti-Semitism.
It would, of course, be a genetic fallacy to reject criticism of Israel because we disliked its motive. The motive does not affect the truth of the criticism. But it should give us pause.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2002
(915)
-
▼
October
(82)
- L'ennemi américaine It is galling, when one argue...
- I Know It's Off-topic, but I Cannot Sit Back and W...
- Jumping the Gun D'Estaing may have miscalculated ...
- We must never be isolated in Europe No Longer.
- Foreign Travel & the Social Contract 28th October...
- Spot the difference A rather interesting piece co...
- Three in One Anne Applebaum strains to try to und...
- The hostage situation in Russia could never have h...
- Barnier's Barmy Army Michel Barnier, the European...
- Playing Chicken The diplomatic debate on authoris...
- Apres Moi, la deluge? Daniel arap Moi has been fo...
- The Naive Idiot Suddenly Blair finds that his new...
- The Transnationalist Right Part II When I wrote m...
- Bali - 24th October 2002 It is unlikely that thos...
- Good or Bad? - 24th October 2002 On the plus: thi...
- The problem with us Europhobes is... that we thin...
- What the Germans feel about Democracy We've gone ...
- The Anglosphere in Action Are the IRA acting in c...
- Bali Complications Can we say for certain that th...
- Does Al Qaeda exist? Al Qaeda changes its ways sa...
- What to do after the Referendum If we lose the re...
- Balancing Power Christopher Layne of the Cato ins...
- Just how special is that relationship? From The T...
- Hedging the bets John Simpson has "a nasty feelin...
- A deadlist, not an argument Isn’t it odd how thos...
- Tranris Philip Chaston talks about the Transnatio...
- Hindu Kush Watch A bit of a lefty rant this, but ...
- Dwarfed Alexander Cockburn sallies forth on the U...
- Usual FO Contempt for British Citizens 18th Octobe...
- How Bush could lose Not the war of course, but th...
- The Transnationalist Right With the recent argume...
- How Democracy works in Germany According to Die W...
- What is Corpus Juris Corpus Juris is the common b...
- High Watermark, not the end of the flood The fall...
- Shifting Sands So there's been a sharp rise in fa...
- Who runs the government? Governor of Bank of Fra...
- The Trots are with us It's not often that I'll li...
- Monopoly Money I know you're tired of my constant...
- The danger of moving targets A rather interesting...
- Where's Paddy? An interesting little analysis of ...
- Oils well that ends well An interesting article o...
- Changing European Assumptions of the United States...
- Eye witness report form the Hague - latest proceed...
- Whoops Britain in Europe have hired an economist ...
- The Unilateralist Iron Fist inside the Multilatera...
- Blair's Meetings These are usually a very good in...
- An Old Pattern Re-emerges...for the last time? Vi...
- Not Gagged Supposedly this article on MI6 pying B...
- The Cult gets it wrong James Bennett, high priest...
- Surrendering Champ Are they in a competition? Th...
- Raising the price Russia still wants more money f...
- What they think of Democracy If the Irish referen...
- And what's wrong with that? There are plenty of r...
- Tell us something we don't know Business groups s...
- Can the American Empire go on for ever? Yes says ...
- One For ... 8th October 2002 Jack Spencer, ...
- Three Voices Against War Sheldon Richman, of the ...
- Interventionists under the skin Brendan O'Neil di...
- A story of two inspectors Richard Butler is for w...
- Domestic Politics Intrusion I rarely comment on d...
- Profiling America This article from the National ...
- Falling Empires One of the reasons I've been scep...
- Globalising Parties What's so wrong with global p...
- Why the Tories still matter From the Telegraph: ...
- They couldn't organise a... 6th October 2002 It a...
- The Tory Contribution to the European Convention 5...
- A further view on the motives of Russia The Jerus...
- Resisting the empire An interesting proposal to a...
- The Euro and the Economy It looks like the Eurozo...
- They're cracking Seems like there are more ructio...
- The Opposition must oppose Says Malcolm Rifkind i...
- Fallout over Germany 3rd October 2002 Chancellor...
- Anglosphere Ferment Steven King asks what is the ...
- Israel & Anti-Semitism. 3rd October, 2002. My g...
- Leave the IMF A friend e-mailed this article. Ha...
- My last word on Germany I promise. This article ...
- Clinton bashes IDS The wages of sin are death, an...
- Diplomatic Tussles Clinton's speech was a "mesmer...
- The Sick Man of Europe One of the problems with t...
- Anti-Semtitism? Is being critical of Israel, or s...
- Desperate Remedies The Euro-fanatics are on the r...
- Doubting Whittam Smith The pundit speaks: I am al...
-
▼
October
(82)
0 comments:
Post a Comment