| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: Anti-Semitism label confines open debate |
| General (Ret) Jim David is mentioned on the cover of Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book about the power/influence of AIPAC and similar on the US political system:
BGJDAVID wrote:
Subject: Jay Bookman's refreshing article
For many years the Jewish Anti-Defamation League along with the Israeli lobby, the media, and other supporters of Israel have effectively silenced many critics of Israel with their label "anti-Semite" making public debate on the issue virtually impossible. Now, with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," the tide seems to be changing. Jay Bookman's "My Opinion" article in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution is one refreshing truth that all Americans need to read. Please pass it on. Thanks.
Jim David
ajc.com | Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Anti-Semitism label confines open debate
Published on: 12/18/06
Jimmy Carter may be right or he may be wrong; in fact, like the rest of us, he's almost certainly some of both.
But Carter is not by any stretch of the imagination anti-Semitic. In fact, merely by making that ridiculous accusation, people such as Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, have proved Carter right about some of the central observations in his controversial new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
JAY BOOKMAN
MY OPINION
• E-mail Bookman
Recent columns:
Anti-Semitism label confines open debate
Free market, alas, not free of hypocrites
Give Ga. roads a bigger bump from fuel taxes
Iraq report removes gloves, blinders
Georgia can't leave transit in the dust
Judicial plan in contempt of Ga. voters
New Iraq war erupts over who's to blame
In that book, and in the debate it has inspired, Carter has noted the very narrow range of acceptable opinion in this country regarding Israel and Palestine, and believes that silenced debate has hurt U.S. both the United States and Israel.
"When I go to Jerusalem or to Tel Aviv or Nazareth or anywhere in Israel, the discussions and debates are intense and constant about Israeli policies in the West Bank and whether they are advisable or not," Carter has said. " ... but in this country, zero."
He's absolutely right: The debate about Israeli policies is far more heated and frank within Israel than here in the United States. As one telling example, consider this paragraph by Israeli columnist Larry Derfner, writing recently in the Jerusalem Post:
"Nobody and nothing in the world has an army of advocates, defenders, PR people, marketers, spin-meisters and image-polishers like Israel has. This army isn't made up just of the government but of Jews and Judeophiles all over the world, especially in the U.S. It includes the entire alphabet soup of American Jewish organizations, right-wing 'media watchdogs' like CAMERA and Honest Reporting, hundreds of Jewish newspapers and Web sites, Alan Dershowitz, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Republican Party, the Christian Right, FOX News and an assortment of other forces."
In Israel, apparently, nobody thought twice about such a statement. But those same words written here in the United States would be prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism.
Even the comparison of the situation in the Palestinian territories to South African apartheid isn't unsayable within Israel. To the contrary, it has been an undercurrent of debate there for years.
"I'm terribly sorry, while there are important differences between the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the former apartheid regime of South Africa, after 39 years of occupation the similarities have come to outweigh the differences," Derfner wrote recently in another column in The Jerusalem Post.
Top Israeli political figures have made the comparison as well.
"The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair," said Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency. "Is the option of Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? I think not."
And Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser in the Israeli government, once warned that with their unwavering support for Israel's approach to Palestine, neoconservatives in the Bush administration have encouraged Israel to create "an apartheid reality that is the very antithesis of the democratization that they preach for the region."
Foxman professes to be most outraged by Carter's assertion that pro-Israeli groups have helped squelch open debate about the Middle East, accusing Carter of peddling "this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the media.''
There is indeed a shameless, shameful canard to that effect, and it is classic anti-Semitism, attributing to Jews some secret conspiratorial control of world affairs. But that is not the argument that Carter is making. Carter's point — and Foxman proves it — is that it has become impossible to express sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians in this country without fear of being shouted down as anti-Semitic.
There is no question that anti-Semitism is alive and virulent. It is undeniable fact that Israel is unfairly targeted in the United Nations and other forums, in part because of anti-Semitism and in part because Israel is hated as a creation of the West imposed on the Arab world, a living and enduring symbol of Arab weakness.
However, Israelis also bridle when they believe their country is being held to a higher standard than other nations, and they insist that it be treated like any other normal country.
Normal countries, however, are subject to normal criticism among the community of nations. In Israel's case, there will always be a danger that such criticism will slide into anti-Semitism, but people of good faith can surely distinguish one from the other.
• Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
| From: "Edward Corrigan"
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:24:47 -0500
Subject: U of Montreal, Prof Yakov Rabkin on Israel's inherently discriminatory structure: "Delicate mosiac at risk in Israel, Being even-handed not part of Mideast policy " Toronto Star on August 24, 2006
Here is an important Op-Ed Piece that appeared in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, on August 24, 2006. However, the opinion piece address the charge of anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. This is a recurrent theme that constantly comes up when discussing the Palestinian issue and needs to be addressed. I was recently called a racist and an anti-Semite for criticizing Israeli policies and Zionism and for supporting Palestinian human rights at an event where a former Israeli soldier and member of "Breaking the Silence" in Israel gave a lecture about Israel's many violations of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Territories. Professor Rabkin's response to the charge that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is excellent. Rabkin is an anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew and the author of The Enemy Within: Jewish Religious Opposition to Zionism." His book has recently been nominated for the Governor-General' s Award, one of Canada's most prestigious awards.
Ed Corrigan
Subject: U of M Prof Yakov Rabkin on Israel's inherently discriminatory structure
From the letters section of the Toronto Star on August 24, 2006
http://www.thestar. com/NASApp/ cs/ContentServer ?pagename= thestar/Layout/ Article_PrintFri endly&c=Article&cid=1156369811787&call_pageid= 968332189003
Delicate mosiac at risk in Israel
Aug. 24, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being even-handed not part of Mideast policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion, Aug. 19. MP Irwin Cotler's article about Canada's policies in the Middle East is dangerously inconsistent. While he quotes from the Speech from the Throne and rightly affirms the principle of combating racism, he supports the Zionist idea of a "Jewish state," which is obviously discriminatory. Not even the Vatican is called a "Catholic state." In fact, today's Israel is a vibrant multicultural society that tries to break loose of an inherently discriminatory structure reflecting the idea of a Jewish state. Many Jews, including those who lived in Palestine that became Israel, have opposed Zionism. They have also opposed the expulsion of Palestinians, a springboard for the founding of the state of Israel and the source of its continuing fragility. It is therefore dangerously misleading to portray opposition to Israel as intrinsically anti-Semitic. Quite a few religious Jews (some of whom took part in the demonstrations against Israel's recent attack on Lebanon) abhor Zionism and the chronic violence it has engendered. Many non-Jews oppose Israel not because they hate the Jews but because they want to redress the fundamental injustice against the Palestinians. In fact, many Jews, in Israel and elsewhere, fully share this goal. They believe the only way to stop the incessant violence is to address its root causes — expulsion, dispossession and occupation. By refusing to address this basic injustice, the state of Israel endangers Jews within its borders and in the Diaspora. Cotler rightly reminds us of the value of the Canadian mosaic. By defending the state of Israel as a "Jewish state," i.e. a state that somehow belongs to him, to me and to other Canadian Jews, he puts that delicate mosaic at risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History, University of Montreal | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
