Soccer Dad

Judt introduces new cliches

If Michael Chabon's reflections on Jewish and Israeli stupidity weren't offensive enough, now the New York Times gives another Jewish anti-Zionist, Tony Judt a few hundred more words of op-ed space to express his contempt for Israel. In Talking about Israel without Cliches, Judt takes on 6 supposed cliches about the Middle East. We get such brilliance as:

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America's greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of "losing" Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives -- whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a "normal" state and sever the umbilical cord.

Turkey moved away from the United States, but it had nothing to do with Israel. Barry Rubin explains:

At first, this outcome was not so obvious. The AK Party won its first election by only a narrow margin. To keep the United States and EU happy, to keep the Turkish army happy, and to cover up its Islamist sympathies, the new regime was cautious over relations with Israel. Keeping them going served as "proof" of Turkey's moderation.

Yet as the AK majorities in election rose, the government became more confident. No longer did it stress that it was just a center-right party with family values. The regime steadily weakened the army, using EU demands for civilian power. As it repressed opposition and arrested hundreds of critics, bought up 40 percent of the media, and installed its people in the bureaucracy, the AK's arrogance, and thus its willingness to go further and throw off its mask, grew steadily.

And then, on top of that, the regime saw that the United States would not criticize it, not press it, not even notice what the Turkish government was doing. President Barack Obama came to Turkey and praised the regime as a model of moderate Muslim democracy. Former President Bill Clinton appeared in Istanbul and, in response to questions asked by an AK party supporter, was manipulated into virtually endorsing the regime's program without realizing it.

Earlier this year, the situation became even more absurd as Turkey moved ever closer to becoming the third state to join the Iran-Syria bloc. Syria's state-controlled newspaper and Iranian President Ahmadinejad openly referred to Turkey's membership in their alliance. And no one in Washington even noticed what was happening. Even when, in May, Turkish policy stabbed the United States in the back by helping Iran launch a sanctions-avoiding plan, the Obama Administration barely stirred in its sleep.

Aside from Judt's ignorance about Turkey there are two related thoughts that he dismisses that are important. Judt's first "cliche" about Israel:

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not "delegitimize" it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan -- or, indeed, the United States -- "delegitimizes" them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

and his sixth:

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when "anti-Zionism" was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its "founding fathers" -- today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel's right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or "post-Zionist"). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a "normal state" for themselves, today's insistence on Israel's right to act in "abnormal" ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

Judt has it completely wrong. These two "cliches" are the heart of the problem. Israel's enemies and many of its critics don't just criticize Israel, they condemn it. They claim that Israel's mistakes aren't just mistakes but that they undermine Israel's legitimacy. That, in fact, is why Israel's critics often cross the threshhold of antisemitism. They would deny Jews what they allow any other group in the world: their own country.

Recently an anti-Zionist blogger wrote that the New York Times was not anti-Israel because it allowed Israel's ambassador, Michael Oren an op-ed. Oren's op-ed was an exception. As I've shown earlier this year, pro-Israel writers are far outnumbered by anti-Israel writers on the op-ed pages of the Times. Chabon and Judt continue tipping the Times's already unbalanced scales.

Crossposted on Yourish.