{"id":39271,"date":"2011-12-27T18:39:52","date_gmt":"2011-12-28T02:39:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=39271"},"modified":"2011-12-27T18:39:52","modified_gmt":"2011-12-28T02:39:52","slug":"the-new-anti-semitism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=39271","title":{"rendered":"The New Anti-Semitism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jonathan Tobin writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Though The New York Times\u2019s Thomas Friedman invariably characterizes himself as a friend of Israel, his Dec. 14 column illustrates the slippery slope along which critics of the Jewish state invariably slide as they attempt to shout down those with whom they disagree.<\/p>\n

In an effort to simultaneously bash Republican supporters of Israel as well as the Israeli government, his frustration with Israel\u2019s enduring popularity led Friedman to engage in smears more typically associated with fringe intellectuals such as Israel Lobby authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. It\u2019s not just that Friedman disdains Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney\u2019s belief in the U.S.-Israel alliance, but that in order to justify his contempt he finds himself having to paint Israel as being intrinsically unworthy of any support.<\/p>\n

First, Friedman is wrong that Newt Gingrich\u2019s line about the Palestinians being an \u201cinvented people\u201d means Israel wants to rule the West Bank indefinitely. Rather, the injection of some truth about the history of the conflict ought to highlight a fact that journalists like Friedman have done so much to ignore: the inextricable link between Palestinian nationalism and a belief in the destruction of Israel. The point that Gingrich and many others have tried to make is that unless and until the Palestinians reinvent their identity and political culture in such a fashion as to drop their desire to extinguish the Jewish state, peace is not possible.<\/p>\n

Second, let\u2019s address one of the primary slanders at the heart of his piece: that the standing ovations Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received last spring in Washington were \u201cbought and paid for by the Israel lobby.\u201d Rather, they were the result of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans \u2013 Jew and non-Jew alike \u2013 think of Israel as a friend and ally. They, and their representatives in Congress, believe the Jewish state\u2019s security is, contrary to Friedman\u2019s formulation, a vital U.S. interest in the Middle East. It is true, as Friedman says, that the applause may not have been a personal endorsement for Netanyahu, but that\u2019s because it was also a stiff rebuke to President Obama\u2019s attempt to ambush the Israeli prior to his visit with his speech about the 1967 lines, whose purpose was to tilt the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians.<\/p>\n

The notion that the only reason politicians support Israel is because of Jewish money is a central myth of a new form of anti-Semitism that masquerades as a defense of American foreign policy against the depredations of a venal Israel lobby. This canard not only feeds off of the traditional themes of Jew-hatred, it also requires Friedman to ignore the deep roots of American backing for Zionism in our history and culture.<\/p>\n

Friedman goes on to embarrass himself by contrasting the reception Netanyahu received on Capitol Hill to the one he might get at a center of leftist academia such as the University of Wisconsin. There\u2019s little doubt he would not be cheered there. But the same would be true of most American politicians or thinkers who deviated from leftist orthodoxy. The notion that liberal campuses are more representative of public opinion about Israel than Congress is laughable.<\/p>\n

But Friedman doesn\u2019t stop there. He goes on to enumerate various Israeli sins that should, he thinks, cause American Jews and our leaders to distance themselves from the Jewish state.<\/p>\n

Some of the items he lists are troubling. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman\u2019s closeness with the Putin regime in Russia is a mistake. But can a small nation under siege be blamed if one of its leaders sees the value in maintaining relations with a powerful nation? And many Americans, Friedman included, have at times criticized opinions or decisions made by our own secretaries of state. Disagreeing with Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice or Hillary Clinton isn\u2019t considered a good reason to abandon support for America\u2019s continued existence and security, so why should it be so for Israel?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jonathan Tobin writes: Though The New York Times\u2019s Thomas Friedman invariably characterizes himself as a friend of Israel, his Dec. 14 column illustrates the slippery slope along which critics of the Jewish state invariably slide as they attempt to shout … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[605],"tags":[1700,7574,24272,27778,23795,18329],"class_list":["post-39271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anti-semitism","tag-benjamin-netanyahu","tag-jonathan-tobin","tag-minister-benjamin-netanyahu","tag-mitt-romney","tag-newt-gingrich","tag-prime-minister-benjamin"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t