WB: Identity Politics – Moon of Alabama

August 10, 2006

WB: Identity Politics

Billmon:

The thing is, when a charge like anti-Semitism is repeated, over and over, high and low, to cover everything from David Duke’s poisonous rants to the mildest criticisms of the Israeli war machine in action, it inevitably starts to lose its sting. If you’ve got any intellectual courage at all, you begin to think: I’m going to be accused of anti-Semitism no matter what I write, so why not write honestly, and let the readers decide who’s telling the truth?

Identity Politics

Posted by b on August 10, 2006 at 04:22 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Well done, Billmon.
Just remember, the yelping is always loudest right before the old dog dies.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 4:59 utc | 1

How dare you Billmon!
Don’t you know that Peace is Anti-Semitic?

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 10 2006 6:36 utc | 2

Extricating American foreign policy from its decades long coitus with Israel will be, at best, an excruciatingly long and painful withdrawal. Billmon mentions several shibboleths worthy of re-interpretation and re-consideration, but the task of creating a political context that fosters such a dialectic remains almost entirely before us.

Perhaps one approach that might birth an effective mass movement is an even more profound iconoclasm: a rejection of the sacred tabu of “internationalism” in favor of what, for lack of a better term, might be called neo-isolationism. Neo-isolationism would reject only “entangling alliances” and interventionist praxis, not global commerce or intense cultural exchanges. A full neo-isolationist manifesto would contain the redimensioning of the U.S.-Israel relationship as a corollary, and, not incidentally, would offer enticing memes for electioneering (i.e., demagoguery).

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Aug 10 2006 6:47 utc | 3

I don’t have the figures — how much aid does the US give to Israel every year? Six billion dollars? Plus military aid? No strings attached? How much of that comes back to the US to influence congress and elections? As much as is needed?
Some one in Moon comments addressed this more factually than I can, but it seems to me something that should be given attention.

Posted by: mudduck | Aug 10 2006 15:29 utc | 4

another zinger billmon. you’ve got intellectual courage in spades.

Posted by: annie | Aug 10 2006 15:55 utc | 5

My opinion is that the left spends entirely too much time agonizing about name calling from zionist racists with religious obsessions.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2006 16:26 utc | 6

This becomes a hall of mirrors, similar to the hall of mirrors that is the reality of the ME. Israel has made grievous errors of judgment that have led to the unnecessary death of helpless civilians and the destruction of an entire nation. Why can Israel not see that those who criticize these actions do so out of a concern that they degrade her position in the world and give the bigots way too much ammunition to call for her destruction?
But no, Israel is perfect. Anyone who criticizes is an anti-Semite and if Jewish, is a traitor. I would expect this sort of blind following to come from China or Russia from the last century. This is not helpful and truly not hopeful.

Posted by: moe99 | Aug 10 2006 18:21 utc | 7

In the context of U.S. policy towards Israel and the Middle East, the object of playing the anti-Semitism card is to create a debate in which one side is constantly questioning its own motives. It demands that everyone accept the basic premise that criticism of Israel, the country, must equal hostility towards Jews, the ethnic group.
This is and has been the crux of the argument for a long time. The underlying and erroneous premise of the argument is related to the status of political entities versus ethnic/religious entities and is easily verified by reference to settled principles of international law. Nation states are political entities. “The Jewish people” as a religious entity is not recognized as the basis for a nation state. That part was made clear for me when I was in law school in the late 60’s.
The other aspect of the argument, which immunizes Israel from criticism, based on conflating the criticism of the nation with criticism of Jews has its basis, I think, in myriad psychological twists and turns very effectively invoking and manipulating feelings, primarily of guilt. This too has been around for decades, with growing effectiveness it seems, and certainly reinforced, virtually institutionalized in American politics by the circuitous route of good old dollars from the US to Israel (via the government as well as “charitable” front groups) and back.
I have no answers as to how this perverse and dangerous phenomenon can be “corrected” Taking money out of politics might help, but that addresses just the reinforcing mechanism and not the basic issue. Education might help but, God knows, the information is there if only there were eyes to see. Absence of countervailing pressure groups would of course help, but I don’t see pro Arab or Muslim groups gaining much traction in this country. Intelligent media would be a blessing, but is instead and oxymoron. Individuals speaking out without fear may or may not help, but it seems a matter of duty.

Posted by: DonS | Aug 10 2006 20:46 utc | 8

@mudduck #4: I don’t have the figures — how much aid does the US give to Israel every year? Six billion dollars? Plus military aid? No strings attached? How much of that comes back to the US to influence congress and elections? As much as is needed?
So access to US aid ensures that a complicit elite remains in power in their country, and those same funds recycled in turn distort the US political process. This is not that different from the arrangements with big media and defense. I wonder what they call anyone who criticizes this arrangement in their country – “anti-American”? A “terrorist”?

Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 12 2006 5:37 utc | 9

Back to Main