What Often Happens To Israel’s Critics I

Johann Hari recounts his own experience at the hands of a variety of intellectuals whose fundamental desire is not to engage in debate about Israel and Palestine, but to control the debate with smears and character assassinations.

Note Johann’s credentials as a writer and reporter, whose brave and extensive record exposing vile Islamist anti-Semitism cannot be denied. Hari won Britain’s Orwell Prize for journalism last year, and has been nominated for columnist of the year in Britain for the last two years. He is a friend of mine, and, along with Irshad Manji and me, one of a small group of non-Jewish socially liberal writers who have devoted a great deal of their time exposing the anti-Semitism in Europe and the Muslim world, and the evil of Jihadism. We have done this because we care passionately about the poison of anti-Semitism:

I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me “a Jew-lover”, “a Zionist-homo pig” and more.

Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn’t controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.

The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile “pro-Israel” writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.

Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, “Honest Reporting” claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews “poisoning the wells.” If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, “Honest Reporting” will say you didn’t explain “the real cause”: the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.

The former editor of Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups “nascent McCarthyism”. Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis. Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips are two of the most prominent figures sent in to attack anyone who disagrees with the Israeli right. Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard professor and author of The Case For Israel. He sees ethnic cleansing as a trifling matter, writing: “Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary … It is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal.” If a prominent American figure takes a position on Israel to the left of this, Dershowitz often takes to the airwaves to call them anti-Semites and bigots.

Plus ca change.

The US-Israel Relationship, Ctd

A reader writes:

This reader unwittingly makes a very sharp analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian situation when he states:

“And as for the “right to live” line, one could just as easily say that Israel could have peace tomorrow if they recognized a Palestinian right to return. That position is not more politically viable than it would be for Hamas, as the duly elected government of the Palestinian authority, to lay down the gun without a settlement freeze or the territorial concessions needed to make a Palestinian state viable.  If Israel cannot even bring itself to give these concessions to the generally peaceful Palestinians of the West Bank; if Israel cannot even bring itself to stop settlements from being built in the West Bank, then what reason could Hamas possibly have for thinking that unilaterally forsaking the fight would lead to a real, respected sovereignty in Gaza?”

Things get a bit confused by his reference to Hamas in here, but it should be noted that three times in the past decade (twice in 2000, and then again in the fall of 2008), the PA was offered a Palestinian state by Israel, but rejected it because of, amongst other things, the lack of a “right of return”.

So in other words, by recognizing Israel’s “right to live” and laying down their arms, the Palestinians could have a peaceful existence and a state tomorrow, if they so wished.

By contrast, as your reader notes, Israel could have peace tomorrow “if they recognized a Palestinian right to return.” As he/she also states, this would be not “politically viable” for Israel, as it would virtually guarantee a Jewish minority within the pre-1967 borders in a few years time.

To boil this down to its essence then: the Palestinians could have peace (and a state) today if they stopped fighting Israel and agreed to recognize its existence. The Israelis could have peace today only if they agreed to no longer exist. The mutual exclusivity of these two competing national desires is the root of the conflict, and any analysis of the situation needs to bear this in mind. All of the other ills of the situation, from the power of the fanatical settlers to the power of the fanatical Hamas are the symptoms, and not the cause, of this strikingly obvious fact.

What Came Before The Nashville Hate Incident

As readers know, I’ve been following the rather moving story about how an ugly slogan was daubed on a local mosque in Nashville, after which a local man was so offended he immediately grabbed some paint to remove it and the local community rallied around. I thought it helped dispel some stereotypes about the South and the inherent decency and tolerance of most Americans. Andrew Exum brings to my attention the following news story which ran just before the incident. It’s about as meretricious a piece of news journalism – “Are there Muslim terrorists in our midst? You Decide!”  – that deserves wider attention. It was crafted by a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism.

More journalism analysis here. (For some reason, my attempt to embed the clip keeps failing. You can view it here.)

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Austin Considine reports on Shane Hutte:

The ironies are clear, if truth be somewhat elusive. Welcome to a broken health care system — a broken culture — where we fight against better forms of what we already use and need. Where a person with a pre-existing condition must be broke in order not to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills.

The Neocon-Islamist Dynamic

GAZAGRIEFMahmudHams:AFP:Getty

Andrew Sprung reflects on a dangerous development in the last decade:

Well, yes, hardened jihadists' enmity toward the U.S. and Israel is unappeasable. Israelis and Palestinians could be as good neighbors as Swedes and Danes and jihad hatred would not relent. But the question is not what moves confirmed jihadists but what moves angry young men into hardened jihadism, and what moves millions of people who would never pick up a gun or strap on a bomb to varying degrees of sympathy with preachers of hatred. Throughout the Muslim world, the entrenched antisemitism and attendant assumption that the US is largely controlled by Israel are powerful stimulants.  Evidence that the U.S. meaningfully opposes some Israeli actions would drain some of that poison.

A two-state settlement would drain more — as Wieseltier acknowledges. As for the impact of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib on Muslim perceptions of the U.S. — the evidence is everywhere that U.S. detainee abuse has shaped and dominated perceptions of the U.S. throughout most of the Muslim world  The fact that committed jihadists will never be appeased by U.S. or Israeli actions is beside the point. In fact they relish and try to provoke U.S. actions that feed their "crusader" narrative.  Neocons also try to provoke such actions. By their rhetoric and by their late influence in the Bush Administration they play into jihadists' hands.

(Photo: An unidentified relative of Hamas fighter Mohammed al-Kintani mourns during his funeral in Gaza City on January 14, 2009. Israel bombed smuggling tunnels and battled fighters in Gaza as UN chief Ban Ki-moon arrived in the region seeking to end the war on Hamas that has killed nearly 1,000 Palestinians. By Mahmud Hams/Getty.)

The Weekend Wrap

This weekend on the Dish, the GOP started to panic over HCR, ACT UP took action in NYC, Ahmadi appeared unsafe, Barak warned of a possible "apartheid" in Israel, Nashville banded together against a hate crime, and the WaPo hired pro-torture Thiessen. In Cheney coverage, Politico explored his desire to attack, a reader added two cents, and Andrew dialed down his criticism of DADT and caught him confessing to a war crime.

In other coverage, Don Peck and Ryan Avent explored the psychological impact of the recession, Christopher Ryan delved into why humans are gay, New Scientist studied the circuitry of comedy, David Aaronovitch read a book on conspiracy theories, Evgeny Morozov knocked the idea of an internet Nobel, Sam Anderson investigated a new web phenomenon called ChatRoulette, and the Dish composed a comprehensive look at Facebook. Dreher talked religious conversion, Bruce Barlett didn't buy the Paul Ryan budget, and Andrew for his column focused on Palin's presidential future.

In valentine coverage, Lori Gottlieb talked soul mates, Miriam Markowitz reviewed A Vindication of Love, Buzzfeed brought the bromance, some readers reacted to Grindr, and another recommended a creepy ad.

— C.B.