|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East
Zionists seek to silence critics of US policy toward Israel
By Peter Daniels
1 November 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Prominent Zionist groups and individuals in the US are conducting
a campaign of intimidation against liberal and left-wing critics
of the Israeli regime and Washingtons policy toward Israel.
Tony Judt, a noted historian and the director of New York Universitys
Remarque Institute, was to have spoken in New York earlier this
month at a meeting called by a nonprofit organization that had
rented space from the Polish Consulate. After telephone calls
from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish
Committee, his lecture on The Israel Lobby and US Foreign
Policy was cancelled barely an hour before it was scheduled
to begin.
Judt, a liberal academic who writes frequently for the New
York Review of Books, was born and raised in Britain. He lost
many members of his own family in the Holocaust, but has aroused
the ire of the Zionist public relations machine because of his
sharp criticisms of Israeli policies and his charge that the Israel
lobby has stifled debate on the Middle East in the US.
The modus operandi of Zionist organizations such as the ADL
and the American Jewish Committee is by now a familiar one. Inquiries
are made by one or another of these groups. The message is clear.
As the Polish Consul General said in connection with the contacts
made in regard to Judts scheduled appearance, The
phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising
a delicate pressure. Thats obviouswe are adults and
our IQs are high enough to understand that.
Abraham Foxman of the ADL cynically insisted that he hadnt
requested that the event be shut down, but added, I think
they made the right decision. He then spelled out the brazenly
anti-democratic and thuggish attitude of himself and his organization
toward anyone who criticizes Israels policies and Washingtons
support for those policies. Hes taken the position
that Israel shouldnt exist, Foxman said of Judt. That
puts him on our radar.
To clarify his position toward Israel, Judt remarked, The
only thing I have ever said is that Israel as it is currently
constituted, as a Jewish state with different rights for different
groups, is an anachronism in the modern age of democracies.
The cancellation of Judts lecture is only one in a series
of similar incidents. Judt was also forced to cancel another speech,
at Manhattan College in the Bronx, on the topic War and
Genocide in European Memory Today, after he was asked by
the events sponsors to censor himself by avoiding direct
references to Israel.
Less than a week after the episode at the Polish Consulate,
an almost identical incident took place, this time at the French
Embassy. British-based author Carmen Callil had been scheduled
to attend a reception on October 10 in honor of her forthcoming
book, Bad Faith, an account of the Vichy official who arranged
the deportation of thousands of French Jews to their deaths in
the Holocaust.
This event was also canceled at the last moment, apparently
because of complaints over a sentence written by the author in
the postscript to the book. She wrote of becoming anxious, while
researching the helpless terror of the Jews of France,
to see what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian
people. She continued, Like the rest of humanity,
the Jews of Israel forget the Palestinians. Everyone
forgets.
Zionist attempts at censorship have a long and distasteful
history, especially in New York City. They are not always successful,
but not for lack of trying.
Just a few months ago the New York Theatre Workshop cancelled
its production of My Name is Rachel Corrie, the play about
the American student killed by an Israeli military bulldozer in
2001 as she attempted to stop the destruction of the home of a
Palestinian family. The production was halted after similar inquiries
from Zionist circles. My Name is Rachel Corrie finally
opened in Manhattan this month and was met with warm responses
from critics and the public.
The ADL, the American Jewish Committee and other Zionist organizations
disingenuously claim they are not part of a lobby.
That is supposedly limited to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the organization whose specific aim is to influence
the US government on behalf of Israel. In reality, all of these
organizations devote themselves to the defense of Israel and its
diplomatic and political interests. They are free to do so, but
their attempts to silence their critics and smear their opponents
as anti-Semites demonstrate their reactionary character.
The censorship attempts have extended onto university campuses.
Campus Watch, a right-wing web site established by Daniel Pipes
several years ago, has drawn up a blacklist that targets professors
of Middle Eastern studies for alleged bias because
they have dared to criticize Israel and defend the Palestinians.
Supporters of Campus Watch have encouraged the sending of hate
mail and threats to these professors, along with calls for their
removal from their academic positions.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913 to fight against
anti-Semitism, has long since betrayed any commitment to civil
liberties and academic freedom when it comes to criticsincluding
Jewish criticsof the policies and foreign policy interests
of the state of Israel.
Even limited opinion polling reveals the growing opposition
among American Jews to the decades-long Israeli occupation of
Palestinian land, but this doesnt stop the ADL and similar
groups from speaking in the name of all Jews. The power of these
unelected spokesmen is magnified many times by their wealthy sponsors
and their long-established ties to dominant sections of the corporate,
financial and political establishment in New York and Washington.
They have succeeded over many years in propagating the myth that
Judaism and Zionism are identical, and that anti-Zionism is therefore
anti-Semitism.
It should be noted that the kind of criticism that Foxman of
the ADL says cannot be voiced in New York City is frequently expressed
within Israel itself. Israeli newspaper columnists, writers, academics
and others spoke out during the recent Israeli aggression in Lebanon.
Are they also to be branded anti-Semites and silenced?
As Judt himself declared, This is serious and frightening,
and only in Americanot in Israelis this a problem.
These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people
who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone else
who might listen.
The Zionist organizations involved in such witch-hunting and
censorship utilize the issue of anti-Semitism as a red herring.
They are really concerned with the foreign policy interests of
the Israeli government, and specifically the maintenance of the
longstanding alliance between Israel and Washington.
The alliance between American imperialism and Zionism was fully
cemented some 40 years ago, in the wake of the Six Day War of
1967. Over the past several decades American defenders of the
Israeli state have secured the ironclad support of both major
capitalist parties, from the most liberal Democrats to the neo-conservatives
in the Republican Party and the Bush Administration.
Big business politicians have vied to demonstrate their loyalty
to Israeli policies, and the occasional maverick who deviates
from pro-Zionist orthodoxy, like Republican Congressman Paul Findley
some years ago, is usually purged at the next election with the
help of millions of dollars in campaign funds from the Zionist
lobby.
In the recent period, however, public criticism of the existing
US policy toward Israel has begun to emerge within American foreign
policy and academic circles. To some extent, the feverish campaign
to silence all critics of Israel is an expression of the nervousness
within American Zionist circles over this emerging policy debate.
While the US-Israel alliance has never been closer than during
the administration of George W. Bush, there are signs of a possible
shift. The disaster facing the US ruling elite in Iraq, along
with the deepening external and internal crisis facing Israel,
exemplified by its recent debacle in Lebanon, is emboldening those
within the American foreign policy establishment who argue that
US policy is tied too closely to that of Israel.
American Zionist organizations are acutely sensitive to these
tremors, hence their attacks on John Mearsheimer of the University
of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University. Mearsheimer
and Walt authored a paper earlier this year which charged that
the Israel lobby had distorted US foreign policy and sought to
intimidate its critics.
An article by Mearsheimer and Walt in the London Review
of Books was entitled, The Israel Lobby: Does it Have
too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy? The lobby was defined
as the loose coalition of individuals and organizations
who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
Mearsheimer and Walt articulate the views of a section of the
American ruling elite which has concluded that Washingtons
virtually uncritical support for Israeli foreign policy has produced
a diplomatic and political disaster for US interests in the Middle
East and elsewhere in the world.
The publication of these views was followed by hysterical charges
of anti-Semitism against the authors, who were accused of stoking
up anti-Semitic notions of an international Jewish conspiracy.
Socialist opponents of Zionism and imperialism do not take
sides politically between Mearsheimer and Walt and their Zionist
critics. The policy shift they propose, while it enrages the Zionists,
has nothing to do with the interests of the international working
class or the democratic rights of the Palestinians, and they are
opposed to a struggle against both the Israeli and Arab bourgeois
elites to unite Jewish and Arab workers on the basis of a democratic
and socialist program.
We have no hesitation, however, in denouncing the crude charges
of anti-Semitism leveled against Mearsheimer, Walt, Judt and similar
critics of Israel.
There are, of course, anti-Semites among the opponents of the
Israeli state, and they repeat the old anti-Semitic slanders.
There are also a large number of anti-Semites among Israels
supporters. Richard Nixon, whose virulent anti-Semitism was exposed
on White House tapes in the wake of the Watergate scandal, had
no difficulty aligning himself with Israel. Today the Zionists
welcome the support of Christian fundamentalists who would like
nothing more than the establishment of a right-wing theocracy
in the US.
As far as the Zionist establishment is concerned, the main
enemy is not anti-Semitism, but anti-Zionism. When it suits its
purposes, it is perfectly prepared to recognize this vital distinction
and overlook the anti-Semitism among its own supporters.
Hence the warm accolades from the Israel lobby to such figures
as Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister, who received
an award from the Anti-Defamation League in 2003 just days after
expressing nostalgic sympathy for the fascist dictator Benito
Mussolini.
To the extent that anti-Semitism has gained a new lease on
life in the Middle East and elsewhere, this is largely the responsibility
of Zionism itself. The anti-Semitic pronouncements of such figures
as Iranian President Ahmadinejad are essentially the mirror image
of Zionist propaganda, accepting the claim of the Israeli state
to speak for all Jews and the interests of the Jewish people.
In fact, for the first half-century of its existence, Zionism
was a distinct minority opinion within world Jewry. Its main opposition
historically came from the leftfrom the socialist and internationalist
opponents of all forms of nationalism and chauvinism. The attempt
to smear left-wing critics as anti-Semites is one of the most
despicable techniques of the Zionist propaganda machine.
The current attacks on even relatively mild critics of Israel
are a sign of weakness. Longstanding Zionist myths are being increasingly
exposed to the light of day. The fraudulent charge of anti-Semitism
is beginning to backfire against those who level it.
The flagrant character of the Zionist intimidation campaign
is such that even some committed Zionists have been forced to
question it. The current issue of the New York Review of Books
contains a letter entitled, The Case of Tony Judt: An Open
Letter to the ADL.
The letter, signed by more than 100 writers, journalists and
academics, criticizes the ADLs actions in connection with
the planned meeting at the Polish Consulate, declaring that we
are united in believing that a climate of intimidation is inconsistent
with fundamental principles of debate in a democracy . . . the
rules of the game in America oblige citizens to encourage rather
than stifle public debate. We who have signed this letter are
dismayed that the ADL did not choose to play a more constructive
role in promoting liberty.
Among the signers are Peter Beinart, Franklin Foer and Leon
Wieseltier, all of the New Republic, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the Zionist state.
The intimidation campaign raises the obvious question of why
the Zionists fear open debate. An open debate would provide the
opportunity to expose the false promise of Zionism to provide
a haven for the Jewish people, as well as to demonstrate the necessity
of the struggle for the unity of Jewish and Arab workers in the
fight for a democratic and socialist Middle East.
See Also:
Israel used chemical weapons
in Lebanon and Gaza
[24 October 2006]
Palestinians to form national
unity government
[22 September 2006]
Fatah steps up provocations
against Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
[11 September 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |