March 29, 2002

No Fair! The Other Side

No Fair! The Other Side has all the Good Pundits!

Eric Alterman's article on the "competing narratives" of the Israel/Palestinian conflict has generated a fair amount of comment in the blogosphere. Alterman believes that the American "punditocracy" is overwhelmingly dominated by those who "cannot imagine criticizing Israel," and he produces a list to demonstrate it.  "Columnists and commentators who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification" outnumber “columnists likely to be reflexively anti-Israel and/or pro-Palestinian regardless of circumstance” by more than ten to one. Andrew Sullivan correctly points out the affinity between Alterman's views and those of his colleague Edward Said, but he goes too far in smearing this as a "blacklist of journalists controlled by the Jews." I don't believe Alterman has that kind of sinister agenda. It is, nonetheless, misconceived.

For one thing, the list itself is a bit slanted. The pro-Israel list is padded with the names of some who could only generously be called "journalists" (e.g. Dr. Laura and Oliver North) while the anti-Israel list of five leaves off some obvious people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. If we're including Dr. Laura on a list of "columnists and commentators," why not also include Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Baldwin? Richard Gere? Phil Donahue? How about NPR? Louis Farrakhan? Al Sharpton? How about the rest of the staff of the Nation? (I'm also not convinced that the New York Times editorial board necessarily "view themselves to be critically supporters of Israel." In this "news analysis" on the Seder bloodbath, for example, Serge Schmemann writes: "there were also those who thought the bombing might just provide the vicious jolt needed finally to call a halt to the bloodshed." He doesn't identify "those" who hold this appalling-- and preposterously erroneous-- view, but, like Susanna Cornett, I wonder if Schmemann may not be referring to himself and the Times editorial staff.)

At any rate, it's not even true that the pundits on the pro-Israel list are never critical of Israel or its policies. (And I'm not just talking about cases where people like Krauthammer dare to imagine that Israel could be criticized for "wobbling" or being insufficiently hawkish in certain situations; that's not the sort Alterman likes to see, but it's "criticism" nonetheless.) I don't know how Alterman feels he knows what the 62 people on his list can or cannot "imagine," but the caricature of all of them as identical, robotic Ariel Sharon "ditto-heads" is laughable.

There is certainly a great deal to criticize about Israel, its policies, and its conduct of its war. Sharon is nearly as odious as Arafat, though there is a great deal of truth in the notion that Arafat's actions made Sharon's ascendence inevitable, and that the resulting escalation of the violence was his express intention. You don't have to be particularly "pro-Israel" to recognize this truth. Those concerned about the welfare of the Palestinians have as much reason as anyone to oppose Arafat and his policies: they have brought his people and his world nothing but misery. The futile attempt to repeal history through suicide bombings is doomed to failure, and it ought to be condemned for that alone, if for nothing else.

There is indeed a consensus in mainstream US opinion, within the punditocracy as well as outside of it, that terrorist atrocities like the suicide bombings of civilian targets are evil and must be stopped, and that there are no legitimate excuses for them. Arafat's excuses, equivocations, and disingenuous talk about "peace" convince hardly anyone who is paying attention. Alterman's premise is that such a consensus can only be explained by senseless and arbitrary "bias" on the part of opinion-shapers. He doesn't appear to consider the possibility that these people might actually be right. As Rand Simberg points out, reality is, in fact, far more than a mere "conflict of narratives," each equally valid and true. If you disagree with a prevailing "narrative," your task is to attempt to refute it. Complaining that the other side has too many pundits is rarely convincing. Alterman's list of anti-Israel pundits is 3/5 crackpots anyway. Though outnumbered, Safire alone easily beats the Alexander Cockburn-Edward Said-Pat Buchanan dream team. The answer isn't more pundits; it's better ones. If you can find 'em.

UPDATE: Bill Quick points out that Alterman lists Sid Zion twice. He also adds:

the premise behind Alterman's list is that "reflexively" supporting Israel is somehow bad, something to be ashamed of. But I suggest that in 1943 he could have made a similar list of newspapers and journalists who were "reflexively" anti-Nazi and anti-Germany, and come up with the same preponderance of "reflexively pro-Allies" opinion. Journos who find themselves on Alterman's pro-Israel list should wear their inclusion with pride. It shows they have a functioning morality, and the ability to discern between good and evil, and right and wrong. It is telling that Alterman doesn't place himself in that company.

Indeed.

Posted by Dr. Frank at March 29, 2002 12:12 PM | TrackBack