Thin Ice
CalPundit Kevin Drum wonders how to distinguish "legitimate criticism" of Jewish neoconservatives from anti-Semitism.
The redoubtable Gary Farber offers a sensible answer.
Drum distills the "relevant facts" into five statements that he appears to regard as self-evident, neutral, and beyond dispute. I think there's something wrong with at least three, perhaps four, of them:
1) "Lots of neocons are Jewish."
As Gary points out, lots of liberals are Jews, too; and there are many who describe themselves as neocons (plus many more who are swayed by their arguments on occasion) who are not Jews. Many of the founders and leading lights of the neocons as a "movement" (to the extent that there is such a thing) were indeed former communists or leftists who "switched sides." Many of them were and are Jews. There is nothing anti-Semitic about pondering how their experiences as Jews might have contributed to this ideological evolution, and how it may influence their views of contemporary global-strategic politics. It's an interesting question.
Yet consider the similar statements "lots of communists are Jews," or "lots of Bolsheviks are Jews," which are strictly just as true (and just as misleading): if you think that this "relevant fact" tells you something essential about either Jewishness or communism, you're treading on rather thin ice. Especially since this line of "reasoning" formed part of the platform upon which perpetrators of and apologists for the most notorious and devastating ethnic persecution of all time once stood. Have some of those who have feared that contemporary critics of the Likudnik Menace might be standing upon a similar sort of platform been guilty of over-reaction or exaggeration? Quite possibly. But the issue is hardly a frivolous or absurd one, as it is often painted.
2) "Neo-conservatives are rabidly pro-Israel."
Rabidly? Like mad dogs, foaming at the mouth, unaccountably vicious, out of control, beyond reason, seeking to infect innocent victims with a poisonous disease by means of merciless fangs? Whose side are you on, anyway?
As Gary points out, "pro-Israel" can mean many things, just as opposition to Israel's policies can have many degrees, varieties, and motivations. Once again, if, even with the best of intentions, you're subjecting the political opinions of an entire group of people, sub-categorized by race, to a "rabidity" test, you're on fairly thin ice.
Of course, it's just a facon de parler, innit? By "rabid" is meant "determined," "unwavering," "uncompromising," "unequivocal," "implacable," "strong;" or maybe "rigid," "blind," "recalcitrant," "resistant to reason;" surely not "diseased," "evil," "demented," "depraved," "infectious," "not yet having been shot by the proper authorities."
3) "It is reasonable to infer that they are pro-Israel largely because they are Jewish."
I don't think this is a reasonable inference at all. Lots of non-Jews (like me, and like, I must assume, Kevin) are pro-Israel to the degree that, at minimum, they believe that Israel has a right to existence. Being "anti-Israel" isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, but at its most extreme-- Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, the Jews driven into the sea-- there is no appreciable difference. Do Jews tend to be more assiduous than non-Jews in their concern for the welfare of the Jews in Israel, more alive to the peril faced by those surrounded by hostile forces dreaming of their destruction? Very possibly. Are the neo-cons particularly strident in this support, and are they willing to countenance means and methods that go beyond what many of their honorable fellow supporters of Israel would be comfortable with? I'd say so. Does it follow that such "rabid" support for Israel arises because of Jewishness qua Jewishness? I think not. There are too many counter-examples, both among Jews and non-Jews.
There is another possibility: the Jewish neocons, like the non-Jewish neocons, believe sincerely and without ulterior motives that the security of Israel and the program of attempting to replace middle eastern dictatorships with western-style liberal democracies are worthy goals on their merits, and that these goals are in the interests of the US and the West. It is certainly possible to make a case that they are wrong about this. It is even possible to wonder, creditably, whether they are sincere, whether they might indeed have ulterior motives that they have failed to disclose; or to point to perhaps unconscious motives that cloud their judgment. But, once again, when you begin the case by using arguments or language suggesting that the Jewishness of some of them is an important factor in your reasoning, you're on thin ice.
Drum's fourth ("they have a strong influence in the current administration") is true enough, but "they" is a bit vague. Neoconservatives? Jews? Neocons as a rule, but particularly the Jews among them? Since the thrust of the previous points is that Jewishness itself somehow generates or abets neoconservative positions, the ice is thin once again, though I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that Jews (as Jews) are inordinately influential string-pullers behind the scenes in Washington. Blacks, as individuals, are also influential in the administration; no one (it is to be hoped) would complain, on this basis, about sinister "black influence" in the White House however. Yet how often one reads, as a focal point of articles attacking the administration's middle east policy, a little list of "known Jews" close to the halls of power, and the complaint that this situation has not been sufficiently investigated or exposed by the press and the proper authorities?
(This is, admittedly, a skewed and inflammatory way of describing such analytical endeavors, which are often, no doubt, creditably motivated: yet why do critics of the "Jewish agenda" consistently choose to express themselves on such touchy issues in a way that is so easily mocked and open to the historically-evocative charge of "classic" anti-Semitism? If the real issue is the agenda itself, rather than the ethnic-religious background of the whisperers in the darkness, why make an issue of Jewishness at all? Presumably, such critics would disagree with the policies even if they were advanced by non-Jews. As many of those who advance them, in fact, are. Could it be that they believe that such criticism will get a more sympathetic hearing in some circles if it is framed in such a way as to allow it to be understood as anti-Semitic by those who think that way, while preserving barely plausible deniability among those who do not, or who shrink from leaving the impression that they do? That explains Buchanan, I have no doubt. Otherwise, it's a mystery.)
Kevin's fifth proposition ("lots of people have a strong distaste for the whole neocon agenda of remaking the Middle East in America's image") is indisputable. I believe Kevin Drum's dilemma is: how to express this distaste without running the risk of sounding anti-Semitic? It certainly should be possible to mount such a critique while scrupulously avoiding (if only as an inoculation against unwarranted accusations) making a major issue of Jewishness qua Jewishness. Strangely, that's a course very few critics of the neocons seem willing or able to take: often, the best they can manage is to excoriate, in advance, those who might respond as being too "sensitive." While they may be right about the sensitivity, it doesn't make the ice any thicker.
Kevin Drum is a smart guy and all around fine fellow, and I'm confident that there is not an anti-Semitic molecule in his body: yet even he, trying as hard as he could, couldn't manage to come up with five unequivocally neutral-sounding points on the issue. I'm not sure what to make of that, but it's fascinating.
Posted by Dr. Frank at March 14, 2003 03:30 PM | TrackBack