THE PLANK JANUARY 30, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
My last TRB column about J Street and its sense of ideological martyrdom, and my follow-up blog item, continue to win me love and affection on the blogs. One of the points I made was this:
Even people we think of as harsh critics of certain countries would
embrace them if they were willing to adopt radically different
policies. Dick Cheney no doubt thinks Iranians would stand to gain by
taking up a pro-American foreign policy. Does he qualify as pro-Iran?
Stephen Walt recently aped J Street's logic, writing, "The sooner we
redefine what it means to be 'pro-Israel,' the better for us and the
better for Israel." Is Walt--whose book portrays Israel as a force for
evil throughout its existence--pro-Israel?
Walt, co-author with John Mearsheimer of "The Israel Lobby," which portrays the Israel lobby as a nebulous, all-powerful force subverting America's interests for the sake of Israel, replies that he is too pro-Israel. He cites passages in the book stating "Israel's creation and subsequent development is a remarkable achievement" and that he supports Israel's right to exist. The former statement is, of course, completely devoid of any normative judgment -- i.e., "Ghengis Khan's conquest of the whole Asian steppe was a remarkable achievement." The latter certainly distinguishes Walt from those who desire Israel's elimination, but, again, doesn't address my point about setting the bar for "pro-Israel" a bit too low. Everything Walt says about his "support" for Israel could be said of Dick Cheney and Iran. Is it really descriptively useful to call anybody who opposes the extinction of nation X as "pro-Nation X"?
I'm making this point not to delegitize critics of Israel or America's pro-Israel stance. The fact that an idea is not usefully described as "pro-Israel" does not of course make it wrong. My point was that the obsession of J Street and its allies with rhetorical spin leads it into positions that lack any logical basis.
Meanwhile, at the Nation, Eric Alterman has a long, digressive reply to my Plank item. Let me briefly recap. Alterman wrote that the mainstream punditocracy "is not only one-sided in Israel's favor but also deeply
contemptuous of anyone who deviates from that side." Alterman blamed this on "Thought Police," which he defined as three hawkish blog posts.
In response I pointed out that recent opinion articles featured on the cover of Time and Newsweek -- surely important elements of the mainstream punditocracy -- were highly critical of Israel. I futher noted that three blog posts is not very strong evidence of control of the mainstream opinion debate. I also made a bit of fun of Alterman's description of these blog posts as "Thought Police," which seems to have particularly irked him:
This, too, strikes me as purposefully idiotic. I don't know Chait
personally, but I have a hard time he's gotten this far in life without
ever encountering the literary concept of "metaphor." When a comedian
comes off stage and says "I killed," he does not mean that he literally
ended a person's life.
Etc., etc. I am perfectly aware, and I believe my readers were too, that Alterman did not literally mean to say that being criticized in a few hostile blog posts was the exact same thing as a being abducted and tortured by a sinister futuristic secret police. My point was that his choice of metaphor was silly, and indicative of the martyr mentality that has prevailed among so much of the J Street crowd. In any contentious debate, there are going to be people on each side writing sharp things about each other. The problem is that, on the topic of Israel, Alterman insists on seeing all commentary from his right as coercive. Of course -- and this was one point of my column -- there are Israel hawks on the right who have their own narrative of ideological persecution.
--Jonathan Chait
15 comments
Jonathan
Nicely done
- sbmike
January 30, 2009 at 3:19pm
I really don't understand Chait's argument that one cannot be pro-Israel if one supports a position opposed by a majority of Israelis. Should the leadership of J Street sponsor extensive polling to decide what Israelis think and then endorse the majority view that seems least suicidal? J Street believes that Israel is embarked on a course that is objectively bad for its own self-interest, not to mention peace in the Middle East. Whether you agree with them or not, it's hard to argue that this position somehow prevents them from being friends of Israel.
To take another example: Most residents of Georgia believe that South Ossetia is part of their country. They almost surely approved of President Saakashvili's military action in South Ossetia, although I don't believe it was ever polled. But the U.S. Department of State reportedly counseled against it. Was Condoleeza Rice pro-Georgian? I would say she was, but by Chait's standard she would fall into the same not-an-enemy-but-definitely-not-a-friend purgatory as Jeremy Ben-Ami.
Invoking the fickle muse of public opinion to criticize the critics of Israeli policy seems strangely unreasonable for Chait, who I usually find bracingly logical.
- tomhilliard
January 30, 2009 at 3:26pm
tomhilliard: If you say that a person can be pro-[some country] while opposing their actions and the views of the majority of the people, the term "pro-[country]" loses all meaning. You might as well strike it from all use, because what does it mean?
I think that Russia's policies are bad for Russia. I also think that the Russian people have a very stupid outlook on what is important (being a great power) versus what should matter to them (democracy, global integration). Am I pro-Russian because I think they should choose policies that would also be better for them? I don't think Russians would say so. And I wouldn't call myself "pro-Russian," either.
Sorry this is poorly written, I'm in a rush, but I hope you get the idea.
- jgalun
January 30, 2009 at 3:44pm
I see Jonathan Chait's mind-meld with James Kirchick is almost complete.
- ndmackenzie
January 30, 2009 at 3:47pm
tomhilliard, Chait's argument isn't that pro-Israel can't go beyond what the majority of Israelis support (or 94% of Israeli Jews in this case). It's that the badge of "pro-Israel" is so broad that it raises a problem: what does pro-Israel mean? Just because I support the concept of a Palestinian state, does that make me pro-Palestinian? Am I both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel? Hell, is there any nation for which I cannot be "pro," as long as I have an opinion of what their policy should be?
- rozenson
January 30, 2009 at 3:49pm
Right. I think it's pretty clear that Walt thinks that " the Israel lobby as a nebulous, all-powerful force." What's more Walt's work is full of exaggerations and heated rhetoric...and distortions - don't forget distortions, especially of their opponents. Nice work Chait!
- benberger
January 30, 2009 at 3:58pm
so many pixels...
- teplukhin2you
January 30, 2009 at 4:01pm
Jgalun, I do get the idea. I would say that you are pro-Russian. I can't imagine why you would let yourself be convinced otherwise. In fact, your willingness to give up your pro-Russianness seems almost a concession to bullying nationalism.
To extend your point a little, there are Russians who say exactly what you do. They represent a minority of Russians. But does that make them something less than pro-Russian? In fact, I would venture to say that they are accustomed to being called "tools of the western powers" or some such nonsense. But they know better, and so should you. Public opinion is an amorphous and constantly changing animal. Using to discredit a critic's goodwill is unreasonable and destructive.
You are right to ask what "pro-x" means. It really speaks to motivation, nothing more. By billing itself as "pro-Israel," J Street is making the argument that while they believe that Palestinians and the world at large would benefit from a peace treaty, they would not trade away Israel's safety for Middle East peace. That is a limited but powerful point. It is for this reason that Chait's attack on J Street's "pro-Israel" stance is far from the innocent corrective he seems to think it is. Rather, he seeks to delegitimize them as good-faith critics of Israeli policy. The implication of Chait's criticism lines up more closely than he may realize with the old McCarthyite attacks on the ACLU and other "anti-American" organizations.
- tomhilliard
January 30, 2009 at 4:16pm
I haven't said anything about Walt and Mearsheimer, mainly because I haven't read their book and don't really know anything about them. But it's also harder to talk about whether a particular individual is "pro-Israel" or whatever than to talk about a group. Individuals have complicated motives and rhetorical defenses. How many warmongers have described themselves as seekers after peace? Of course, it's also easier to impose our preconceived ideas on individuals. For example, it seems to me that benberger has made a snap judgment that Walt and Mearsheimer are not "pro-Israel" because he really disliked their book. But I could be wrong, since he's read it and I haven't.
A group, on the other hand, is basically accountable for its public positions and statements. (except for, say, tobacco industry front groups, but I don't think anyone is claiming that about J Street.) I haven't seen evidence that J Street's public positions and statements show anything other than commitment to Israel's well-being. If Chait can show otherwise, I would of course change my mind.
- tomhilliard
January 30, 2009 at 4:51pm
Very nicely said, tomhilliard. Do you happen to have a blog of your own, per chance?
- jobeek2
January 30, 2009 at 5:13pm
I support every country's well-being. That doesn't mean I'm pro-everywhere. There are some nations that are pursuing agendas that I think are bad. If Israel was one of those countries, I would have to misunderstand language to call myself "pro-Israel".
As a side note, I think there's this same mainstream-label pursuit among the fringe left who consider the US a force of evil and oppression and genetically modified food. Trying to call yourself a pro-American patriot when everything else you do makes it clear you aren't is pointless. It's annoying for the rest of the left, as well, who have to jump through the more hoops to demonstrate they have a mainstream opinion about the US and its place in the world and that they aren't some loons who're obsessed with calling themselves patriots.
- Simon Greenwood
January 30, 2009 at 5:22pm
tomhilliard: "Rather, he seeks to delegitimize them as good-faith critics of Israeli policy. The implication of Chait's criticism lines up more closely than he may realize with the old McCarthyite attacks on the ACLU and other "anti-American" organizations. "
That might be true if Chait /wasn't/ a good-faith critic of Israeli policy. Again, the problem with J Street is not that they don't represent the majority of Israel, it's that they represent almost nobody in Israel. They're to the left of Meretz -- that's basically the Arab parties.
"I haven't seen evidence that J Street's public positions and statements show anything other than commitment to Israel's well-being."
They basically ask Israel of self-immolation. Any military act by Israel is wrong in their view. They don't even draw a moral distinction between the actions of Hamas and of the IDF. That is NOT pro-Israel.
- rozenson
January 30, 2009 at 5:42pm
Many miles between Meretz Party and Marty Peretz.
hic haec hoc.
Am I wrong?
- teplukhin2you
January 30, 2009 at 6:01pm
Many miles, indeed. Makes for great wordplay.
- rozenson
January 30, 2009 at 6:19pm
Rozenson's comment is unexpectedly illuminating about what this whole "pro-Israel" issue is really about. On the face of it, his distinction is meaningless. If you care passionately about the fate of Israel, you're pro-Israel, even if what you advocate is idiotic and a recipe for "self-immolation."
But when Rozenson argues that J Street represents almost nobody, he gets at the deep assumptions underlying Chait's argument. In a time of war, the usual political divisions melt away. The "military action" party becomes the entire nation, and those who oppose it become subject to the most withering criticism as to their motives. Are they a fifth column for the enemy? Are they drawing a paycheck from the Communist Party, or the Kaiser, or Saddam? Those of us who opposed going to war in Iraq felt the furnace blast of majority distrust, and that is only a whiff of what dissenters against WWI and WW2 experienced.
People and organizations who oppose a popular war represent lingering doubt in the society. Supporters of war - often just about everybody - rush to sweep them away like white blood cells attacking bacteria.
- tomhilliard
January 31, 2009 at 7:44am