Those "evil leftists"

I am not a fan of the Jerusalem Post. Though I like the current editor (David Horowitz) and have subcribed for many years to the Jerusalem Report, which he was the editor of for a number of years, the Jerusalem Post is in my view a sinking ship. Once a highly reputable newspaper in the 1980's where the likes of Benny Morris, Hirsch Goodman, David Landau amongst others worked there its shift to the right and in the case of its former editor Brett Stephens, the hard right has made it a difficult paper to read. When you have an English translation of a quality paper like Haaretz I wonder why anyone would bother reading a second rate paper like the Jerusalem Post.

In this vein I read an appauling op-editorial in the Jerusalem Post (occasionally when I'm bored I read the Post) by ex-Australian Isi Leibler. The article contends that Jewish organisations and conferences and the like should limit public discourse to only people who are sufficiently "pro" Israel whatever that means. Anyone who is too critical (however honest that criticism) should be excluded from debate. To appreciate the silliness of this argument you really have to look at the article itself (shortned for convenience - Leibler tends to waffle), which is set out below with my comments.

Speaking of the release of Spielberg's film Munich he writes "What did Spielberg expect when he handed over this sensitive role to a man so bitterly hostile to the Jewish state? How was it possible for a good Jew to promote a film which undermines Israel's right to defend itself by implying moral equivalence between Mossad operatives and terrorist murderers?"

The movie, which Leibler has not seen does not imply moral equivalence between the Mossad and Black September. The movie I understand does humanise Black September but what's wrong with that. Simply because someone is a terrorist does not mean that they can not be portrayed as human and does not mean we can't understand in all its complexity why they commit terrorist acts. Simply understanding events honestly is not implying moral eqivalency.

"In a sense, Spielberg is not to be blamed. His attitude is merely a byproduct of the general drift which began with Oslo when Israeli governments began to soft pedal the justice of Israel's case, and concentrated on persuading Israelis and Jews that Yasser Arafat was a genuine peace partner. There were Israeli leaders who even instructed Diaspora activists to stop defending Israel's actions because the "irreversible peace process" made such activity counter-productive ... revisionist historians promoted the lie that Israel was indeed born in sin, and distorted the origins of the repeated wars of aggression Israel had to face. Invariably, the lies impacted on global public opinion and the image of Israel was transformed from that of an underdog to an aggressor and occupier".

For Leibler and his ilk Israel is perfect bar those stupid self-hating leftists. During the Oslo period Israeli attitudes thankfully were changing and for the better. They were able to look at their history more honestly and openly. Historians like Benny Morris presented far more intellectually rigorous narratives of Israel's early history, which smashed many of the myths Israelis had believed in. But this is a process most countries have gone through and is certainly not unique to Israel. Leibler's reference to Israeli leaders telling diaspora activits to stop defending Israel's actions is a reference to Rabin who told the right wing AIPAC to essentially shut up, again a good thing.

With respect to Israel being transformed from an underdog to an aggressor, that had nothing to with Israeli revisionist historians but everything to do with the reality in the Territories themselves with the IDF in control on the ground contending with a hostile Palestinian population. The image of the underdog surfaced much earlier then Oslo - try the first intifada and resurfaced at the commencement of the second intifada. When Israel was actually engaged in negotiations with the Palestinians no such analogies could be drawn (bar of course Netanyahu's 3 years in office who was never particulary committed to negotiations with the Palestinians).

"To make matters worse, elements on the Israeli Left initiated a drumbeat of unprecedented self-hatred in the media and universities. Outlandish views that had hitherto been restricted to inconsequential fringe groups filled the op-ed columns of Haaretz, the media flagship of the Israeli intelligentsia, and whose English-language edition began publication in recent years. Within the Israeli polity, such post-Zionist propaganda only had marginal impact because being in the front lines of terror, Israelis were not unduly influenced. However when the English-language versions of these masochistic articles were globally disseminated on the Internet, they impacted negatively - especially on Jews living in societies where application of double standards and demonization of Israel by the local media had already become daily fare".

A gross overexaggeration. Healthy debate concerning the nature of Israeli society etc as reflected in a quality paper like Haaretz is a good thing. The debate had contrary to Leibler virtually no impact outside of Israel. Yes, since the intifada Haaretz columns by Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and Akiva Elder, which are critical of Israel's conduct with the Palestinians are often quoted by people hostile to Israel but that's the price we now pay for leaving in an age of instant communication where information can be accessed so readily. There opinions within Israel society itself are important.

"Limmud had no qualms in providing a platform to Queen Mary College Professor Jacqueline Rose whose The Question of Zion is an abominable book that conveys the message that Israel was a colonial implant and effectively a criminal state. On a previous occasion, Robert Fisk, the venomous anti-Israel demonizer, who was sacked from The Times for his unabashed anti-Israeli outbursts, had participated."

I wonder if Leibler has even read Rose's book. The main thrust of her book, which I do not agree with is not that Israel was a colonial implant and a criminal state. Rather, she suggests that both the messianic elements inherent in Zionist ideology and the Holocaust have had a direct impact on the way Israel has conducted itself against the Palestinians. Robert Fisk, whilst certainly very critical of Israel (I think describing him as a venomous anti-Israel demoniser is way over the top) was not sacked from The Time for his "unabashed anti-Israel outbursts". If Leibler had bothered to read Fisk's new book he would have found that 6 or 7 pages are devoted to this matter and that Fisk resigned on a matter of journalistic principle (concerning an article dealing with US warship crews in the gulf not the Israel/Palestinian conflict).

Needless to say, those exposed to anti-Israeli diatribes are not in danger of being transformed into enemies of Israel. But a basic question of principle is involved. Surely, even a pluralistic Jewish educational conference whose declared objective is the enhancement of Jewish identity must have its red lines. Are there no limits? Does anything go? Is it a requirement of freedom of expression for a Jewish organization to provide a platform for those who delegitimize Israel? Are views which question the right of a Jewish state to exist to be accepted as a legitimate "alternative" Jewish viewpoint? Would anti-Semites be tolerated? Would Kahanists qualify?


What about assessing things on their intellectual merit. What's wrong with having say Tony Judt speak in a panel whose article in the NYRB suggested that the concept of a Jewish State is an anachronism. Surely, if the person puts forward a robust argument, however, objectionable to mainstream positions it deserves a hearing. Antisemites and Kahanists are obviously a differently kettle of fish. They have no credible arguments.

"LIMMUD'S TOLERATION of anti-Zionist hate mongers is merely the latest example of a trend which is proliferating in Jewish communities throughout the world. Such a climate of permissiveness would have been inconceivable only a few years ago. Is it therefore any wonder that in this atmosphere, Spielberg, a liberal, did not feel inhibited from turning to a person like Kushner to write his script on Munich?"

Thank god for organisations like Limmud that won't listen to silly paranoid objections by the likes of Leibler.

"We live in complex times. Israel remains the principal anchor for Jewish identity for most Jews. If, distinct from legitimate criticism of Israel, reputable Jewish organizations are willing to tolerate debates in which the verities of the Jewish state are undermined, we are paving the way for our own moral self-defeat."

These debates are on the whole marginal in a conference such as Limmud. No voices should be shut up if they raise legitimate questions. Closing these question off and not engaging with these questions is what paves the way in my view for our "own moral defeat".