By way of Engage, I came across this excellent interview with Moishe Postone which I commend it to your attention. I have a quibble though and it’s about the very first thing he says:
It is true that the Israeli government uses the charge of anti-semitism to shield it from criticisms.
Is it true? If it is, how does it work? Note that he says “Israeli government” and not “deranged pro-Israeli bloggers and newspaper columnists”. Can anyone recall an Israeli government minister saying something along the lines of “I reject criticism of the evictions of Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem because such criticism is antisemitic”? Statements of this kind probably exist but none spring to mind and I doubt if they are that common. Though maybe they make them all the time in Hebrew, a language I don’t understand.
And to the extent that such statements exist, how do they constitute “shielding”? It’s an idea I’m not sure of the meaning of in this context. It sounds like something from Star Trek, something that makes enemy missiles bounce off your space ship, or in this case, renders a criticism of Israeli government action ineffective, or maybe it deters people from making criticisms in the first place. In other words, a uniquely effective rhetorical weapon that, as they say, “closes down” debate and “silences” criticism.
That doesn’t sound like the real world to me. I don’t think there’s any magic word the mere use of which “shields” the Israeli government from criticism. If you hear an Israeli minister responding to criticism of their government by saying that it’s antisemitic then I suggest you ask yourself whether you think that that particular criticism may reasonably be so characterized. If it can, then you can thank the minister for pointing it out to you and if it can’t, then you may conclude that he or she is showing signs of being a buffoon.
Isn’t it wearying that one has to continually remake the point that while a lot of criticism of is Israeli is not antisemitic, a lot of it is and that you have to judge each case on its merits?
Just as the sophism that “Arabs cannot be antisemites because they are Semites”, this one is also part of Arab Hasbara manuals.
Leaving aside the first comment which, as Eamonn says, is nonsense, Moishe Postone’s comments are quite enlightening on the topic of left antisemitism.
I was especially impressed with his view that for leftists (and not only for leftists) antisemitism is a kind of “liberating ideology.”
“Racism is rarely a danger for the left. The left has to be careful not to be racist, but it isn’t an ongoing danger because racism doesn’t have the apparent emancipatory dimension of anti-semitism.”
This is what has to be challenged. We need to show that the “emancipatory dimension of anti-semitism” is illusory and has often led to the legitimization of other forms of racism as well as of totalitarian modes of thinking.
Has anyone seen the follwoing article on Andrew Sullivan at The New Republic?
“Something Much Darker
Andrew Sullivan has a serious problem.” Leon Wieseltier
http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker#comment-263808
The author does a great job explicating Sullivan’s problems with Israel. It’s definitely worth a separate comment, here.
For what it’s worth, the Israeli government has described the Goldstone report, which criticizes Israel, as “an expression of the new anti-Semitism.” See:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3839044,00.html
Well, then, GQ, “I suggest you ask yourself whether you think that that particular criticism may reasonably be so characterized”.