Tuesday, August 16, 2005
(2:25 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Re-framing Israel
The rhetorical trick of portraying all criticism of Israel (or questions about the close relationship between the US and Israel) as anti-Semitism -- surely worthy of its own entry in Mark Kaplan's notes on rhetoric -- is one of the most instinctive and tedious ploys of the apologists for US foreign policy. Now, via Crooked Timber, I learn that -- suprise! -- Christopher Hitchens is exploiting an unfortunate statement of Cindy Sheehan to the effect that the Iraq War was fought on behalf of Israel, as part of a general attempt to smear her and shout her down. (I first learned of the quote through Robert "KC" Johnson, another frequent user of this style of argument, and now that I look at his post, it turns out he actually linked to the Hitchens piece as well.)[UPDATE: Apparently in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper (formerly of Channel One), Ms. Sheehan denies saying such a thing or holding the opinions expressed. It appears to have been a falsified message on a bulletin board which then was seeded to other right-wing sites. Altercation has the details. Thanks to Brey in comments for pointing this out. This renders my next paragraph basically moot.]
I am not of the opinion that the Iraq War was fought to benefit Israel; indeed, I believe that searching for any one determinate reason that it was fought is sheer folly. If it were fought to benefit Israel, then Ms. Sheehan's complaint would seem to be valid, since it was sold primarily as a matter of defending the US. The broader impression that one particular ally is overly influencing US foreign policy in general and therefore is arguably sometimes acting against its own objective interests in order to serve that ally's interests is at least plausible. All told, her remark seems to me to be far from reprehensible, though obviously it is not the most profound piece of foreign policy critique ever produced. It is primarily unfortunate in terms of the unnecessary fuel it gives to the chorus of war supporters who want to discredit her by any means necessary.
So, in any case: I have come up with a possible solution to this particular way of short-circuiting conversation. It is important not to go down the blind alley of arguing that criticizing Israel does not mean being anti-Semitic and how cynical of you to abuse the memory of the Holocaust and on and on and on -- that's a red herring. The key here is to argue that Israel is getting screwed over in this relationship. In place of the nice optimistic socialist nation of the early decades, now we have an overly militarized, bitterly divided society whose territorial overreach has basically wrecked its chances of being a Jewish-majority state. US military aid encouraged Israel to seek primarily military solutions to its problems, whereas it might have sought other means if limited to its own resources. The habit of choosing military means and the ready availability of military resources only empowered the expansionist set, leading to the demographic morass and creating the temptation to prosecute the shameful aggression against the Palestinians, with all the attendant moral fall-out. In short, due to US "loyalty" to Israel, that country is a less hopeful, worse place to live.
Advancing this argument would mean giving into the red herring technique, but as it became better-known, less and less time would be necessary to deploy it and move on. Best of all, it would require the apologists for US foreign policy to actively defend Israel policy, rather than simply smearing those who oppose it as anti-Semites.
