Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Amy Tuteur, MD
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 2
Imagine that! The Jewish nation chooses a leader, just like the leaders of every other country, committed to the security of the nation. How dare they? They are just supposed to go meekly to the slaughter.
Even in his critics most brutal estimation, Sharon is "responsible" for the deaths of a tiny fraction of the numbers killed by Yasir Arafat, the Assads of Syria, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, Mubarak and Nasser in Egypt, even George Bush of America. Where's the outrage about that?
This is anti-Semitism. Spare me the blather about Jews accusing every critic of anti-Semitism. There has never been a time and place throughout the last 2000 years that critics of Jews' behavior were not anti-Semitic. It is hard to believe that support of virulently anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, mysogynistic people (Palestinians) would qualify as a cause of the Left, but since they openly call for the destruction of world Jewry (what is left of it after the Europeans destroyed a third of it within living memory), the Left can overlook such trifles.
Sorry, the days of Jews getting slaughtered without retaliating are long gone. A pity for all the anti-Semites among us.
I once read an article that advanced the thesis that while anti-Semitism is pervasive and has existed in every time and place for the last 2000 years, each time and place has an anti-Semitism designed to resonate with the prevailing conception of evil. Juan Cole illustrates this point very nicely.
In the Middle Ages, when evil was defined in terms of religion, the Jews were infidels. In the 18th century, when nationalism was in the ascendancy, the Jews were stateless aliens. In the 20th century, capitalist societies labeled Jews as communists, and communist societies labeled Jews as capitalists.
So, in the 21th century, what's the worst evil now. You guessed it: the worst thing you can be is an imperialist, a colonizer. And, what'd you know, the Jews are now imperialists and colonizers, and practitioners of apartheid thrown in to boot.
Of course, the Jews have to be shoe-horned into their customary role of evil, since it doesn't actually fit, but no matter. Imperialists want an empire, and the Israelis (the current stand in for all Jews everywhere)show no sign of looking for land outside of the extent of ancient Israel. So what, imperialists are bad, Jews are bad; therefore Jews are imperialists.
Colonists created colonies as far flung outposts. The Israelis have acquired contiguous lands in 5 wars of self-defense with the stated aim of tactical security. No problem, colonists are bad, Jews are bad; therefore the Jews are colonists.
Apartheid, well that's the worst of all. Apartheid is a legal system that denies the existence of legal and moral rights for a particular group. Israel has no such legal and moral system. No problem. They built a wall to keep out suicide bombers. That must be an "apartheid" wall, even though apartheid can only describe a legal and moral system, not a tangible object. As we know, that doesn't matter since (let's say it all together now): apartheid is bad, really bad, and the Jews are bad, so the Jews must be practitioners of apartheid.
All this posturing about the plight of the Palestinians (has anyone ever actually aided the Palestinians, or do they simply criticize the Israelis?) is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. It's just the up to date version of anti-Semitism.
Let's face it, the whole Jews poisoning the wells, using the blood of Christian children to bake matzo etc. is just so 14th century. You gotta get with the times. The latest version of anti-Semitism is that the Palestinians (a group of virulently anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic people ruled by a thugocracy committed to the destruction of Israel) are being oppressed by the imperialist, colonizer, practitioner of apartheid Jews.
I'm not saying that Juan Cole doesn't believe what he writes (and, no doubt, some of his best friends are Jews}, but plenty of people believed that the Jews poisoned the wells, and used Christian blood. Just because people believe it passionately and whole-heartedly doesn't make it true.
Of course he believes it; it's the latest version of socially sanctioned anti-Semitism, evidently one of the most satisfying and enduring prejudices of all time.
No one is talking about suppressing Juan Cole. Juan Cole has just as much right to express his point of view as anyone else. We are talking about the fact that Juan Cole is expressing an anti-Semitic point of view.
Cole has a separate set of moral and philosophical principles for Jews than he has for everyone else. If he (or anyone) could identify another country which has responded in any similar way to similar circumstances and explain how we should treat ALL such countries, he might be making a principled argument. Furthermore, in the final analysis, Cole can offer no suggestions to settle the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab conflict other than to allow the Palestinians and Arabs to wipe the Israelis off the face of the map.
In fact, all apologists for the Palestinians have no other solution to the conflict except that the Israelis allow themselves to be murdered.
Everyone on the entire planet earth "occupies" land that was previously occupied by someone else. Why are the Israelis the only ones who should give it back? The entire map of Europe and the Middle East was re-drawn after World War II. That's when the modern state of Israel was created. Of the 40 or so countries that gained, lost or swapped territory at that time, why are the Israelis the only ones who are supposed to go back to the way things were then?
It is this separate set of rules that apply only to Jews/Israelis that makes Juan Cole an anti-Semite.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
