Shaul Magid, Professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana U, asks What if the Left Abandoned Israel? and suggests that Israel would go to hell in a hand-basket. “Be careful what you wish for”, he warns.
For him, the left are “basically liberal-minded and believers in civil rights and the rights of the oppressed— at least in the abstract”. He suggests that the “messianics and revisionists” of the right, aren’t. Everyone believes in them in the abstract. It’s when you deal with reality other considerations and values come into place.
I also believe in the “rights of the oppressed” but differ with the left in that I see the Jews in Israel as the oppressed and not the Palestinians, at least by the Jews. We are oppressed by everyone including the UN, the State Department, the E.U., and the Muslims including the Palestinians. We are oppressed by 60,000 plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbors and by threats of annihilation. And for what? It’s either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are “occupiers” which much of the world thinks is unconscionable. They forget that UNSC Res 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders. They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein. But even if it does apply, Israel’s primarily obligation is to treat the people occupied, humanely. In this regard, 95% of the Palestinians are totally governed by the Palestinian Authority. Nowhere in the treaty does it say that the occupier must end the occupation. In any event the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is fully set out in the Oslo Accords of 1995. There is no suggestion in it that Israel must end the occupation without a negotiated agreement. So spare me the crocodile tears about the “occupation”.
The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian. How so? They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead. For the next 19 years the West Bank was under Jordanian control and no one ever called for a Palestinian state. In 1967 the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began. As a result the UNSC passed Res 242 which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference the Arabs rejected Res 242 and agreed on three no’s; no recognition, no negotiations and no peace. Arafat accepted Res 242 because such acceptance was a pre-condition to entering the Oslo Accords but he never agreed to its terms. .And now they reject negotiations.
Israel, on the other hand can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close settlement of the land. She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3000 years, by virtue of 1000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
Magid quotes Zachary Braiterman with approval who wrote:
“I used to think that American Jews had the right and obligation to stake ideological claims in Israeli politics. I was wrong. I don’t have anything to say. Legalize outposts? Go ahead. Beat the hell out of Hamas or Hezbollah? I won’t object. Hit the Iranians? I hope you all know what you’re doing, because the mess is yours if you make it, and there is not a lot that the American Jewish community will be (able) to do if things go south. Desecrate mosques, uproot olive trees, beat up a Danish demonstrator, pass racist legislation, muzzle criticism, and harass people at the airport?”
Each one of these complaints shows a profound ignorance of the law or the context. Either that or a strong bias. Each one can be rebutted to the satisfaction of a fair minded person.
“Historically, the Zionism of Braiterman was the norm. Even given the less-than-charitable things Ben-Gurion had to say about the Arabs and the ways in which Israel treated its Arab population during times of conflict, the Zionist mainstream was committed to a humanistic and liberal ethos, even as it failed in significant ways.“
This is true, but why did it fail? Because the Arabs would have none of it. And that’s the point; why it is no longer the norm. The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality, namely, that the Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary. The Charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so. Sharia says so. The incessant preaching of hatred says so. Their support for terrorism says so. Their unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands say so. Yet, the Left blame Israel for the lack of peace.
“The unspoken merger of the messianic and neo-revisionist right, coupled with the politicization of the Charedi has given rise to an increasingly uncompromising ethnocentrism and, arguably, a redefined Zionism.”
True enough. But by characterizing the new Zionism as “ethnocentric”, he is opening up a can of worms. He is embracing the canard that Zionism is Racism. He is arguing against the Jewish particular in favor of universalism or multiculturalism. Those values might be appropriate for America though I prefer the melting pot to multiculturalism. In fact, so do most Americans and Europeans. Multiculturalism has proven a failure and its bitter fruits have yet to be realized in full.
He regrets that Israel was not able to “attain a balance necessary for its rightful place as a society among the nations of the free world”. But why must Israel be like everyone else. Why can’t it remain pumpernickel in a world of white bread? Besides, Israel is in the Middle East which is not part of the free world. The Arabs are barring Jews and Christians from their countries. In Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere they are killing Christians and burning churches. No multiculturalism for them. No universalism for them other than under an Islamic dominated world.
While the Jewish left embraces the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad, I believe to America’s detriment, Israel prefers to keep her distance from the forces which are bent on her destruction. In order to defend herself, she must embrace her ethnicity not eschew it. Her people must rally around the flag, not tear it to shreds.
I accept that many Jews who embraced the Zionism of their youth “understand quite well and are deeply informed — not only about the political realities but about the underlying history of the conflict.” But so do the Jews who embrace the new Zionism. The difference being that the former want Israel to be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state. The latter apparently is too Jewish for them.
In the end, it’s not about the old or new Zionism, but about survival. The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community to ensure her survival. It ignores that history teaches otherwise. It ignores the implacable hatred of the Arabs and their commitment to destroy her. The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel’s destruction. It prefers to achieve real peace through strength.
Israel doesn’t need the sanctimonious preaching of the Left to be moral or democratic. She doesn’t need the moral grandstanding of the left to save her from depravity. I have every confidence in the Jewish Israeli right to do the right thing.
Young Jews don’t “instinctively feel critical of Israel”. They have been indoctrinated by the constant and pervasive stream of demonization and delegitimization emanating from the media and academia. To suggest otherwise, as Magid does, is disingenuous. Real Zionists, whether old or new, defend Israel. The others are aiding and abetting her destruction.
Belman is 100% right. Not only is this true about Israel and its critics today but in large measure also about the attitue of many young Americans toward their own country and history.
Hollywoodâ€™s ever more leftward drift extended in recent time to JFK, (Oliver Stone) a film that not just cast doubt, but spread malicious rumor and innuendo accusing the CIA and Vice President Johnson of complicity in the murder of President Kennedy and casting both the wretched and delusional assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and the unscrupulous New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in a sympathetic light. The film changes reality by misrepresenting and inventing â€˜factsâ€™ to fit the supposed conspiracy in which the CIA, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson are all cast in the shadow of suspicion and guilt.
Another travesty of the American cinema is Gangs of New York, (Martin Scorsese) a totally distorted account of the 1863 Draft Riots that outdoes Nazi and Soviet propaganda in its depiction of every aspect of American society and governmentas venal, corrupt and racist. The directors of these two films are considered among the â€˜most distinguishedâ€™ in America. They are well known for their leftwing views and their films exceed in vituperative lies anything produced by Nazi and Soviet propaganda in their heydays.
I saw this film in Spain. The Spanish audience emerged visibly shaken by the violent scenes. In their discussion about the movie that I overhead and read in reactions to the newspapers, many viewers reflected that the film â€œconfirmedâ€� their anti-American sentiments regarding American foreign policy in Iraq, and the old prejudice still deeply held that America has been â€œanti-Catholicâ€� as well as anti-Negro, anti-immigrant and simply anti-poor.
This rewriting of history by the Left is an art-form in its own right, one that pays absolutely NO attention to historical fact. Rarely, if ever, has an historical film distorted the truth in such a consistent and flagrant manner. The film matches the worst anti-American propaganda of both Nazi and Soviet regimes in portraying American society as culturally debased, violent, ruled by corrupt politicians, dominated by the rich who control the police and anxious to receive new immigrants only to use them as cannon fodder, views combined with cinematography sufficient to earn it ten Academy Award nominations in 2002 for BEST film, actor, director etc., etc. It didnâ€™t win in any category but has widely been referred to as â€œgreat historical epic.â€�
It is symptomatic of American self hatred by a small clique of Hollywood producers that include Oliver Stone (JFK) whose films violate every cannon of historical research and have had a huge impact on the way young people in particular developed an instinctive gut reaction blaming their country and viewing all its faults with a magnifying glass. Time Magazine, with the same world view as much of Hollywood, nominated Scorsese in 2007 for one of the 100 most influential persons in the world.
. Viewers might have hoped that Scorsese would have tried to present a film that avoided the worst excesses of blatant propaganda. Gangs of New York is a travesty. Whatever its cinematic qualities, the film presents the ugliest picture possible of America prior to the Civil War and falsifies the events of the great Draft Riots in New York City in July, 1863.
The scene of most of the action is the Five Points area of Lower Manhattan, indeed a slum and renowned as an area of crime and poor living conditions but hardly notably worse than similar areas in London and Paris at that time. The opening scene is a huge fight between two rival gangs set in The Five Points in 1846 involving Irish Catholic immigrants and the local WASPS (of native-born British , German and Dutch stock) referred to as â€œthe Yankees.â€� How true to life is this?
Tyler Anbinder, a specialist in 19th Century American politics and a consultant for the film had this to say in an interview on the History News Network of NPR (December 23, 2002):
â€œScorsese has over-dramatized the amount of bloodshed and death there would have been in a pre Civil War riot. There were a couple of riots like that one depicted in the movie between native born Protestants and Catholics in the neighborhood, but, at most, they resulted in a death or two, not the huge carnage you see in the scene.â€�
The film gets progressively worse in its infidelity to the truth
Scorsese, Oliver Stone and others have done the opposite, and created fictional accounts to portray American society in the worst possible light. The villain in the film called William Cutting a.k.a.â€�Butcher Billâ€� is the incarnation of evil. He leads the â€œYankee gangâ€� that dominates Tammany Hall and exploit the new immigrants at every turn. His main features are a glass eye and an astounding, uncanny ability to throw knives. In a close-up, we see that the glass eye is engraved with the American Eagle, long the symbol of American patriotism and etched on our banknotes and coins for generations. In Scorseseâ€™s film, it represents everything immoral, corrupt and evil.
The pervasive influence of both JFK and Gangs of New York is apparent among many of the students I have encountered in teaching at American universities. These films are accepted by a majority of the students who have engaged in debates on many contemporary political issues in which the starting assumption is that the United States always takes the â€œwrongâ€� side. I frequently have been able to discern that the students have seen these films and implicitly or subliminally accept the major underlying themes as â€œbasicallyâ€� historically accurate. We donâ€™t have to look much further at why our youth is so misled or why Oliver Stoneâ€™s son has become a convert to Islam.