What I wish Jeffrey Goldberg & Andrew Sullivan would understand about each other (and themselves)

There are two bloggers I’ve been reading for years: Andrew Sullivan (at least since about 2002) and Jeffrey Goldberg (for the last couple of years). I respect them both, even if I don’t agree with them all the time. Their recent spat has been a source of consternation for me, especially since it concerns a matter that almost always provokes more conflict, even among people who essentially agree on motives and high-level strategies, than harmony.

First, about Andrew Sullivan. The fact that Andrew’s a self-styled conservative, or gay, or even Catholic has little to do with his views on Israel. The fact that he’s British does. The style of criticism that he levels towards Israel is rather classically British. Despite living here for decades, Andrew’s view of the world is still very much shaped by his country of origin. Like most Brits suffering from post-colonial guilt, he’s generally preoccupied with former British colonies, in particular Israel and Iran. Why? That Israel and Iran are problems created by the British and that evade resolution is a common refrain. Most Brits I know with a sensitivity towards their colonialist past wish the Israel/Palestine problem would go away, and that Iran would act like a normal country. It’s usually expressed with impatient exasperation.

So Andrew does not hate Jews, but if he’s anything like the many Brits I have talked to about this subject, he believes the (Israeli) Jews have had it too good for too long, and that they need to stop being coddled and “get on with it.” Unsurprisingly, it tends to sound like the way an indignant parent scolds an insolent child. It should also come as no surprise that several other things that Andrew gets exercised about – American hyperreligiosity, our different taste in music, our different definition of what it means to be a conservative – are exactly those things that the English tend to whin(g)e about generally when it comes to the U.S.

So now about Jeffrey. He’s Jewish; so am I. Jews are used to hearing and expressing different opinions, even about Israel, something that’s dear to the hearts of just about every one of us (Why wouldn’t it be? Half of our fellow Jews live there). We are used to listening to, processing, agreeing with or debating others’ opinions. What we always have trouble with are double standards. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Jews holding Jews to a higher standard; part of being Jewish is holding ourselves to a higher standard (it’s part of the Covenant; we have to fulfill 606 additional commandments to be considered as righteous as a Gentile). But it always, always triggers something in us when non-Jews expect Jews to fulfill a higher standard than they hold to others, in this case, the Palestinians or Iranians. Whether it’s the reality or not, it also smells a bit of anti-Semitism, even when we consciously tell ourselves the motivation is different. The story of Abbott Lawrence Lowell, Harvard President in the 1920s, trying to impose a quota on Jewish admissions, helps illustrate the mindset. Lowell said that a quota was important because Jews cheat. When someone pointed out that Christians cheat, too, Lowell retorted, don’t change the subject, we’re talking about Jews.

Compound this with the fact that Israel’s existence is constantly being questioned, not only by Islamic regimes committed to its destruction, but others in the West, and it puts Jews a bit on edge. The fact that there is no popular movement in Israel to eat up all of Palestinian territory, while a regime committed to Israel’s destruction was popularly voted in after Israel withdrew from Arab territory, suggests that Israel should not face more condemnation than the Palestinians for deep-sixing the peace process.

Jeffrey always has to straddle the tension between right-wing and left-wing Israelis in order to land the interviews with high-ranking officials that he always manages to get. If he’s solidly in one camp or the other, he’ll lose clout.

That said, I don’t think Sullivan’s double standards, and that’s exactly what they are, are motivated by anti-Semitism. It’s just the paternalistic, peevish British attitude towards their former colonies that they feel are out of line. Americans get it, too.

And, as much as Sullivan seems to think Goldberg is falling into the AIPAC/right-wing gambit of accusing all opponents of being self-hating Jews or anti-Semites, Jeffrey really hasn’t done that. Maybe calling Andrew a scapegoat of Jews wasn’t the best choice of words, although I understand that’s what holding Israel to a higher standard invokes. Even Goldberg’s disagreement with Peter Beinart’s call for “Zionist BDS” against West Bank settlement goods was reasoned and calm. He didn’t accuse Peter of being a self-hating Jew, he didn’t try to silence him, and, in fact, probably brought Zion Square a bit of publicity (which is a good thing; Beinart’s views deserve a fair hearing). Saying you disagree with someone and that an idea they’re proposing is a bad one is not akin to silencing them.

So I plan on continuing to read both Goldberg and Sullivan, and hope they can manage to kiss and make up.

Update: Heh.

Thanks for rating this! Now tell the world how you feel - .
How does this post make you feel?
  • Excited
  • Fascinated
  • Amused
  • Bored
  • Sad
  • Angry

1 Comment »

  1. The 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to Gaza or the West Bank since at the time of ratification nethier territory was under the jurisdiction of any state at the time. I am sure you are aware that Gaza was originally under control by Egypt while the West Bank was under Jordan’s control in which both at one point were invaded and occupied by IDF since the territories were used as platforms to launch attacks against Israel by Muslim states. Israel considers itself an authority in Gaza and West Bank as which is granted to an occupying power, is allowed and specified under the 4th Geneva Convention as well.In terms of the Six Day War that was not started by Israel but started by her neighbors. Prior to the conflict Israel was victim from attacks by terrorists it was discovered were being allowed to migrate through Syria. Egypt at first sent troops to the Sinai Peninsula due to an, admittedly, flase report that Israel was going to invade Jordan. Egypt later closed the Straits of Tiran considered an international water way at the time. Egypt then joined in the engagement due to a pact the country had with Jordan and Syria in which all 3 countries had military agreements with each other. Israel did start the fighting with an airstrike but the aggressions that lead up to the war were initiated by her Muslim neighbors. The reason for a lack of self determination by Gaza and West Bank Palestinians is simple, if they stop supporting terrorists and recognize Israel’s right to exist then the violence will stop. The Muslims not only refuse to but even reject any agreement geared to bringing peace to the region.To begin with I suggest you look up a man named Muhammad Amin al-Husseini. He was Yasser Arafat’s uncle and a Muslim cleric who ended up migrating to Germany and got a personal audience with Adlof Hitler. Husseini helped Hitler implement his Final Solution as well as raise Muslim regiments for the Nazis. When Nazi Germany fell he continued his activities helping to create groups like the PLO and Young Egypt Party which was a pro-Nazi organization. Among Young Egypt’s members were future Egyptian Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat.Nazism did not die with the defeat of Hitler but migrated to the Middle East thanks to Husseini in which you see Nazi influences in groups like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood (whose founder Hasan al-Banna was a Nazi sympathizer) and Hizbullah.

    Comment by Eutiquio — December 8, 2015 @ 2:26 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment