Alternative Insight

Organized attacks on Israel's detractors

Intelligent clarifications to the writings of established political figures add to newsworthy knowledge. Trying to nullify critical comments by disparagement of a public figure is malicious and counter-productive. The criticisms of prominent individuals who write unfavorably about Israel rarely add to our learning and often follow a hostile pattern:

A typical example of an organized attack on a prominent individual who has written a book critical of Israel's policies is Deborah Lipstadt's article, "Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem," Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2007.

Begin with the strange title to the article. What is a "Jewish problem?" Does it mean President Carter is uncertain if he might be Jewish or does it mean he has a Jewish acquaintance with a problem? From these ambiguous words, Ms. Lipstadt conforms to other attacks of Israel's detractors.

Charges of anti-Semitism are included in her arguments.

"Palestine. Peace Not Apartheid, while exceptionally sensitive to Palestinian suffering, ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion, and murder committed against Jews. It trivializes the murder of Israelis. Now, facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense."

The A-word right up front. Her statement is equivalent to requiring every book on the crimes inflicted against any oppressed group should also mention the ill-treatment somewhere in history of the oppressor.

The World War II holocaust is used as an emotional appeal to counter the charges against Israel.

"One cannot ignore the Holocaust's impact on Jewish identity and the history of the Middle East conflict."
and
"His book, which dwells on the Palestinian refugee crisis, makes two fleeting references to the Holocaust."

Carter writes from his experiences and what he know first hand. Nor, does the Palestinian refugees crisis have anything to do with the World war II holocaust; unless Ms. Lipstadt is telling us that those who were victims of an atrocity have a right to inflict atrocities upon others. That seems to be her thrust.

The critics are usually the same pro-Israel persons.

Jeffrey Goldberg, who lambasted the book in the Post last month, writes for the New Yorker. Ethan Bronner, who in the New York Times called the book a "distortion," is the Times deputy foreign editor. Slate's Michael Kinsley declared it "moronic." Dennis Ross, who was chief negotiator on the conflict in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, described the book as a rewriting and misrepresentation of history. Alan Dershowitz teaches at Harvard and Ken Stein at Emory. Both have criticized the book.

Ms. Lipstadt doesn't quote remarks from the reviewers of President Carter's book. She only mentions names, as if the persons are oracles and are to be totally believed. Did these critics only argue against parts of the book, while praising other parts? Did they dispute the overall thesis? Aren't there many reliable commentators who have praised the book? We don't know. Lipstadt engages in selectivity to make her case and uses attacking words of others (lambasted, moronic, distortions) to support her agenda. Note that Jeffrey Goldberg, although never considered to be rabidly pro-Israel, is a citizen of Israel as well as the United States, volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces and worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian detainees. Dershowitz and Ross are known to be entirely pro-Israel. Stein is attached to an Institute of Israel Studies.

Their arguments are general and not specific.

Because of the book's inaccuracies and imbalance and Carter's subsequent behavior, 14 members of the Carter's Center 's Board of Councilors have resigned -- many in anguish because they so respect Carter's other work. All are Jews.

In the article, Ms.Lipstadt never specifically addresses any "inaccuracies" or "distortions." She only mentions they exist. What was Carter's "subsequent behavior?" If the board members respect Carter's other works, why would they suddenly resign over one book? Is it a coincidence that they are all Jews?

Critics try to link prominent commentators to bigots.

Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder.

Is Carter "unused to being criticized?" Hasn't he been criticized many times -- the Iranian hostage situation, domestic problems, such as inflation, during his administration, for interference in foreign policy, such as in Haiti? The linking of President Carter to David Duke is malicious and contemptible. Ms. Lipstadt's belief that anyone cares if she yawns or shudders is arrogant and absurd. The Washington Post publication of Deborah Lipstadt's article, after realizing her malicious comments, is unbelievable.

The criticism is more of an attack than a genuine assessment of the writings.

Others can enumerate the many factual errors in this book. A man who has done much good and who wants to bring peace has not only failed to move the process forward but has given refuge to scoundrels.

Ms. Lipstadt admits she has not provided facts to support her argument - she'll leave it to others (who?). Then the final attack -- President Carter who made the most significant step to Middle East peace by achieving the 1978 Camp Davis accords, is accused of having "failed to move the process forward." And in Ms. Lipstadt's self-definition, he "has given refuge to scoundrels." If individuals, such as Ms. Lipstadt, would listen to proven diplomats and well-informed politicians, such as President Carter, we might move rapidly to a peace in the Middle East. Deborah Lipstadt, in her article, Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem, has shown us who are the scoundrels.

The misrepresentations and the vicious manner of those who present arguments against the detractors of Israel are troubling. The attackers behave with impunity, as if they can say anything and not be contradicted. Their efforts, which rarely have any specific information, seem only calculated to disguise truths and silence criticism of Israel. The best mechanism for countering vicious and unwarranted criticism is exposure -- expose by word and word and word those who try to nullify critical comments by disparagement of a public figure. Shame them into obscurity.

alternativeinsight
february , 2007

HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE alternativeinsight@earthlink.net Mailbox