Hmmm....

Well, where on earth could I start today? Sometimes there is just TOO much to talk about. I've been wanting to work out a piece about my friend's fascist thoughts and the documentary "Jesus Camp" but that may need to wait. What else? Well, the British medical journal The Lancet just announced a study estimating that the number of Iraqis killed since the US invaded is around 655,000 at statistical midrange. The low end is still around 300,000. Bush's response? He's amazed at the Iraqi commitment to democracy with so much violence in their world. I guess that's just part of the "comma" of the Iraq story. But all of this is not right for today. No, I think I'd rather muse on more annoying tendencies in America such as the massive censorship of anyone who wants to critically examine the US-Israel relationship.

I once got to sit in on a discussion about when being critical of Israel becomes anti-Semitism. Fortunately, the speaker made it clear: When you criticize Israel most of the time you must be an anti-Semite. Good to know that upstanding Jews like Eric Alterman, Tony Judt, and, hell, Jon Stewart are all anti-semites for being critical of Israel and US relations with it. When did this happen? I admit that Mearsheimer and Walt's piece on US foreign policy regarding Israel was not perfect but it was a solidly argued piece that aimed to start a discussion. The response? Anti-Semitism, which, ironically, is precisely the tool the authors describe is used to kibosh critics of Israel or US policy on Israel.

Being critical of Israeli policy (in essence being critical of Israel) is not the same as saying the state should not exist. Nor is it a reflection on what one thinks about Israelis or even Jewish people in general. Israel is a state and a powerful one at that. Like all states it is and should be subject to criticism. Criticizing Israeli policy in the West Bank and its often heavy handed military response to Palestinian bombings is not tantamount to legitimating suicide bombings (but it is hard to swallow the fact that far more Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military retaliation for suicide bombings than the number of Israelis killed by those bombings). The same goes for US foreign policy regarding Israel.

It is not always in the US interest to support Israel and as a 'democratic' society all of our decisions ought to be open to discussion. Why then do I open the paper today (actually, I opened a browser as I don't get the paper, per se) to find out that a party in honour of a new book about the Vichy deportation of Jews during WWII was cancelled because the author (in one paragraph) pointed out the moral conundrum of Jewish history and its treatment of Palestinians? Why is Bishop Desmond Tutu criticized for making the remark that being in Palestine reminded him of apartheid era South Africa (though, he added it was much worse in SA). Hell, Tony Judt, a well known scholar (and Jewish), was forced to cancel a talk about Israeli policies in the West Bank when certain groups complained of his critical remarks on Israel.

I admit, the self censorship of many authors and the blatant social censorship of others is not a result of actions by the state of Israel. It has more to do with the Israeli lobby (hardly monolithic but certainly dominated by large groups like AIPAC). But even the govt of Israel has been known to invoke its 'special' history when critics get too loud only to demand in other times that it be treated just like every other state.... God this could go on forever so I'll shut up and get back to brewing beer and avoiding my dissertation.