How can we have a real discussion about Mideast peace if speaking honestly about Israel is out of bounds?
September 1, 2006
EVER WONDER what it's like to be a pariah?
Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.
This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth ؟ whose father fled
Nazi Germany ؟ is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's
largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have
worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the
Israeli offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it
has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone,
Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent
researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by
either side.
It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah rocket
strikes on civilian areas within Israel, calling the strikes "serious
violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So
far, so good. You can't lose when you criticize a terrorist organization.
But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death
toll spiraled ؟ with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians ؟ Human
Rights Watch also criticized Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Roth noted that the Israeli military appeared to be "treating southern
Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take
appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants
constitutes a war crime.
The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves
accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and
anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for
having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him
of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much
anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a
"reflexive Israel-basher ؟ who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every
turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic
piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks
the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent,
Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive
Jewish bloodlust."
Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch ؟ or with Roth ؟ knows this to be
lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan ؟ it doesn't "take
sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on
the insane.
But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his
organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most
troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash
enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States
today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any
serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of
anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against Hezbollah were too heavy-handed,
or that Israel hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the
United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military
support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be
called an anti-Semite ؟ and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.
How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a mandatory aspect
of American Jewish identity? Skepticism ؟ a willingness to ask tough
questions, a refusal to embrace dogma ؟ has always been central to the
Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in
Israel, where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in
far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.
In a climate in which good-faith criticism of Israel is automatically
denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. Israeli policies are a major source
of discord in the Islamic world, and anger at Israel usually spills over into
anger at the U.S., Israel's biggest backer.
With resentment of Israeli policies fueling terrorism and instability both in
the Middle East and around the globe, it's past time for Americans to have a
serious national debate about how to bring a just peace to the Middle East.
But if criticism of Israel is out of bounds, that debate can't occur ؟ and
we'll all pay the price.
Back to Human Rights Watch's critics. Why waste time denouncing imaginary
anti-Semitism when there's no shortage of the real thing? From politically
motivated arrests of Jews in Iran to assaults on Jewish children in Ukraine,
there's plenty of genuine anti-Semitism out there ؟ and Human Rights Watch
is usually taking the lead in condemning it. So if you're bothered by
anti-Semitism ؟ if you're bothered by ideologies that insist that some human
lives have less value than others ؟ you could do a whole lot worse than send
a check to Human Rights Watch.
[email protected]
"Many rabbis and professionals have told me recently that they fear for
their jobs should they even begin to articulate their doubts about Israeli
policy--much less give explicit support to calls for an end to the
occupation."
-- Rabbi Michael Lerner
April 28, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times
Click here to read this article on the LA Times' website
Post Your Comment
*It should be NOTED that your email address won't be shared, and all communications between members will be routed via the website's mail server.