Guardian Skewers Dershowitz, Dershowitz Skewers Guardian
Alan Dershowitz has a new book out. It’s called Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.
Louise Christian (whose bio cites that fact that she’s sued the IDF) doesn’t like Dershowitz very much, and she uses her review of his book to say so… over and over. She says he’s a shoddy lawyer, and is “horrified” by the fact that he’d even entertain the validity of pre-emptive force. It seems that the Guardian was just looking for someone to slam Dershowitz.
Today on Slate.com, Dershowitz clarifies his point of view, slams the Guardian reviewer for apparently not reading the book, and points out that the publication’s anti-Israel stance is what’s really behind the negative review of his work. He writes:
Liberalism and Zionism are not considered mutually exclusive in America. In fact, they are complementary. The prevailing view at the Guardian is to the contrary.
Amen, right?
Read more.
That liberalism and zionism are considered compatible in America, does not make them compatible. Rather it makes Americans silly. Liberalism, which promises equal protection and democratic participation for all is in direct contradiction with zionism, which promotes ethnic control (in this case Jewish) over the state.
Yes, and with all of that historical/philosophical evidence you clearly proved that point.
Oh wait, but you claimed it so it must be true.
adam,
CoA’s argument seems cogent and elegantly simple. Sarcasm aside, I’d be curious to hear an argument as to why his case is incorrect if that’s what you think.
oops, it seems my comment is ambiguos, i mean it entirely genuinely and am hopeful that future responses to honest careful arguments like CoA’s will have a more favorable content:snark ratio.
CoA’s argument may indeed be considered “cogent and elegantly simple.” It may also be considered simple minded and facile. But what can one expect from a comment that contains less than 50 words and yet pretends to offer definitive statements about two complex ideologies? I submit that CoA’s statement lacks nuance and is enfeebled by the need to enforce rigorous definitions. I would strongly urge CoA to read some books on Zionism and Political Theory whilst simultaneously getting his or her head out of his or her buttocks.
Before we get into it, why don’t we define our terms? “Liberalism” has two different and distinct meanings. The first is something like “that worldview developed during the Enlightenment which still provides guiding principles to democratic people and nations today, including notions of freedom (personal, economic, religious) and democracy”. Included among this sort of “liberal” are most of today’s (American) conservatives, centrists and liberals. The other meaning is the common usage – a range of political views between conservatives and Leftists.
Chorus of Apes is wrong either way if he’s making a historical argument – prominent liberals of the last three centuries haven’t (generally) had a problem with the ethnic homeland concept (in fact Woodrow Wilson championed this), mainly restricting themselves to what should be done within each polity (as opposed to prescribing how polities should be formed). To many liberals, the formation of a Jewish homeland was itself a promotion of democracy, giving Jews a “vote” of their own among the nations, much as an individual would be given the vote in his own country.
Of course Chorus could be claiming that most of three centuries of liberals got it wrong and that the true spirit of liberalism demands opposition to ethnic states. It’s an argument, but a pretty weak one. In any case, today’s liberals could side with Israel even if they disliked ethnic states, on other grounds – they could say that even though, ideally, there shouldn’t be ethnic states, under the current circumstances and in the forseeable future, the only alternative to Israel’s government is slaughter, and that Israel, being a civilized and democratic country surrounded by, well, the opposite kind of people, ought to be supported.
Of course, all you Israel-supporting liberals should strongly consider coming over to where you’ll never have to apologize for your views on Israel – become conservatives. We’ll leave the light on for you.
The Guardian anti-Semitic? Please. That’s a totally incorrect observation. Its the one left of center diaspora newspaper that does a good editorial job on all things Israel. Its positions on the Occupation are largely assimilable with that of Haaretz, and it publishes a lot of Jewish writers (British Reform chief Tony Bayfield, for example, has an irregular blog with the paper, as do several right of center Israeli bloggers).
This just reminds me how tired I am of hearing how anti-Semitic the British media are, just because they are not as sycophantic as the American press is on questions concerning Israel. If anything, American periodicals should take a clue from their British counterparts, whose US editions are eating into American newspaper and magazine circulation like mad. I’d wager, taking a lot of Jewish readers with them too.
Joel,
Dershowitz said that the Guardian was anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic…funny that you first went there. Of course then you probably say “those lovers of Israel are always crying anti-Semitism!”
He’s speaking in a fairly transparent code. No need to continually perform midrash.
Umm, on your second comment, I’m Israeli.
ZT,
Agreed, and I actually was in the middle of outlining a little more content (and a little less snark) and I spazzed and clicked submit. And then I ran out of time. Ok, now that I do have time…
COA stated:
“Liberalism, which promises equal protection and democratic participation for all is in direct contradiction with zionism, which promotes ethnic control (in this case Jewish) over the state. ”
And in that sentence COA showed his/her complete ignorance of Zionism and the Israeli state which has legal protection for all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, etc…includes a full spectrum of representation in the Knesset and Supreme Court. Now does this mean that there is complete equality in Israeli society? Of course not, and that is a much more constructive and worthwhile topic to debate rather than if Zionism/Israel are fundamentally ideologically wrong.
But it does illustrate the ill-informed, faulty argument utilized by COA. As pointed out by Irshad Manji, Israel is at it’s heart affirmative action in state form. So yes, Jewishness (however defined) does offer greater advantages in the Jewish State, but that doesn’t mean that on the flipside that non-Jewishness leads to oppression or poor status. Just different status.
I understand that the Israeli court’s interpretations of the declaration of independence and the Basic Laws seems to require legal protections for all citizen however it does not enforce equal protection, most notably vis the law of return. More importantly the contradictory commitment to equality of citizenship and the ethnic basis of the state required that in 1967 Israel take control of the territory it required without granting citizenship to those living in it. There is only no conflict between liberalism and zionism if we use ethnic hegemony to maintain Jewish demographic dominance.
Understanding zionism as affirmative action applied to the state is correct. It also illustrates the incompatibility with liberalism. While certain internal policies of liberal democracies may be embodied in affirmative action, if the entire state is run that way, it cannot allow for the political equality of all citizens.
As for the comments about two definitions of liberalism, I am referring to philosophical liberalism (which is held by most Americans, liberal or conservative) and not political liberalism.
“This just reminds me how tired I am of hearing how anti-Semitic the British media are, just because they are not as sycophantic as the American press is on questions concerning Israel.”
“Not as sycophantic”? And who gets it just right? Al-Jazeera? The Daily Hamas News? Give my regards to everyone at Tikkun. And thanks for reminding me to contribute to Commentary again this year.
According to neo-con-ism, liberalism and Zionism are mutually exclusive; this is why the first note of Clean Break’s Agenda is to destroy LABOR Zionsim…
“Not as sycophantic� And who gets it just right? Al-Jazeera? The Daily Hamas News? Give my regards to everyone at Tikkun. And thanks for reminding me to contribute to Commentary again this year.
Charming. Try reading Ha’aretz.
“So yes, Jewishness (however defined) does offer greater advantages in the Jewish State, but that doesn’t mean that on the flipside that non-Jewishness leads to oppression or poor status. Just different status.”
Seperate but equal, eh? I don’t know many Israeli Arabs who would defend this statement, but lots who would point out the many ways they are discriminated against both legally and socially.
A discriminatory Jewish state is a contradiction in terms. It either practices discrimination, or it’s Jewish. At least, that’s my Judaism.
Umm, Joel, you can be Israeli and still say that. I have it heard it before…
you totally misunderstand my point, chaim. if israelis can speak critically of their state and politics, “lovers of israel” wherever they may be should translate that into open and honest discussion.
i’m allergic to this kind of rhetoric because it’s done more harm to israel than good, and reinforced its worst political tendencies, at the country’s own detriment.
“Charming. Try reading Ha’aretz. ”
Is that the Hebrew edition of the Daily Hamas News?
“According to neo-con-ism, liberalism and Zionism are mutually exclusive.”
Actually, neocons are more faithful to the classical liberal tradition–individual rights, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy–than todays progressives, who aren’t liberal at all. At least not in the classical sense.
“The Guardian anti-Semitic? Please. That’s a totally incorrect observation. Its the one left of center diaspora newspaper that does a good editorial job on all things Israel.”
As someone living in the UK, I would say that the charge of the Guardian being anti-Semitic is not deserved and erroneous. But to say that it does a ‘good editorial job on all thing Israel’ is, as we say here, complete bollocks. It depends on what your point of view is, I guess, but I find the Guardian reporting on Israel very much in line with the BBC; one sided and slanted against Israel generally. So concerned were the board of governors regarding the coverage of Israel by the BBC that they actually *gasp* commissioned a review of BBC reporting on Israel.
I agree that American news agencies tend to be a bit rubbish at reporting world news in an intelligent and through provoking way, but I wouldn’t agree that the Guardian is an unbiased port of call for those seeking more grown up reportage.
Hey Matityahu –
I appreciate your comments. I guess it all depends on context. No newspaper or broadcaster is infallible, clearly. I’m just surprised by which the degree that the Guardian’s Israel coverage – publishing and reprinting the likes of writers Gideon Levy, David Grossman etc – doesn’t qualify as somehow closer balanced by Diaspora Jewish readers. One would never find such voices included in US periodicals. Even though they’re clearly on the left, it does go a long way towards the balanced coverage I was referring to.
Yes, I know about the BBC inquiry review. I feel like that’s improved things a lot. Nevertheless, even when their biases were a little more pronounced – lets take the Panorama feature on the Jenin operation in 2002 – witnessing that kind of reporting in the US was very good for the American public to see, despite how uncomfortable it made the Jewish community here, because no one was getting that kind of info in the US, despite access to Israeli online media. So that’s how I tend to view these things.