By Abe Greenwald
Tuesday, April 02, 2019
The New York Times
has run what appears to be its crowning showpiece in its campaign against
Israel. Nathan Thrall’s March 28 article, “How the Battle Over Israel and
Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics,” purports to detail the current
battle over Israel among Democrats while making an exhaustive case for the
left’s Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement (BDS) aimed at destroying the
Jewish state.
How does Thrall go about this? Mostly by stating
propaganda as fact and fact as propaganda. In the former category, we have
this:
Before Israel was founded in 1948,
there were Zionist campaigns to boycott Arab workers and exclude Arabs from
Jewish-only residential communities. Following the 1948 war, which erupted
after the United Nations announced its plan to partition Palestine into two
states, the Jews who fled could return; Palestinians could not. Most of the
Palestinians who remained within Israel were placed under military rule until
1966.
Of course, it was the Arabs in Palestine who boycotted
the Jews. As noted at CAMERA’s website, the Arabs did more than boycott. In the
first half of the 20th century, Arabs launched multiple murderous attacks on
Jewish communities in Palestine. And note Thrall’s passive formulation for a
war that “erupted” in 1948. Naturally, in his mammoth article, Thrall fails to
mention that this eruption was the result of the Jews being targeted by
surrounding Arab armies. As for “military rule,” it would have been suicide for
the Jews not to have put the military in Arab towns that bordered their
enemies.
Now for facts presented as propaganda, witness this
trope:
“The issue is not land; the issue is
not statehood,” says Morton A. Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization
of America, a once-marginal pro-Israel group that has close ties with the Trump
administration. “The Palestinians don’t want peace no matter what.” Referring
to the years of the major partition proposals and Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, he added, “Because the Palestinians were offered a state in ’37
and ’47, and they said no. In 2000, 2001, 2008, they said no.”
Note that whereas Thrall’s bizarro history is presented
as the official record, the truth about Palestinian intransigence is put in the
mouth of the leader of what Thrall calls a “once-marginal pro-Israel group that
has close ties with the Trump administration.” But all that need be said about
Morton Klein’s claims is that they’re simply 100
percent true.
Having established the historical injustices perpetrated
against Arabs by Jews, Thrall goes on to make the case that Zionists are
essentially racist and use money to wield outsize political power. The claims
of racism go far beyond the notion that Zionists are bigots when it comes to
Arabs. According to Thrall, they’ve got a problem with black people, too. That
case is capped off by an unchallenged quote from Barack Obama’s former deputy
national security adviser, Ben Rhodes:
For Obama, too, according to
Rhodes, navigating Israel policy was harder because he was black. “Just the
presumption that because Obama was black he would be sympathetic to
Palestinians was enough to cause political problems with certain donors and
elements in the media who assumed that would mean that he was anti-Israel,”
Rhodes said. It was dangerous for Israel, he went on, that its advocates and
allies assume that minorities will automatically view Israel as an oppressor:
“So you’re acknowledging, through your own fears, that Israel treats the
Palestinians like black people had been treated in the United States. That’s
not a good look for Israel.”
No, Obama was not assumed to be anti-Israel because he
was black. He was understood by some to be anti-Israel because of his campaign
against Israeli leadership and self-defense. He sidelined Benjamin Netanyahu at
every opportunity, tried to thwart Bibi’s reelection, upbraided Israel about
settlements, struck a dangerous nuclear deal with Iran behind Israel’s back,
and ultimately abstained on a UN vote “establishing” Palestinian statehood.
What does race have to do with it?
And then, the Jewish money: “There is little willingness
among Democrats to argue publicly for substantially changing longstanding policy
toward Israel,” Thrall writes. “In part, some Hill staff members and former
White House officials say, this is because of the influence of megadonors: Of
the dozens of personal checks greater than $500,000 made out to the largest PAC
for Democrats in 2018, the Senate Majority PAC, around three-fourths were
written by Jewish donors. This provides fodder for anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories, and for some, it is the elephant in the room.”
Wait. An elephant in the room is supposed to be the thing
that’s not discussed. Jewish money in
American politics is talked and written about as if were the most important
foreign-policy issue of our time. Again, Thrall calls on Rhodes to flesh out
the bad-faith argument: “The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still
shaped by the donor class,” Rhodes says. If that’s true, then how did Obama
(and the Democrats) maintain enormous Jewish campaign contributions while he
built the worst presidential record on Israel in modern times?
What Thrall never mentions is that Americans’ ties with
Israel run deep for reasons having nothing to do with Jewish campaign money.
From the Founders’ generation on, America’s purpose has been thought of in
terms of religious destiny reminiscent of God’s promise to the Jews. Israel is
a democracy in a sea of autocracy, and supporting democracies under threat has
long been a staple of American foreign policy. There are also many practical
ties between the two countries, having to do with intelligence, security, and
commerce. And for America’s Evangelical Christians, Israel security is a
paramount concern.
But that’s not all Thrall leaves out. There are a few
more things he fails to mention:
The Palestinian leadership is dedicated to the
destruction of Israel. Israeli leaders
want Jews to live peacefully in a Jewish state and have no interest in
destroying their Arab neighbors. When Israel pulled Jews out of Gaza in 2005,
Gaza became immediately and permanently a terrorist state whose national
purpose is killing Jews. The Palestinian leadership has mercilessly oppressed
generations of its own people. Arab citizens of Israel, on the other hand,
enjoy a degree of freedom and human rights that simply don’t exist in any
Arab-ruled countries (let alone the Palestinians territories). Countless
countries receiving American-aid dollars have—unlike Israel—abysmal
human-rights records and face no left-wing BDS campaign.
There is only one just resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict: The Palestinians give up their defining goal of destroying Israel and
turn instead to the business of building a functioning state. If that were to
happen, Israeli leaders and citizens would be thrilled to make a real peace with
their long-suffering neighbors. Left-wing attacks on Israel only prolong the
Palestinians’ misery by giving hope and aid to their ruinous leaders. Israel
can withstand the propaganda of the New
York Times just fine. Can the New
York Times?
No comments:
Post a Comment