There are three basic possible attitudes. One can be anti- semitic, philo- semitic, or neutral. Yes, it is possible that some things which are viewed as anti- semitic could be produced by other sources. But let's examine it. Suppose someone is anti- Israel. That means that he is prone to believe every bad rumor, even if unverified or credibly contradicted; that he is dismissive of crucial historical factors in the development of Israel, like the Holocaust; that he is likely to assume mitigating factors in the actions of Palestinians, but to attribute nothing but malevolence to actions of Israel that he criticizes; and that he, in general, is prone to acting prosecutorially in respect of Israel, without interest in the other side of the case.
Suppose someone is neutral. He will try to look at responsible accounts and pronouncements from both sides, and to stay close to the evidentiary balance in making judgements. It is my belief that the proponderance of evidence favors the claims of Israel to exist as a state, and lays the blame for the Palestinian mess primarily at the feet of the Arab powers, who encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to expect that the UN partition would be overcome by force of arms, and who advised them to get out of the way of the oncoming armies, and who purposely failed to resettle the Palestinians, leaving many of them in camps, as a festering issue. Of course, I could be accused of being pro- Israel, and therefore differently biased. Nevertheless, so far I have not talked to anyone that I consider clearly neutral in the presentation of cases.
Now, to be anti- Israel might not mean that one is anti- semitic. One might, for example, be "anti-colonialist". The only problem with that is that it should be tempered, at this point, with a clear recognition that what's done is done, and that the Jews who live in Israel are in mortal danger from fanatics if we abandon them. Furthermore, whatever sympathy one might have for the Palestinians should be tempered by the recognition that they have not, in fact, had no recourse but terror, since they are supported in world councils by the Arab states, and have on several occasions had Arab armies attack Israel, but freely chose terror as a favored option. Besides, even the IRA usually hits military targets, or, if it hits civilian targets, gives a warning call, and does not make it a practice of targeting children. The heroes of the Palestinian people are people who bomb schoolbuses. Whatever grievances they have, real or imagined, cannot justify all of that. So, sure, you can think that the Great Powers made a mistake in the Middle East, but even then, a reasonable person would accept Israel and deplore Palestinian provocations.
What about deploring Sharon's tactics? Well, sure, one need not be anti- semitic, but, on the other hand, the recognition that no state can make a tepid response to the rapid string of suicide bombings that Israel has endured, and that this is a National Unity government (Shimon Peres is on the Left), not just Sharon going off half- cocked, should factor in. Besides, one is not on the front line, and should therefore be diffident about telling Israelis how to respond.
So, I guess that upshot is that I agree one need not be anti- semitic to criticize Israel or wonder if it were a bad idea to begin with, but, on the other hand, if one's criticisms are not tempered with a sense of having to deal with current realities, and a recognition that there was never an excuse for the kind of tactics the PLO and other organizations used against Israel, and a shyness about telling those in mortal danger how to conduct themselves, there is a pretty good prima facie case for being anti- semitic......... |
