Criticize Softly in a Free Speech Zone
My mom forwarded this article, titled Yes, It's Anti-Semitism. Although the article starts, "Criticizing Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic," and paraphrases this statement twice more, the article, from title down, argues just the opposite. I emailed a response, but after reading this (it's not really a response to that post, that post just reminded me), I decided to post that here as well. My response follows:
This sort of "with us or against us" talk is a tool for stifling criticism, one, it seems, that has been used very frequently in recent times. Yes, Israel slaughtering civilians will bring out the anti-Semites. Israel doing anything will bring out the anti-Semites. But I don't see why now is a better time to pay attention to what those bastards are saying. How about we continue to ignore them, instead of flinging them microphonewards in an attempt to drown out any reasonable criticism? Of course, Jacoby pays lip service to "criticism", but the thrust of his argument belies his words.
What it comes down to is this: Killing civilians is horrible, but the inadvertent death of civilians in the name of a military objective may be justified (although no doubt extreme pacifists would reject even that). The thing is, I have yet to hear people argue that Israel will accomplish some definite military objective through these actions, and that that objective is worth the likely death toll. I have heard that Israel has suffered, that the deaths are Hamas's fault, that Israel has objectives which it has not yet achieved... but none of those are equivalent arguments. Is the plan to reinvade Gaza and hold it under martial law, going door to door to search for weapons? That might halt the rocket attacks, but what's the endgame on that plan?
Hamas has certainly achieved their objective, which is to prolong the conflict. Lobbing rockets randomly is pretty ineffective, but there are more promising targets within stone's throw of the West Bank. The attacks demonstrate to Israel that they can't ever relinquish the West Bank, which pretty much crushes dreams of a "two-state solution". No doubt they would be gleeful to hear the likes of Jacoby compare the non-radical, peace-loving Zionists to anti-Semites.
This sort of "with us or against us" talk is a tool for stifling criticism, one, it seems, that has been used very frequently in recent times. Yes, Israel slaughtering civilians will bring out the anti-Semites. Israel doing anything will bring out the anti-Semites. But I don't see why now is a better time to pay attention to what those bastards are saying. How about we continue to ignore them, instead of flinging them microphonewards in an attempt to drown out any reasonable criticism? Of course, Jacoby pays lip service to "criticism", but the thrust of his argument belies his words.
What it comes down to is this: Killing civilians is horrible, but the inadvertent death of civilians in the name of a military objective may be justified (although no doubt extreme pacifists would reject even that). The thing is, I have yet to hear people argue that Israel will accomplish some definite military objective through these actions, and that that objective is worth the likely death toll. I have heard that Israel has suffered, that the deaths are Hamas's fault, that Israel has objectives which it has not yet achieved... but none of those are equivalent arguments. Is the plan to reinvade Gaza and hold it under martial law, going door to door to search for weapons? That might halt the rocket attacks, but what's the endgame on that plan?
Hamas has certainly achieved their objective, which is to prolong the conflict. Lobbing rockets randomly is pretty ineffective, but there are more promising targets within stone's throw of the West Bank. The attacks demonstrate to Israel that they can't ever relinquish the West Bank, which pretty much crushes dreams of a "two-state solution". No doubt they would be gleeful to hear the likes of Jacoby compare the non-radical, peace-loving Zionists to anti-Semites.