With TOH to Allison Kaplan Sommer, I came across this article in the East Bay Express. Be forewarned, it's a long read, and another blogger takes issue with the central point.
The account of the Daniel Pipes visit is very similar to experiences in other campuses Pipes has visited, as is the anti-Israeli rhetoric described in the article. There appears - at least on college campuses and in the Norwegian Federation of Labor Unions - to a wave of triumphant anti-Israelism. And what goes with this is rhetoric that is at best uncivil, at worst antisemitic.
"Triumphant" in this case means that they no longer feel bound by rules of fact, reason, and civility. Their positions are no longer driven by a consideration of the facts or context, but almost entirely by unexamined emotions - if they feel hate, resentment, etc., these emotions are by definition justifiable by whatever arguments can be found to justify them. It no longer matters where these arguments have factual premises or valid logic; the conclusion is a given.
Within the anti-Israeli camp, it's become an accepted fact that Israel is a force of evil who is solely responsible for the plight of the Palestinians, if not also the occupation of Iraq and the misfortune of all other Arabs. This extreme perspective requires extreme justification, and the result is a tacit acceptance of truly intolerable opinions, including Holocaust denial, the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and similarities between Israel and Nazi Germany. Violence and intimidation are understandable, perhaps tolerable if not acceptable within anti-Israeli camp because the sense of outrage is so palpable that it needs an outlet. Anyone who shows up with an Israeli flag at an anti-Israeli rally is asking for a harsh reaction, after all.
Triumphant anti-Israelism will only get more extreme, especially as it gets reinforced by far-leftist rhetoric (e.g., Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky) that supports it. It finds truth in identifying "conspiracies" that put responsibility for the war in Iraq (and even 9/11) on "Zionist interests." In the end, one of two things will happen:
1) It becomes genuinely subversive, not just to the debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict and unrest in the Middle East, but indeed to the safety of Jews everywhere in the world, the integrity of the press, and a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
2) It fizzles out on its own, as an increasing number of people decide it's gone too far and disassociate themselves from it. A clear distinction is made between those who are critical to Israel and those who hate Jews, the latter group becoming smaller and more marginalized over time.
One thing is clear: triumpant anti-Israelism is not to be reasoned with. They are not open for facts, logic, or any other valid rhetorical devices. Responding in kind only encourages their behavior and reinforces their convictions. Shouting back also gives the general public the sense that the other side also is extreme.
Perhaps the most effective strategy is to consistently expose their lies, bigotry, and violent tendencies to the outside world, to show that their extremism has no validity, that any reasonable person would be ashamed to be associated with them.
Comments