Overplaying your hand
I usually enjoy reading Melanie Phillips, but her latest post has me seriously worried; it seems to me that there are some issues in it that will lead to the exact opposite result than I hope she intended.
It is a mark of a certain modern form of antisemitism (called 'Israelophobia' in a podcast I recently listened to) to treat Israel using a different standard than one uses for all other nations. Melanie routinely calls people out using that standard, and it is a good standard.
But it needs to be a standard she applies across the board, including when defending Israel and the Jews. If she makes a statement about Jews or Israel, she has to accept that statement being judged by the same standard as if she had made it about anything else. If a Jewish group does deplorable things, denouncing that group is not 'antisemitism'.
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Psalm 137:5-6
Imagine her response if a statement like this were to have some nouns changed around:
“He also implicitly endorsed the hashtag campaign “#BantheADL,” the attempt to shut down the ADL that’s being pushed by far-right and Jew-bashing extremists, by replying, “Perhaps we should run a poll on this.”
Suppose that something that Orthodox Jews, or the nation of Israel, were to propose was 'pushed by far-right extremists' (or far-left extremists, or any other group she could name). Would she, because of the mere endorsement of such groups, denounce the nation of Israel? Suppose that some far-right group were to push circumcision; would she propose that Orthodox Jews stop circumcising??
I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me.
She herself says, 'The ADL's record may be reprehensible'. Let us suppose that that attitude is shared by a whole host of others, including not only the far right but the Orthodox and free-speech libertarians and run-of-the-mill people who see through their lies. Does the presence of one group she opposes mean that the others are, by definition, anti-semitic merely because the group they oppose claims the name Jewish?
She writes:
“This is not a fight in which Jews can properly pick a side. The ADL’s record may be reprehensible. But it is nevertheless correct in calling out X for doing nothing to suppress the Jew-hatred on its site”
This statement is nonsense. One person on one side isn't doing everything that Melanie thinks he should do because, as she acknowledges, his libertarian principles are against that action. Does that mean that the entire cause must be abandoned? What cause could ever be supported under those terms?
She writes:
“This noxious alliance has been seized upon by Greenblatt. “ADL is unsurprised yet undeterred that antisemites, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and other trolls have launched a coordinated attack on our organisation,” said a spokesman.
This undoubted truth ...”
This undoubted truth? I am shocked that anyone who routinely defends Israel would fall for such patent nonsense. She herself quotes a Jewish opponent of the ADL as saying it is an “ultra-left activist org that pushes radical transgenderism, border erasure, police dismantlement and the demolition of free speech,” and then bizarrely says, “However, in taking this position, Jewish conservatives have acquired some deeply unsavoury bedfellows.”
What is this nonsense? If a far-right extremist says that 2+2=4, would she say of a first-grade teacher teaching math, “However, in taking this position...”?
I would ask her what she would think if I were to restack one of her posts and then be challenged with 'being in bed' with someone who posts this kind of nonsense. If the truth about the ADL is that it is an extremist far-left organisation, then she should oppose it, as should every rational person, without regard to who else is attacking it. Everyone should be attacking it!
The record of the ADL is, in recent years, reprehensible. Melanie Phillips, along with everyone else, should denounce it. If I were in the habit of throwing around these accusations, I would say it is anti-semitic. It shouldn’t matter who else is denouncing it, how bad they are, or how many kittens they have killed… everyone should denounce the ADL.
And free speech is a bedrock of our modern society. You can be for it, or against it, or in favour of parts and opposed to parts. But you cannot say it is anti-semitic. You cannot call for a carve-out specifically for Israel, the Jews, or Melanie Phillips and say that everyone can have free speech except on those subjects. Even when being hateful on those subjects. Even when being ignorant and hateful on those subjects.
The best response to speech is more speech. The best response to anti-semitism, or Israelophobia, is good, well-written speech defending Israel or pointing out logical inconsistencies in the anti-semitic position.
Once you realise this is about in-group preference rather than principles, this starts to make much more sense.
I don’t mind a fellow having in-group preference, but he aught to be aware of its presence, and not be afraid to admit its effect.