Author: James Taber
Although I hesitate to respond, I feel that Patrick Rice’s article entitled “It’s Time for a Power Check” should not go unaddressed. It is frustrating that conversations concerning Israel usually center around whether or not it has a right to exist and on traditional anti-Semitic themes. I would prefer to engage in a dialogue concerning the feasibility of Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert’s plan for unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories or the role religious fanaticism plays in policymaking, but unfortunately this is not the nature of the discussion Rice has initiated.
How does one engage in a discussion about an issue when the point of departure is deeply entrenched in baseless allegations and thinly veiled anti-Semitism? A topic as complex as Israel’s relationship with its neighbors demands the utmost scrutiny. Arguments must be founded on fact. Too often the debate degenerates into hearsay and propaganda. I question, among other arguments, the validity of Rice’s claim concerning Israel’s intentions in their late war bombings. He writes that “90% of these bombs were dropped in the last three days of the war, when peace was inevitable, but Israel wanted to inflict as much civilian damage as possible.” It is wrong to present an interpretation of intent as a fact relating to a serious military conflict.
Furthermore, I question Rice’s claim that politicians and the media are cowed into silence by the threat of being called an anti-Semite and that “AIPAC has used the threat of this label to eliminate all debate.” How has this precedent been set? Who has been labeled an anti-Semite and by whom? I do not believe that a vote against Israeli military aid has ever resulted in a politician being branded an anti-Semite.
Rice’s claims of AIPAC’s financial influence are greatly exaggerated. According to opensecrets.org, the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, pro-Israel political action committees donated $3,026,843 to federal candidates. Compare this to $7,267,974 donated by oil and gas political action committees and it becomes clear which lobbying group has the financial potential to influence American foreign policy.
What is abundantly clear to me is that the nature of Rice’s condemnation of Israel intrinsically relates to poorly masked anti-Semitism. There is a history of allegations of Jewish control of media, government and finance. Intentional or not, Rice’s suggestion of AIPAC’s “vast financial and political connections” echoes the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion-an anti-Semitic document cited as “fact” by organizations as disparate as the Nazis (Mein Kampf) and Hamas (Article 32, Hamas Charter). The document, later determined to be forged, is the supposed minutes of a meeting of world Jewry seeking world domination; similar to Rice’s article, the Protocols outline Jewish control of the media and government as well as the practice of catastrophes in order to claim victimhood.
It is unacceptable to invalidate any group’s persecution. It is unacceptable to allege Israeli control over United States foreign policy with half truths and equivocation. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to infer Jewish control over western media. Discussions about Israeli human rights violations or debates about their foreign policies do not happen because arguments such as Rice’s degenerate into age-old anti-Semitism, it is not because they are censored by the so-called Zionist occupation of the U.S. government. These are no longer legitimate criticisms but rather unfounded prejudices. It is impossible to legitimately position oneself as anti-Israeli when one’s argument is deeply entrenched in anti-Semitism.
James Taber is an junior CTSJ major. He can be reached at jtaber@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
