Friday, February 8, 2008
The Arun Gandhi episode has predictably allowed some of the usual suspects to take an opportunistic shot at their favorite targets. Z-Word has some worthwhile commentary on the intrusion of one of the most usual of the usual suspects, John Mearsheimer, into the matter by way of some quotes at a site called India Outlook.
Before the Mearsheimer remarks, let's refresh ourselves on just what Gandhi wrote that pushed his piece out of the realm of the simply ignorant and into something worse than ignorant:
We have created a culture of violence (and Israel and the Jews are the prime instigators) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.
Would there be any identifiable ethnic group that wouldn't express outrage at remarks like that? Any? Particularly the Jews, in whose history the echoes of that exact charge have been used to further murderous incitement? Mearsheimer:
"You cannot make these arguments in the US without incurring the wrath of the Israel lobby, which is a remarkably powerful interest group," Mearsheimer told Outlook. "In short, Gandhi would have gotten into serious trouble with the lobby even if he had chosen his words carefully, simply because he criticised Israel and its American supporters, which one does at his or her own peril."
If he had chosen his words more carefully. But he didn't, and when, quite understandably, he was confronted, he didn't make it any better, but simply exposed himself further. Yet that doesn't stop John Mearsheimer from taking the opportunity to get his digs in and maybe sell a few books along the way. Imagine if I said, "Oh, Mel Gibson...he didn't choose his words very carefully, but even if he had, he would have been attacked by very powerful forces," or with regard to African-Americans, I said, "Oh, that David Duke, he may not make his arguments very carefully, but it really wouldn't matter because all those race-hustlers would be all over him anyway..."
There may be reasonable grounds for criticizing establishment Jewish groups and there may be grounds for criticizing establishment Black groups, but criticizing them for speaking out on legitimate issues doesn't inform that particular controversy one way or the other. In fact, using the controversy to take a shot at those groups for speaking out in a way that any other group or individual would or should says quite a bit about the one taking the shot, as it does about everyone quoted in that article above.
When I originally posted about the issue, I didn' t need anyone to tell me to go after Gandhi. I can read, I can think, and I can get the implications and I knew that there would be plenty of other people out there who would feel the same way and that it was therefore worth posting about. Am I supposed to be silent because it somehow plays into the no win trap set by people like Mearsheimer? No. The fault is his and Gandhi's, not the rest of ours.
Z-Word concludes:
...As well as the "culture of violence" remark noted above, Gandhi's piece lambasted Jewish attitudes towards the Holocaust ("It is a very good example of how a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.") It was, by turns, astonishingly crass ("The holocaust - sic - was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful") and crackling with resentment ("The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.")
None of this can be remotely construed as criticism of Israel, its government, or its policies. This is an article which accuses Jews of morally blackmailing the world with a narrative of victimhood. Why people write such disturbing, patently untrue things is the real question which should occupy all of us.
Harry's Place has a discussion of an issue that somehow seems appropriate here: International Jewry
In case there was ANY DOUBT about Mearscheimer/Walt's true agenda, I think these comments remove them altogether.
The attack on "the Israel lobby" smacked of racism from the get-go and now I have no doubt whatsoever that it's antisemitic to the bone.
I strongly suggest also a reading of this article, linked by Martin Kramer:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/19.33.html
A quote of W&M from the review:
"[cannot] be explained on either strategic or moral grounds."
That's the crux of it (or one of the cruxes anyway).
In fact, it CAN be explained on both strategic AND moral grounds, it's just that W&M aren't convinced (are they interested? really?) by the answers. Thus there must be other explanations...a hidden hand at work.