The Zionist Left

If I've tired of discussing Israel, it's because I can't seem to write a post I haven't already written. When I saw Leonard Fein's excellent article in Dissent explaining what it means to be a liberal Zionist, I was struck by not only the article's objective truth, but its tragic hopelessless. If you think Israel as a Jewish state is a good thing, even if your ideal Jewish state would be downright communist, you have no place on the left. I've said it before, and I appear to be saying it again. Does this make the Dissent crowd Republicans? Conservatives? No, not necessarily. But it's telling that when do-gooder Nicholas Kristof defines the bad and good Israelis (a nuanced approach), he opposes those who fight for Jews, albeit from the right, and those concerned with the Palestinians, needless to say from the left. It is inconceivable by a mainstream or marginal Western (and I do not include Israel as Western) liberal standard that a good Jewish liberal might be interested in doing good for Jews, or for Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis alike. If you are a Jewish Israeli advocating for gay rights, redistribution of wealth, and less stringent marriage and conversion laws, that is, causes that are not specifically about the Palestinians, you are invisible as far as the left anywhere but Israel is concerned.

Up for discussion

The main justification I've seen from reliable sources for why having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia was a good idea is that an open discussion gives the world a chance to see dumb/evil ideas for what they are, and gives the audience a chance to show how horrible 'we all know' it is to deny the Holocaust or to wish Israel off the map. The thing is, many Americans think the Iranian leader is kinda-sorta right on both counts, and have interpreted him as a sort of exotic Walt-Mearsheimer with that silly but forgivable non-Western quirk of homophobia. His visit to Columbia was not a chance to prove him and his worldview wrong, but rather a chance to have a fair-to-both-sides debate about the self-determination of the Jewish nation and over whether genocide is really such a big deal.

Jacob Levy is right that shooting down Ahmadinejad before he even spoke made him look sympathetic. And he's right again when he notes, "One can refuse to invite." But he's missing something when he writes that "One can invite, and treat courteously, while relying on the general principle that such an invitation does not imply endorsement of the views expressed." There are different levels of endorsement. One extreme would be a pro-life group inviting the Pope to give a speech, i.e., preaching to the converted. The other would be a Campus Democrats group inviting a Republican speaker with whom they know ahead of time they will disagree on almost all the issues. But any invitation implies that there's a serious discussion to be had, and that there is a good-faith case to be made for both sides. On some level everything is up for discussion--Should 3-year-olds be allowed to marry? How about horses?--but in reality, organizations and individuals must set parameters for debate, with the understanding that a logical argument isn't an effective response to everything, and that responding logically to nonsense can at times imply that the nonsense is itself a reasonable position. Ultimately what made Ahmadinejad 'look good' was a combination of a) what Levy said, his unfriendly reception, b) the fact that he was invited at all, implying that Columbia does think his views deserve a platform, and c) the happy coincidence that Walt and Mearsheimer paved the way for many of Ahmadinejad's arguments. And thanks to W & M every protest from a pro-Israel Jew is interpreted as part of a vast cabal whose power needs to be checked. As if Jews are not, well, frightened, and justifiably so, by any of this.

Again, we're pretty much screwed.