On Closer Examination

I've always considered myself a liberal. Not a progressive, a liberal. OK, a radical left wing nut job.

But I'm going to have to reconsider. I'm getting the sense that to be a liberal today means supporting the Palestinian cause. And I just can't do it under this government. Just as I couldn't do it under the previous government.

The first step in my awakening was an editorial in The Nation about Richard Rogers, Lord Rogers of Riverside. Seems Lord Rogers agreed to host the inaugural meeting of a group called Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, which group called for a boycott of the Israeli construction industry to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

In the space of five paragraphs, Lord Rogers went from being famous for his "progressive politics" (in the view of The Nation) to being a weak and craven capitalist "caving" to McCarthyism on the basis of a single transaction. Anytime someone rises and falls so quickly, I think someone is playing fast and loose with their arguments. So I did some independent fact checking.

Here's what I can gather. Lord Rogers was threatened with losing a big contract for the expansion of the Jacob Javits center in New York because he had helped to form an organization that wanted to boycott Israel. The Nation is careful to point out that while a boycott of firms or architects who worked on the planned wall separating Israel from Palestine, or on West Bank settlements, had been discussed, no decisions were made at the London meeting.

But there were subsequent meetings. And a simple Google search will yield numerous news reports on the group's call for a boycott. I'm not sure why The Nation would want to gild this particular lilly, but it seems a tad manipulative.

Anyhoo, Rogers faced losing the deal because of his connection to a group either discussing or actively promoting boycotts. Why? The Nation strongly implies some tacit Jewish influence. We are told that Rogers' father is Jewish; the British organizer of the architects' group in question is Jewish. Why is their religion relevant? The irony, of course.

And in case you didn't catch that irony, the piece is entitled "An American Inquisition?", referencing the Church's program of torturing suspected Jews. And, of course, ended up torturing a fair number of their "innocent" (i.e., un-Jewish) friends and neighbors in the process. Get it -- Jews are now attacking anyone with a hint of support for Palestinians, even fellow Jews -- it's a new Inquisition. Just like "innocent" non-Jews got caught up in the Inquisition, "innocent" pro-Palestinian Jews are getting caught up in this new Inquisition. Which is funny because Jews should be spared under a Jewish Inquisition the same way Christians should have been spared under a Christian Inquisition. Get it? Isn't it a scream?

You see, according to the Nation, Rogers was the victim of McCarthyites claiming to speak for all American jews.

Yes, that was the problem. A powerful cabal of Jews.

The news reports said that Rogers was at risk of losing the job because state and Federal laws prohibit doing business with anyone who supports economic boycotts against Israel. And because Jacob Javits was a strong supporter of Israel.

But that wasn't the issue. No. It was not a question of US law, or even US policy supporting a country surrounded by Arab countried which had been economically sanctioned by every Arab country.

It was McCarthyites. A secret cabal of Jews claiming to speak for all Jews.

It was the Elders of Zion.

The funniest part of the entire article for me is where The Nation writes that "Palestinians have become such pariahs that even to appear sympathetic to their cause is dangerous to one's career." See, that's bad. But being subjected to a global boycott because you accept an Israeli government contract, apparently that's not so bad.

Isn't there some justice in saying that you give up your right to say you should not be sanctioned for your political views when you seek to sanction others because of their political views?

But that didn't happen here. No, it was the Elders of Zion.

Now, I would have blown this off the same way I blow off virtually every Wall Street Journal editorial I read, but in the same issue of The Nation there was a story (the cover story, actually) , written by Philip Weiss, discussing a play about Rachel Corrie.

Rachel Corrie seems to have been an exemplary human being. She was a person of strong conviction who lost her life at the age of 23 when she was run over in Gaza by a bulldozer being operated by the Israeli army. The Israeli's were bulldozing Palestinian homes to make way for a security wall, Ms. Corrie stood in front of the bulldozer, wearing an orange vest, and . . . The Israeli army investigation found no wrongdoing. The article strongly suggests that this finding is in error.

Long story short, Ms. Corrie's writings have been turned into a play which has been very well received in the UK. Plans were made to bring the play to the New York Theatre Workshop. But the NYTW backed out, in large part because of its perceptions of the reaction within New York's Jewish community. A significant consideration was the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and Hamas' subsequent refusal to recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And now, I will quote the article:

"Jen Marlowe . . . A Jewish activist . . . says," I don't want to say the Jewish community is monolithic. It isn't. But among many American Jews who are very progressive and fight deeply for many social justice issues, there's a knee-jerk reflexive reaction that happens around issues related to Israel."

"Questions about pressure from Jewish leaders morph quickly into questions about funding. Ellen Stewart, the legendary director of La MaMa E.T.C., which is across East 4th Street from the Workshop, speculates that the trouble began with its "very affluent" board. . . (About a third appear to be Jewish, as am I). This is of course a charged issue. The writer Alisa Solomon, who was appalled by the postponement, nonetheless warns, 'There's something a little too familiar about the image of Jews pulling the puppet strings behind the scenes.'"

You see, it can't be anti-Semitic, because Jen Marlowe is Jewish, the writer is Jewish, and we're told that the writer is being cautious not to raise the specter of the Elders of Zion. So there's nothing wrong in saying that questions about Jews quickly become questions about money. Oh, come one, that's not what the author meant -- don't go there. McCarthyite.

So, you see, they are the Good Jews. The Progressive Jews. They are against censorship. They're not the Bad Jews pulling the puppet strings with their money, the Elders. The McCarthyites claiming to speak for all Jews who pulled their little, invisible purse strings and forced the NYTW to postpont its production. The Zionists.

So, it seems pretty clear where The Nation stands on Zionists like me. I'm for civil rights, but I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists.

Oh, wait, that brings my the the final piece of my day. I'm listening to Air America Radio, the Majority Report with Sam Seder and Jeaneane Garafolo. And Jeaneane is talking about how the Palestinians are victims of poltical and economic oppression at the hands of Israel. And how you can call Hamas terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view.

But, Jeaneane notes a few minutes later, anyone who believes Reagan ended communism has no sense of history, context, nuance or reality. Now, I don't believe that Reagan ended communism, but I accept that there's a legitimate world view that could support that interpretation of history. In fact, I can accept that interpretation of history a lot more easily than I can accept an interpretation that calls Hamas or Fatah "freedom fighters."

Because it wasn't freedom fighters who killed those Israeli athletes in Munich. It wasn't freedom fighters who threw wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer over the side of the hijacked ship Achille Lauro and then joked that he was trying to swim for it. Those were terrorist acts against non-combatants. To provide a little history, context, nuance and reality for Ms. Garafaolo's world view.

And so, it dawned on me. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying any of it. There was no McCarthyite plot against Lord Rogers, there was no Zionist plot against the Rachel Corrie play at New York Theatre Workshop.

And, sorry Jeaneane, it's OK to say Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a freedom fighter organization. Anyone who has stood at Sharm El Sheik when it was Israeli land and then seen it given back to Eqypt for peace; anyone who sees a country continually ceding territory for peace; anyone who sees a country which has been at war for sixty years against a people who want to push them into the sea; anyone who remembers how the Palestinians danced in the streets when Saddam Hussein bombed Israel -- "Mr Saddam Hussein, we are loving ou too much;" anyone who has seen all that has just a little too much of a sense of history, context, nuance and reality to embrace Hamas as freedom fighters.

I don't believe that Rogers' political views should have threatened his ability to work in New York, I don't believe that Rachel Correy deserved to die and I recognize Hamas as the elected government of Palestine.

I'm just not buying these conspiracy theories citing nameless and faceless McCarthyites and "very affluent" Jews and Jewish progressives who have lost their way.

I'm not buying the Elders of Zion thing.

I don't think that the problem is within the Jewish community at all. I think that neither Lord Rogers nor New York Theatre Workshop has the courage of their convictions. Maybe the irony here is that Lord Rogers could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Jacob Javits and NYTW could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Rachel Corrie.

But, since it seems to be a key ingredient of the progressive Kool-Aid to support the Palestinian cause and buy into some Elders of Zion Jewish conspiracy theory, and since I can't do that under this government, as I could not under the previous Palestinian government, I guess I'm part of the problem. A McCarthyite. An Elder.

So, I'm hanging up my liberal moniker and identifying myself as a civil libertarian.

Which means, in my book, I don't have to agree with what you say, but I do support your right to say it.

Even you, Jeaneane.

You ignorant slut.