O what a sensitive surrender
I liked this letter in the Independent. It said what I wanted to say but didn’t have time to say about that Vallely piece.
I found Paul Vallely[‘s] piece disturbing. He states that Theo Van Gogh “routinely described Muslims as ‘goatfuckers’, before one of them murdered him”. Whether or not Van Gogh described Muslims thus, the point is that he was murdered for expressing an opinion in the form of a work of art. Vallely, by emphasising Van Gogh’s “vile”‘ vocabulary, appears almost to be justifying his killing.
Yes. I did want to point that out – and it wasn’t just his emphasizing the vocabulary, it was also the peculiar, sly phrasing – that ‘before one of them murdered him’ sounds unpleasantly pleased, unpleasantly as if he needed to be murdered.
Vallely then gives examples of works of art being self-censored, because of a growing “sensitivity” towards Muslim feelings. These works of art were not self-censored out of sensitivity, but out of fear of a Muslim backlash.
Indeed. Vallely cites as his first illustrative example ‘that a new sensitivity is developing in many quarters’ is the cancellation of ‘Idomeneo’ – but that decision was made strictly on security grounds. Fear is not the same thing as sensitivity, any more than submission is the same thing as peace. There’s something truly repellent about calling a surrender to anticipated threats ‘a new sensitivity’.
Knock it off! some of my best ffriends are goats.
Ah, but would you marry one?
And if anything vile Van Gogh might have said about Muslims was a justification for cutting his throat, does that make it ok to cut the throat of all Muslims who have said vile things about non-Muslims? If one searches hard enough, one may just find an example or two…
OB, there’s a story in the Washington Post today about another group out to censor through fear. The pro-Israeli ADL has apparently been pressuring groups that sponsor talks by Tony Judt – who is a truly harmless leftleaning intellectual, Jewish, lost relatives in the Holocaust, etc. – to cancel those talks. Their success so far is pretty stunning. The story is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/
AR2006100800817.html.
The ADL people are obviously losing their minds. This does explain, though, why the discourse about Israel in the U.S. is so narrow – if criticism is followed by ostracism, charges of anti-semitism, and losing your job, the criticism will be muted. Truly disturbing.
There are two issues in that piece, neither resolved adequately, to my way of thinking: what did the ADL actually say to the Polish Consul and why did the latter give in to whatever pressure he felt had been applied? The article also declines to resolve the confict between two versions of what Judt is allegedly saying. Foxman is quoted as saying “He’s taken the position that Israel shouldn’t exist. That puts him on our radar.” Judt’s view is subsequently given thus: “The solution, he argues, lies in a slow and tortuous walk toward a binational and secular state.”
I don’t think I have any prior knowledge of Judt. Is the description “truly harmless leftleaning intellectual, Jewish” something you got from the article or know from other sources?
I’m not taking sides here, but there’s enough in the piece to warrant saying “I need to know more than just this to come to a conclusion about what happened in this story.”
Actually, Stewart, I like Judt’s book on postwar Europe. I thought his essay on the decline of American liberalism in the LBR sorta weak, however. He’s a pretty regular contributor to the New York Review of Books, too.
As for the binational state – Judt is just facing reality. If Israel continues to hold the occupied territories, and the demographics trends continue, as everybody thinks they will, Jews will be a minority in Israel in twenty years. At that point, Israel will have to chose between democracy and an ethnic authoritarianism a la South Africa.
Now, one could say that Judt’s point is bogus. One could disagree with it violently for a lot of reasons. But one couldn’t say it was even in the ballpark of anti-Semitism — unless one wants to preempt criticism of Israel. Just as one couldn’t say that the Berlin Opera was anti-Islamic for wanting to put on a Mozart opera, of all things.
The cry of censorship in some way confuses the issue, since there are no forums in which some speech isn’t favored over others. However, this is really about confronting private power that seeks to monopolize, with threats, a certain discourse in order to augment its position in society. The ADL and other pro-Israeli groups have succeeded amazingly well in turning any discussion of Israel into a question of anti-Semitism — so well, in fact, that critism of Israel often does become anti-Semitic, as it becomes a vacuum from which fearful critics flee, afraid of being accused of being anti-Semitic, and into which anti-Semites are attracted. The same thing, by the way, is true with criticism of Islam, which often sounds just like the kind of propaganda about Moslems that the Serbs used in the 90s to slaughter Bosnians.
Stewart, my last point was way too convoluted! All I meant to say was – it is too the ADL’s advantage to shape criticism of Israel into the kind of thing only anti-Semites engage in, in the same way it is to the advantage of Islamicists to make criticism of Islam into the kind of thing only skinheads engage in. To do this requires scaring away a certain kind of critic — the rational one. In an odd way, the ADL isn’t about stamping out anti-semitism, it is about inviting anti-Semites to take over the position of criticizing Israel. Similarly, the Islamicists want white nationalist rightwingers to fill the ranks of those striking out against Islam. Hence, the perpetual low intensity warfare against credible critics like Tony Judt
Thanks for that, roger. This part was particularly interesting –
‘The leaders of the Jewish organizations denied asking the consulate to block Judt’s speech and accused the professor of retailing “wild conspiracy theories” about their roles. But they applauded the consulate for rescinding Judt’s invitation.”
They applauded the consulate for rescinding Judt’s invitation as a result of their phone calls but accused the professor of retailing “wild conspiracy theories” about their roles. Ah.
Actually, Roger, the last part you said was so convoluted was actually very interesting. Lots of people will steer clear of things that look like minefields, even when they could be doing something useful there, while others exploit the fact that something looks like a minefield to try to get some detonations going.