Any doubt we might have that the Israeli right has lost itsmind should be eliminated by the latest column from one of its most prominentmedia figures, Caroline Glick of the JerusalemPost.
Glick, a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, hasflipped out over some remarks (which we'll get to later) made last week by Secretary of StateHillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Ambassador to Belgium HowardGutman. And here is howshe explains those remarks.
Her first explanation is that "the Obama administration isan ideological echo chamber in which only certain positions are permitted."
Restrained by ideological thought police that outlawcritical thought about the dominant forces in the Islamic world today, USofficials have little choice but to place all the blame for everything thatgoes wrong on the one society they are free to criticize -- Israel.
That, in itself, borders on hilarious.
Anyone who pays even a modicum of attention to the MiddleEast knows that rather than "place all the blame for everything" on Israel, theObama administration blames Israel for nothing while providing more foreign aidto Israel than to any other country, supporting it on every issue at the United Nations -- often against America's owninterests -- and never, ever attaching any conditions to our aid or support (aswe do with every other country in the world).
The only thing President Obama has asked of Israel duringhis entire term is for a three-month settlement freeze, to which Israel said no.(Prime Minister Netanyahu himself says Obamahas earned a "badge of honor" for his uncritical support for Israel.)
It is Glick's second explanation of the Obamaadministration's attitude toward Israel that demonstrates the mindset of thosewhose ardor for maintaining the occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gazatrumps the security of Israel. Get ready.
The second possible explanation for the administration'streatment of Israel is that it is permeated by anti-Semitism. The outsizedresponsibility and culpability placed on Israel by the likes of Obama, Clinton,Panetta and Gutman is certainly of a piece with classical anti-Semiticbehavior.
They are anti-Semites! Who would have imagined?
Not only are Obama, Panetta and Clinton anti-Semites, butthey are, she writes, from the "classical" school (by which she means, I guess,that their antipathy toward Jews comes from reading The Merchant of Venice and OliverTwist).
I'll leave Gutman out for now because he is Jewish, whichmeans that a "classical" anti-Semite he cannot be.
I am not going to address the absurdity of calling any ofthese people anti-Semites, a term that refers not (take note, Abe Foxman) to disagreeingwith policies of the state of Israel, but to disliking Jews, discriminatingagainst them, and, at worst, doing them bodily harm.
Disliking Israel or its policies does not make oneanti-Semitic anymore than disliking Saudi Arabia or its policies makes oneanti-Muslim.
Yes, some people who dislike Israel and/or its policies areanti-Semitic, but, by the same token, so are many (in the Christian right, inparticular) who profess love for Israel and defend every one of its policies.
Of course, none of the people Glick calls anti-Semitic areremotely anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic.
Under President Obama, strategic military cooperationbetween Israel and the United States has reached an all-time high, as evenObama critic and neocon Elliot Abrams agrees.
Secretary of Defense Panetta said last week that America's"unshakeable bond" with Israel is the first of the "three pillars" on whichU.S. policies in the Middle East stand and will remain so as long as he isDefense Secretary.
As for Secretary of State Clinton, her support for Israel andfor progressive and Jewish causes during her years as First Lady, Senator fromNew York, and now Secretary of State has made her one of the most popularpolitical figures in the American Jewish community.
Anti-Semites!
Glick reminds me of the truth of philosopher August Bebel'sstatement that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools." If he were alivetoday and read Glick and other neocons like her, he'd surely say that "invokinganti-Semitism is the Zionism of fools."
But enough about Glick.
What about those statements by administration figures thatgot the neocons so bent out of shape?
First, there was Panetta's.
According to neocon blogger (and Caroline Glick sidekick)Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, Panettawas being "antagonistic" to Israel when he said that Israel's security would beenhanced if it would "reach out and mend fences with those who share aninterest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well asJordan. This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those keyrelationships in this crucial area."
As Rubin -- an ardentand outspoken Mitt Romney supporter -- explains, callingon Israel to "reach out" was typical of Panetta's view that everything bad inthe Middle East is "Israel's fault" when, as she continuously argues, absolutelynothing is.
Then there was Clinton, who decriedthe effort in Israel to ban international funding for progressiveIsraeli NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that work in Israel on democracybuilding, civil rights, protectingminorities, environmental issues, and gay and women's issues, to name a few.
Clinton pointed out that she goes around the world promotingacceptance of NGOs and their empowerment, and the Israeli right was trying toshut them down with the support of the Netanyahu government.
The right-wing Commentarywebsite called Clinton's remarks an "anti-Israel" broadside, althoughthankfully not classical anti-Semitism. Of course, that would require callingthe Anti-Defamation League anti-Semitic, because it shares Clinton'sviews on the NGO law.
I'll devote the least space to Ambassador Gutman's remark because,although it stirred the most outrage among the usual suspects, the hysteria istransparently ridiculous.
Gutman said that what he calls Muslim anti-Semitism "stemsfrom the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." This ratherobvious statement caused a brouhaha because, as Jeff Goldberg tells us,anti-Semitism comes from the air and is, in no way, connected to anythingIsrael does.
Goldberg writes: "Jewsdo not cause anti-Semitism; blacks do not cause racism; gays do not causehomophobia. Hatred is a mental and spiritual illness, not a politicalposition."
Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, asIsraeli writer Yossi Gurvitz points out.
Muslim-baiting in this country stems from the misconceptionthat Muslims, as a people, were responsible for 9/11. Anti-Japanese hysteria inthe United States reached fever pitch because of Pearl Harbor. And Muslimantipathy toward Jews is, as everyone knows, directly connected to the historyof Palestine since the Zionist movement began.
We may not like it. We may wish it wasn't so. But all ittakes is talking to a Muslim (whether from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia,or anywhere else) to discover that yes, the displacement of the Palestinians isat the root of any antipathy that exists. (Much like Israeli antipathy towardPalestinians has something to do with terrorism.)
The good news is that Gutman's truth-telling is not costinghim his job, a sign, I guess, that the classical anti-Semites are really incharge!
It's insane. But less insane than this crowd's current bigproject: war with Iran.
Question: If Israel bombs Iran, how will Jeff Goldbergexplain the world's rage toward Israel? Will fury over the attack stem from thefact that it plunged the region into war and crashed the world economy or willit just be another result of some "mental or spiritual illness"? You know theanswer.