There was a time when I would get letters from readers who felt my Irish roots made me more willing to give credence to Sinn Fein’s agenda for Ireland than was warranted. I disagreed with their thesis, but I did not think them “anti-Irish” for raising it. In the same vein, it is possible to disagree with the policies of the Israeli government without being an anti-Semite. Many Israeli citizens oppose the policies of their government.
Some comparisons are in order. A person is not a racist simply because he disagrees with the policies of the NAACP; if that were not the case, black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams would be racists. Calling the public’s attention to the possibility that certain Muslim groups in this country may be supporting Islamic terrorist groups does not make one “anti-Arab,” just as criticizing Irish-Americans who support the IRA does not make one anti-Irish. (Ironically, some Jewish commentators — Charles Krauthammer, for example — consider it fair game to question the “dual loyalty” of certain American Muslims, while at the same time accusing those who raise this issue in reference to American Jews of engaging in “classic anti-Semitism.”)
The point is that is possible to be critical of certain members of a racial or ethnic group without harboring an animus against that group as a whole. One author has made the point repeatedly that his criticism of what he calls Israel’s “amen corner” is not a criticism of all American Jews, but only of the relatively small number who put Israel’s interests above those of the United States. (His critics refuse to take him at his word. But that is another story.)
On the other hand, I sometimes get letters that fail to make these distinctions. I think most objective observers would judge the letters anti-Semitic. The letter-writers display a suspicion of Jews because they are Jews, of what they sometimes call “world Jewry.” Every once in a while someone will still send me a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or old essays about the Jews from Henry Ford. I also get letters about powerful Jews in the media and the academy shaping American society to their ends.
Central to all these letters is the notion of dual loyalty, of a willingness on the part of American Jews to put the interests of the Jewish people and the state of Israel above those of the United States. Which is where things get curious of late. At the heart of the logic of the anti-Semite is the notion that Jews in the United States walk in lock-step; that they are dedicated to both promoting the interests of the state of Israel and to “de-Christianizing” this country through the advocacy of secular liberal causes. Anti-Semites make the case that liberal groups such as the ACLU, the major players in Hollywood, liberal teacher groups, newspapers such as The New York Times and the big three television networks can be counted upon to back the interests of Israel and to promote a secular humanist agenda inside the United States. The common denominator is the alleged Jewish determination to strengthen Israel — even at the expense of the United States — and to weaken the historic Christian identity of American society.
It seems to me that it is getting harder for the anti-Semite to make this case. Why? The American invasion of Iraq has muddied the waters. Consider the criticism we hear of late about how “Zionists” and the “Jewish lobby” have inserted themselves into the Bush administration in the person of the “neo-conservatives.” Those who make this charge will point to Jewish strategists such as Richard Perle, Richard Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz. We are told that these individuals pushed for a war with Iraq to further Israel’s interests in the Middle East, and that Jewish writers such as William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer beat the war drums for the same reason in their columns and television commentaries. That a Republican administration that was “conned” into doing Israel’s work is said to indicate the power and cunning of Jewish interests.
I disagree. If we are to accept the above scenario, we must accept that the groups that we have been told are the power base of “Jewish influence” are now working against Israel’s interests. No one questions that the Israeli government supports the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. Yet there is no one more hostile to the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq than the Hollywood left, the academic left, the secular talking heads in the media — the very heart of “Jewish influence” in the anti-Semite’s view of the world. What happened to their dual loyalty? The Jewish movers and shakers in the audience at the Oscar ceremony were overtly hostile to Bush’s war with Iraq. The polls indicate that American Jews are going to vote for John Kerry and against the American foreign policy in the Middle East favored by the Israeli government, regardless of what Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon think about the balance of power in the Middle East. The amen corner is out of the pews and shouting down the preacher.
I am trying to anticipate the letters I will receive from those who are convinced that the dual loyalty of American Jews drives much of American politics. Will they argue that “progressive” American Jews are taking a position at odds with Israel’s foreign policy objectives in some clever strategy meant to mislead the American people? I can’t imagine anyone making much headway with that case. What would be the end game? Or will they argue that the hatred for George W. Bush is so intense in some circles that there are American Jews willing to work against Israel’s interests for a short time in order to get a Democrat back in the White House — at which time they will revert to their pro-Israel stance? That seems too much of a stretch.
I bet I won’t have to wait for long for an answer. I’ll keep you apprised.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
