Jacob Weisberg throws his weight behind the boycott
(War in Context) -- by Paul Woodward --
“Don’t boycott Israel,” says the headline in Newsweek.
Jacob Weisberg, editor-in-chief at Slate and author of the piece calls a boycott a “repellent idea” with consequences that are “intrinsically vile.” But pointing out the “sheeplike, liberal opinion” of celebrities like Meg Ryan is unlikely to break up the flock. Indeed, Weisberg must vastly overestimate his own degree of influence in Hollywood if he imagines that his protestations will have more effect than do celebrities influence each other.
His appeal is perhaps not an effort to shepherd celebrity opinion but a reflex expression of alarm as he witnesses the boycott movement rapidly acquiring critical mass. Support from politically uninformed but socially influential celebrities is important because it signals the point at which the Palestinian cause rises above its regional, ethnic, religious and historical boundaries, and is being adopted as a humanitarian cause.
Weisberg, in a chaotic effort to marshall his arguments claims:
The stronger case against a cultural boycott of Israel is based on consistency, proportionality, and history. That supporters of this boycott seldom focus on China or Syria or Zimbabwe — or other genuinely illegitimate regimes that systematically violate human rights — underscores their bad faith.The bad faith that proponents of an Israel boycott are supposedly exhibiting is that they are singling Israel out; that Israel as a target of a boycott is a target of victimization. Any fair-minded person would see how much Israel, China, Syria and Zimbabwe have in common and treat them similarly… Oh, but maybe that isn’t exactly what Weisberg’s trying to say.
As a good liberal, Weisberg isn’t eager to play the anti-Semitic card and he doesn’t see an anti-Semitic trend in Hollywood, but he goes ahead and makes the accusation anyway by saying that the boycott movement “is hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism — even if Ryan and Costello intend nothing of the kind.”
There is an issue here that I suspect touches a raw nerve for Weisberg and many others and it’s not thinly disguised anti-Semiticism; it’s the power of social exclusion.
The boycott — at least a particularly ugly form of boycott — is the Israel lobby’s favorite weapon. Attacks on critics of Israel are invariably ad hominem attacks — the campaign against Judge Richard Goldstone being among the most vociferous of such denunciations. This isn’t about vigorous opposition to ideas; it’s about the effort to destroy people — their reputations, their careers, and their social standing.
Weisberg sees the same spirit in the boycott movement:
What they’re saying is, “We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that we are going to treat all of your citizens as pariahs.”...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
And not only Israelis will be treated as pariahs, no doubt Weisberg fears, but the larger "Jewish nation" comprised of diaspora Jewish Zionists like himself who utilize their supremacist network to advance their own social, economic and political agenda in the same way that Jewish Zionists in the Levant have done (if not quite in such a blatantly bigoted manner, as being a minority means they have to tread more carefully than the Judeofascist belligerents that love nothing better than to crush Palestinian skulls, and spit in the face of anyone who objects).
Isn't that really the only moral difference between a thug like Abe Foxman and a thug like Bibi Netanyahu -- that is, the context of what they recognize they can get away with in their respective abodes?
Don't ever bother making moral appeals to Judeofascist sociopaths; there is something missing in them, conscience perhaps, hence all they can understand are the moral restraints of context (in the diaspora, fear of getting caught and held accountable by some Gentile authority) and force (in Israel, fear of being terrorized for their aggression).
Petite, fledgling Judeofascist like Weisberg are merely miniature versions of Abe Foxman. If he were to move to Israel, he would likely become a petite version of Natanyahu, and still sans conscience, although at least there he and his ilk can eventually be isolated and contained, whereas hear they can remain under the radar as warmongering Zionist operatives while still passing themselves off as good liberals.