Imagine My Surprise

Okay, so I don't know anything about the Middle East Studies Association. But I do know Michael Rubin and I do know the corner, so when I saw Rubin slam MESA for being worried about Israeli human rights violations but ignoring problems in other countries, I was 99.98 percent sure he was full of crap. And, indeed, just a week before the "Broad assault on the education system in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" letter that so annoyed Rubin, we find MESA standing up for Iranian-American scholars arrested as part of Teheran's recent crackdown. On May 29 they had a different letter about Iran clamping down. Here's an April 17 letter about academic freedom in Saudi Arabia.

Just another day in National Review reading.

Comments

You know, this is about the tenth time I have come to your blog after selecting it from my bookmarks, and within moments believed I was reading Andrew Sullivan's blog. Your blogs look so similar. I'll bet you anything I'm not the only one having this problem.

Posted by -asx- | June 22, 2007 9:43 AM

I wonder if it ever occurs to these guys that people like myself hold Israel to a higher standard and believe that it can actually be influenced by reason, discussion and democratic principals in a way that, say, Iranian mullahs or Kim Jong Il or the Taliban can't.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 9:50 AM

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 9:50 AM:"I wonder if it ever occurs to these guys that people like myself hold Israel to a higher standard and believe that it can actually be influenced by reason, discussion and democratic principals in a way that, say, Iranian mullahs or Kim Jong Il or the Taliban can't."

So let me get this right: if Israel suffered a military coup tonight and tomorrow thousands of people would be arrested, tortured, executed without trial and so on, you'd sleep better and complain a lot less about human rights - in fact the state of the world would *improve* because Israel could no longer be influenced by reason and so would no longer have to be held to a higher standard?

Or is it just a case of "We choose to criticise Israel this decade and do the other things, not because they are hard, but because they are easy"?

No doubt people have considered this as a reason for holding Israel to a higher standard. And no doubt they too have rejected it as specious. We should struggle harder for human rights in Syria not just because the human rights abuses are vastly worse but precisely because we can do so little about it.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 10:09 AM

Welcome to the intersection of "everyone singles out Israel for criticism" and "academics are too liberal." Academics are, in fact, liberal, though my sense is that's mainly driven by social issues rather than economic ones Meanwhile, while not directly relevant to the MESA example, where I thought the detained academics case did get a lot of press, the bottom line is that Israel is a high-profile issue that people generally see in a positive light, so criticism of it is going to be seen as more "newsworthy" than that of other countries.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 22, 2007 10:27 AM

Wow, what a tower of bullshit.

First, this-- "in fact the state of the world would *improve* because Israel could no longer be influenced by reason and so would no longer have to be held to a higher standard?"-- is simply nonsensical. It doesn't meet even the barest standards of logic.

Second, you are proceeding from the assumption that the human rights organizations (or I) don't condemn Syrua or North Korea or whatever else regime. That's just not true. It's a flat lie that HRW or Amnesty don't condemn these places. They do all the time. I know Marty Peretz likes to pretend that that isn't the case, but it is. Those organizations do, and I do. What I don't pretend is that I, or Amnesty or HRW or anyone else, can shame Syria into not killing Lebanese democrats. I don't pretend that I can use reason or argument to convince the North Korean government to make liberal reforms. Israel, for all of the faults that I think it has, has a democratic process through which it can be improved. I'm realistic about what dialog can accomplish.

Third, my government doesn't send billions and billions of dollars to Syria in foreign and military aid. My government doesn't give almost unfettered access to our military and intelligence services to Syria. The fact is that Israel exists in its current state because of the United States. That support creates a) responsibility and b) a reasonable expectation that the American people should have a voice in Israel's policy. When you ignore that facet of the discussion (like Jonah Goldberg or Marty Peretz) you're being deeply dishonest.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"Wow, what a tower of bullshit."

Well I work at it on weekends you know.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"First, this-- "in fact the state of the world would *improve* because Israel could no longer be influenced by reason and so would no longer have to be held to a higher standard?"-- is simply nonsensical. It doesn't meet even the barest standards of logic."

Well it does actually. If you have two sets of standards (say 24 countries in Group A and 170 countries in Group B) and one of those in Group A is not meeting those standards while all 170 in Group B are meeting your lower standards, then if that one country in Group A falls into Group B, the entire world meets your standards. That is an improvement, isn't it? By your logic a military coup would take Israel from unacceptable in your eyes to acceptable in one short step - even though human rights abuses would *increase* because Israel would no longer have to reach Group A levels.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"Second, you are proceeding from the assumption that the human rights organizations (or I) don't condemn Syrua or North Korea or whatever else regime. That's just not true. It's a flat lie that HRW or Amnesty don't condemn these places. They do all the time."

I am flatly not proceeding from any such assumption. Can you spot a straw man argument? What I am saying is that you are defending the practice of condemning Israel *more* than other countries with vastly worse human rights records *because* it is democratic. As you said. I would assume the same is true for HRW and AI but I'll save that until their members turn up.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"What I don't pretend is that I, or Amnesty or HRW or anyone else, can shame Syria into not killing Lebanese democrats. I don't pretend that I can use reason or argument to convince the North Korean government to make liberal reforms."

Absolutely. Who said you could? But who said that shame is the only tool in the box? An academic boycott, for instance, might have useful but of course I only see one of those being imposed any where in the world. What I continue to point out is that this is a reason to be *tougher* on Syria and North Korea than on Israel. Yet you, by your own admission, do not do so but give them a pass.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"Israel, for all of the faults that I think it has, has a democratic process through which it can be improved. I'm realistic about what dialog can accomplish."

Which is interesting but irrelevant. Israel does have a democratic process. But who said that dialog is the only action you can take? Who said that you ought to ignore those people who are impervious to your reasoned argument? Not me.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"Third, my government doesn't send billions and billions of dollars to Syria in foreign and military aid."

But it does to Egypt and so what if the US does? How does this make Israel's human rights situation worse than Syria's as it seems to be to you? Do you think that perhaps supporting your country's allies and foreign policy might be a good reason *not* to hold Israel to a higher standard? Should Israel be punished for being America's friend?

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM:"That support creates a) responsibility and b) a reasonable expectation that the American people should have a voice in Israel's policy."

Which is interesting but also irrelevant. I don't agree with it, but let's assume for now it is true. So what? How are America's interests furthered by the constant demonisation of America (through the Israeli stalking horse) that your double standards produces? What benefit does the American public have in holding Israel to a higher standard than anyone else?

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM When you ignore that facet of the discussion (like Jonah Goldberg or Marty Peretz) you're being deeply dishonest."

I don't ignore it, it is just irrelevant to anything I have said. *You* might want to make this about Peretz, but I don't see why I should be bound by anything they have said.

So we are still stuck with the basic fact that you have a double standard here based on the fact that Israel is nicer than anyone else in the region. Odd.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 10:56 AM

Actually the different MESA statement don't seem that comparable at all. The ones on the non-Israeli countries deal with treatment of academics and academic freedom, traditional concerns of an academic association. By contrast, the one on Israel takes a position on general political policies. The status quo of government oppression in non-Israeli
countries goes unmentioned.

Posted by rd | June 22, 2007 11:00 AM

By your logic a military coup would take Israel from unacceptable in your eyes to acceptable in one short step - even though human rights abuses would *increase* because Israel would no longer have to reach Group A levels.

No. Again, I mean, you are simply making an argument that doesn't have an even basic grasp of logic. I mean I'm sitting here stunned at such a twisted, inane line of logic. I have not in any way suggested that the fact that these regimes can't be influenced by democratic processes means that they are "acceptable". In fact, I think I've made it quite clear that Israel is vastly superior to these regimes precisely because Israel is democratic and changeable through rigorous dialog. I'm saying that I condemn Israel's human rights violations more often because Israel has the virtue of democracy and due process. These other countries can't be engaged in the same way because they aren't nearly on the social democratic level of Israel. And yet you are saying that I find these countries better because they are immune to those criticisms? In what universe is "immunity to the effects of rational criticism because of a lack of basic democratic ideals" synonymous with "acceptable"?

I've encountered some truly bizarre and disingenuous thinking in the service of a message board argument before, but... Really. This takes the cake.

What I am saying is that you are defending the practice of condemning Israel *more* than other countries with vastly worse human rights records *because* it is democratic.

In one sense-- yes. Exactly so. A democracy shouldn't just do better than Syria or North Korea. A democracy shouldn't rest on just being better than horrid dictatorships. A democracy should be held to a higher standard. In another sense, the question is, what do you mean, condemning Israel more? If you are suggesting that I think that Israel is worse than those countries, you're wrong. You're making that up. If you think that I spend more time criticizing Israel than those countries, that's probably true. No one is defending those countries! No one is making the argument that North Korea is a benevolent actor on the world stage. I spend more time criticizing Israel because there isn't anybody in mainstream discourse saying "You know who's great? Kim Jong Il." Meanwhile, there is an enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby and media presence to be debated.

Yet you, by your own admission, do not do so but give them a pass.

Actually, as I have said, I don't give them a pass. Who said I'm giving them a pass? In fact, regarding whether I condemn them, I said "Those organizations do, and I do." So where's this admission? Of course I condemn those regimes. I also condemn Israel for practices that I find incompatible with my moral and political compass. So where's the beef? Why is it wrong for me to condemn behavior I find reprehensible?

Who said that you ought to ignore those people who are impervious to your reasoned argument? Not me.

Umm, and not me, either. Who said I ignore those regimes? You're simply making that up. You're pulling it out of the ether.

But it does to Egypt

The suggestion that Egypt receives anything close to the support that Israel does from the US is simply, empirically wrong. It's not even close.

How does this make Israel's human rights situation worse than Syria's as it seems to be to you?

It doesn't. As I made quite clear, it does, instead, increase my responsibility to change it, because my government makes it possible. I live in a democratic republic. That makes me responsible for the actions of my government. My government makes Israel's horrid abuses of human rights possible. For Syria, that's not the case. The point isn't that Syria is worse. The point is that my tax dollars fund Israel, which makes it my duty, as a responsible citizen, to condemn their use in human rights violations.

How are America's interests furthered by the constant demonisation of America (through the Israeli stalking horse) that your double standards produces? What benefit does the American public have in holding Israel to a higher standard than anyone else?

I don't care about furthering America's interests. I care about America being a moral agent.

My question for you, and Rubin, and Marty Peretz, et al., is this: why does the fact of other, worse regimes in the world mean that we have to abandon criticisms of Israel? Is that a principal you are consistent with? Do you suggest that I can't condemn China's human rights abuses because they aren't as bad as some other countries? I can't condemn Vladimir Putin, because, hey, at least he's not Osama?

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 12:50 PM

Hey Matt - how about a response to Nat'l review? You've been called out!

"Matthew Yglesias, from his perch at the Atlantic, does its reputation a disservice when he creates a straw man argument rather than demonstrate integrity. Either purposely or carelessly, he misstates my argument about the Middle East Studies Associaiton (MESA) and then responds to his own straw man argument.

According to his summary, I criticized MESA "for being worried about Israeli human rights violations but ignoring problems in other countries." No, Matthew. I criticized MESA for ignoring the case of Salman Rushdie, "not problems in other countries." And, in my last two postings (here's the other one ), I cited MESA's cases from this month only so it's a bit silly to bring in examples of their criticism of Saudi Arabia in April. How about some honesty and accuracy amidst your polemic?

Indeed, Matthew, let's have something positive from your mistake: Now that you've re-read my piece, don't you agree that MESA, given how wide it now considers its mandate to highlight academic freedom, should condemn those calling for the murder of writers and with a demonstrated record of being willing to act on their calls? And don't you agree that consistency in the defense of free speech would benefit MESA's credibility?

Posted by sunbeltjerry | June 22, 2007 1:13 PM

How does not criticizing Iran over it's stance on the knighting of Rushdie translate into never criticizing other middle eastern countries? You would think that this would be exactly the type of freedom of expression issue that MESA should champion.

Posted by Dave | June 22, 2007 1:56 PM

The suggestion that Egypt receives anything close to the support that Israel does from the US is simply, empirically wrong. It's not even close.

Egypt recieves 2/3 of on books foreign aid that gets given to Israel, but they get it as part of a bribe to play nice with Israel so that chunk of money is really just more aid to Israel.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2007 2:09 PM

Also, the US's aid to Israel also involves incredible access to America's military and intelligence apparatus. It's really unprecedented, the level of interoperability between the two governments defense forces.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2007 3:33 PM

Despite Rubin's later follow-up, it remains pretty clear he was talking out of his hat in his first post, from which one would definitely get the (very false) impression MESA has said never said a critical word against the Iranian government. As an alternative explanation to Rubin's implication of bias, I think it's worth noting that the actions that Rubin complains that MESA took rather than condemning Iran on Rushdie took place in 2006 and very early 2007, i.e., MESA is just slow.

Posted by sj | June 22, 2007 7:54 PM