Jewish Fact Check #8: Glenn Greenwald and "revolting provenance"

I don't necessarily want to keep harping on this issue of critics of Israel falsely claiming they can't talk about Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism, but if writers like Glenn Greenwald keep writing things that distort and misinterpret what others have written, I guess I have no choice.

Greenwald's Feb. 18 article in Salon is mostly a strange attack on Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), but I'll get to that later. First, though, let's look at this passage in Greenwald's piece:

...you'd best keep in mind the stern warnings issued last week by Jonathan Chait and Jeffrey Goldberg: namely, the mere suggestion that some Americans favor U.S. aggression in the Muslim world due to concerns about Israel, rather than the U.S., has a "revolting provenance" that "should disgust all thinking people." Thus, while quasi-clearing Andrew Sullivan of anti-semitism charges, they warned all of us that one had better be extremely careful in how one discusses such matters (as Sullivan failed to do) lest one be justifiably (even if wrongly) accused of anti-Semitism

So Greenwald is saying that Chait and Goldberg (actually, Goldberg merely linked approvingly to Chait's piece) claim that even uttering the fact that concerns about Israel enter into some Americans' views of the Middle East is evidence of possible anti-Semitism. Greenwald would be right, that would be ridiculous -- except The New Republic's Chait never wrote anything of the sort. Here's what Chait did write:

Leon notes, correctly, that Andrew has begun repeating tropes that happen to track classic anti-Semitic canards. His obsession with the singular power of the Israel lobby, writes Leon "has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people." Agreed. But just because an idea has a revolting provenance, it does not follow that everybody who subscribes to any version of it shares the same motive.

Chait didn't write that anyone who makes the "mere suggestion that some Americans favor U.S. aggression in the Muslim world due to concerns about Israel" is guilty of holding an idea with a "revolting provenance," he said that an obsession with the "singular power of the Israeli lobby" has an "revolting provenance." Being obsessed with the "singular power of the Israeli lobby"--that means thinking the Israel lobby is the most powerful lobby in the U.S., bar none. That means believing that the Israeli lobby is much more powerful than the farm lobby or the gun lobby or anything else, that it alone drives the decisionmaking of the United States in the Middle East. Yeah, some people may believe this, but it's simply not true. And that view does have a "revolting provenance"--it's an obvious echo of the anti-Semitic trope that Jews are pulling the strings, controlling the world. And yet Greenwald somehow equates having an obsession with the "singular power of the Israeli lobby" with "the mere suggestion that some Americans favor U.S. aggression in the Muslim world due to concerns about Israel." It's hard to believe a guy like Greenwald, who makes his living writing and using words, could so obviously misconstrue someone else's article--unless he was just trying to make a political point.

The main thrust of Greenwald's piece, though, is his thoughts on a nine and a half-minute speech Rep. Gary Ackerman gave to Jewish groups in New York. He writes that after listening to the speech: "It's simply impossible to deny that this highly influential American Congressman, devoted to pushing the U.S. to war with Iran, is driven, at least in substantial part, by his fervent devotion to Israel. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is much wrong with trying to force people to pretend it's not true."

First, a couple of facts. Ackerman, of course, devotes about 30 seconds to Iran in the speech highlighted, and says nothing about war or military action. He simply says that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a "worry" and "concern." Does anyone seriously disagree with that? Ackerman has supported sanctions on the Iranian regime, but has not endorsed a military strike. In fact, earlier this month, he counseled "patience" in trying to figure out how to support the dissident movement in Iran while also hastening the demise of the regime. (Greenwald is likely thinking of a resolution Ackerman sponsored two years ago, which critics said was "an act of war" but which Ackerman said was no such thing, while also pointing out that it was a non-binding resolution merely advocated increased economic and political pressure on the regime.)

Second, in all of Greenwald's fury over Ackerman's defense of Israel in the speech over the Goldstone Report and other matters, the Salon writer ignores the most interesting part of Ackerman's speech: the passage in which he urges Israel to negotatiate a settlement with the Palestinians, something I'd think Greenwald would want to hear. The New York congressman talks about how Israel currently has a "qualitative edge" in military technology, but such an edge will get increasingly smaller. "Time is not friendly to you if you're winning the race," he said. "Cut your deal, get the best deal when you're ahead," he continues, adding that Israel
"has to figure out a way to get the Palestinians back to the table and talk peace."

But Greenswald's main point is this "It's simply impossible to deny that this highly influential American Congressman, devoted to pushing the U.S. to war with Iran, is driven, at least in substantial part, by his fervent devotion to Israel. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is much wrong with trying to force people to pretend it's not true."

Who exactly is trying to pretend that's not true? Everyone knows Gary Ackerman is Jewish and a supporter of Israel. No one is denying that. And no one can deny -- or is denying -- that the pro-Isarel community has been leading the call for sanctions on Iran. I sure won't. But why exactly is it so important to point this out? Yes, stopping Iran from acquiring nukes would be good for Israel. It's also an outcome that's desired by all the other nations in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. And it's also a major concern o the United States--it has the potential of destabilizing the Middle East, where the U.S. gets a lot of its oil, and could allow Iran to fund terrorism throughout the world with impunity--knowing that it has a nuclear threat to prevent retaliation. So why are the alleged motivations of increased pressure on Iran so important. Greenwald, and those who agree with him, could argue that those things don't matter, or that such threats are exaggerated, or that it's no big deal if Iran gets nukes. Fine. But why is it so important to identify and make part of the argument the background of the other side? Is it because they can't respond to the other side's arguments?