I have never met Margaret O’Brien
Steinfels in person, but I consider her a friend. I have corresponded some with
her, but mostly I have read her work and found in her an intellectual and
spiritual mentor. She and her husband Peter have had an enormous influence on
one of America’s great magazines, Commonweal,
and through that an impact on American religion, politics and culture. It is
more than a bit dismaying, therefore, to read at the website of another of
America’s magazines, Commentary, the
ridiculous charge being made that Steinfels is “antisemetic” and on par with
the notoriously anti-Semitic priest of the early 20th-century Fr.
Charles Caughlin. She is, according to Jonathan Tobin, one of many associated
with Commonweal who are “apologists for the Iranian
regime and rabid anti-Zionists”, and share “Jew-hatred” with the likes of "Pat
Buchanan".
What’s going on here? It is simple, really. It is
called the “neoconservative way of argument.” In this style of “discourse”
every foreign policy moment risks being “another Munich” and every disagreement
with the leadership of Israel gets twisted into an expression of anti-Semitism.
It is very much in keeping with the Manichean view of the world that so often leads to unnecessary wars and conflicts. And that is really the issue—Margaret Steinfels
is a determined critic of Israeli and American momentum towards a new conflict
with Iran. She writes with an edge, with satire and with outrage. There is
certainly room to disagree with her, to challenge her and to match her sarcasm
with biting wit. But the idea that somehow Margaret has written anything that
can be construed as anti-Semitic is a sign of intellectual weakness on the part
of Tobin and by extension Commentary. It is also a terribly counterproductive
action if one is truly outraged by the numerous and disturbing examples of real
anti-Semitism in the world today because it cheapens the term when it is used
as a bludgeon to discipline one’s ideological opponents.
Margaret Steinfels is concerned that the policies
of another country are damaging to the world and that America is damaging her own
position in the world by parroting that country's policies. She might be wrong, she might be short-sighted, or she
might be right. But the fact that the country she is speaking of is Israel is
in no way a sign that she is a Jew-hater or anti-Semite any more than if than she would be an Orthodoxy hater if the country in question were Russia. Nothing Tobin writes
in his article in anyway justifies his characterization of Steinfels and seems
instead to hint at an air of shameful demagoguery in the interest of advancing
a specific policy goal towards Iran. Anyone committed to civil, spirited
discourse should be alarmed by Tobin’s inflammatory rhetoric. Margaret has written a short response and promises a fuller rejoinder soon. For now, I will close with her closing remarks: "Read my current column on Netanyahu's demand for red lines and consider whether support
for the sanctions and opposition to bombing Iran is anti-Semitic. Or just
opposed to another U.S. war in the Middle East."
There's something rather odd about Mr. Tobin's attempt to shoehorn Margaret O'Brien into the mold of an anti-Semite, in light of Commentary's past enthusiastic promotion of Pastor John Hagee's Christians United For Israel; Hagee has promoted nearly every sort of anti-Jewish slur, stereotype, and conspiracy theory known to history, including the claim that Jewish bankers are manipulating the world economy (and the U.S. economy too), to the detriment of common folk. That was perhaps Adolf Hitler's favorite type of anti-Jewish conspiracy theory, which Mr. Hagee has distributed a variant of in bestselling books and videos broadcast around the world.
ReplyDeleteAttempts to characterize as "anti-Semitic" legitimate criticism, such as Margaret O'Brien's article referenced in this Commentary op-ed, dilute the meaning of anti-Semitism and so make it harder to combat. This, in turn, does a grave injustice to victims of true anti-Jewish prejudice, from any era. - Bruce Wilson
Great point of contrast, Bruce. I had forgotten about their past statements on Hagee. Yet another indication that this is just about support for foreign policy positions, not actual feelings about Judaism.
Delete