Tweet
WITH BOOK, FOXMAN GRABS LEAD ROLE 'ISRAEL LOBBY' CRITICS
By Ami Eden
New Jersey Jewish Standard, NJ
http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3385/1/With-boo k,-Foxman-grabs-lead-role---%91Israel-lobby%92---c ritics
Oct 26 2007
As patrons filed into Manhattan's 92nd Street Y to catch a sold-out
appearance by Larry David, the scene outside was producing a punchline
straight out of his HBO sitcom "Curb Your Enthusiasm." David and one
of his "Curb" co-stars, Susie Essman, were the main event on that
recent evening. But protesters had gathered outside to jeer the
national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman,
who was slated to speak - in another packed, albeit smaller, room
- about anti-Semitism and his new book, "The Deadliest Lies: The
Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control." The demonstrators were
voicing outrage over Foxman's initial unwillingness to characterize
the World War I-era Turkish massacres of Armenians as genocide and his
continued opposition to a proposed congressional resolution that would
put America on record as using the g-word. "Larry David is in favor of
genocide?" one confused visitor asked. The mix-up could have served as
the basis for a good "Curb" plot, to be sure, but in real life Foxman
is the one who's been taking it from all sides of late. And while he
certainly has suffered some self-inflicted public-relations wounds,
he's also taken plenty of heat for things that he never said or did,
including the misdeeds of others. Legitimate or not, the barrage of
criticism has had an impact: Foxman, who has worked at the ADL since
1965 and run the organization for the past 20 years, has become an
increasingly polarizing figure for Jews and non-Jews on both sides
of the political spectrum. Despite the fact, or perhaps because,
he has become a walking flashpoint, Foxman remains the media's
top go-to guy on Jewish affairs - a status further cemented by his
high-profile national book tour. In short, he may have never commanded
more attention or attracted as much criticism. It's a high-stakes
dynamic as he takes the lead role in the Jewish community's fight
against a growing list of vocal and respectable critics of Israel and
the pro-Israel lobby, most notably former President Jimmy Carter and
the academic duo of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Foxman insists
he has no second thoughts about jumping into the center of the debate
over the pro-Israel lobby. "I'm not nervous. No hesitation whatsoever,"
Foxman said during an interview last month in his ADL office at the
start of his book tour. (See page 21.) [He was scheduled to speak
on Wednesday at the Kaplen JCC on the Palisades in Tenafly.] Still,
he conceded, "The one thing that haunts me is my credibility because
that's all we got." As it turns out, Foxman has written a reasoned,
measured response to Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and
the articles that evolved into Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
Foxman's book breaks little new ground in its bid to debunk the most
objectionable claims put forth by Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt,
et al. But for those seeking a quick and accessible road map for
understanding the weakest points in the attack on Israel and the
pro-Israel lobby, "The Deadliest Lies" does the trick - with a big
boost from the foreword by former Secretary of State George Shultz.
The question is, will it be read by anyone who isn't already settled
on the issue? Does Foxman still command the respect and have the
credibility to make headway beyond his base, to reach, as he describes
them, "the fair-minded people who may be wondering whether there is any
truth in the claims promoted in 'The Israel Lobby' and are willing to
hear the other side of the story?" Foxman essentially touches on the
issue in his book during his recounting of the outrage triggered last
year by an inaccurate claim that he had pushed the Polish consulate
in New York to pull the plug on a lecture by New York University
Prof. Tony Judt. The ADL had inquired about the event, which was
being sponsored by an outside group that was renting space at the
consulate, but it turned out to be David Harris, the executive director
of the American Jewish Committee, who had asked for the event to be
canceled. Still, the furor eventually triggered a lengthy profile of
Foxman in The New York Times Magazine last January. Written by James
Traub, the piece used the flap over Judt - who caused an uproar with a
2003 essay arguing that the idea of a Jewish state was and is a mistake
- as a vehicle for examining claims that the Jewish community is
guilty of trying to shut down debate over Israel. Among other things,
Traub's piece played into the left-wing's negative - and often unfair -
attacks on Foxman by ignoring his efforts to line up American Jewish
support for peace moves approved by the Israeli government. Traub also
incorrectly lumped Foxman in with those who argue that the Jewish
community should steer clear of criticizing Christian conservatives
on domestic policy because of their support for Israel. In fact, one
of the biggest complaints of Foxman's right-wing critics - Jewish and
non-Jewish - is his continued willingness to confront the religious
right. For example, they point to his speaking out against the Mel
Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" and a 2005 speech Foxman
gave in an attempt to rally the Jewish community against efforts to
"Christianize America." And of course they steam over his support
for the Oslo process and the Gaza disengagement, which he framed
as an issue of Israel's democratically elected government deserving
deference on issues of peace and security. In "The Deadliest Lies,"
Foxman argued that given the "preconceived notions" of his critics,
it would be "almost impossible" for them "not to assume the worst about
me." He was talking about Judt and his supporters in left-wing academic
circles, but the same applies to Jewish and Christian conservatives who
falsely claim that the ADL leader suggested "The Passion" would spark
anti-Jewish pogroms in America and tagged Gibson as an anti-Semite
during the controversy over the film. Despite his growing ability to
invite backlash from some liberal and conservative circles, Foxman
insists he has no plans to listen to those who say he needs to tone
down his approach. "We don't have that luxury," he said during the
interview at his office. Foxman in his book seemed to make an effort
at maintaining some appearance of balance, stopping well short of
full-throated apologetics for Israeli policy: "As in most conflicts,
there have been rights and wrongs on both sides," he wrote, "and
there is plenty of room for open debate about how the blame should
be apportioned - and, more important, about the best way forward." On
the question of whether Jewish groups are in the censorship business,
Foxman is guilty to some degree of wanting it both ways. He worked
hard to clear his own name in the Judt episode, but defends the right
of the AJCommittee and other Jewish entities to protest invitations
to objectionable speakers. And if such efforts are successful, he
argues, the blame rests solely with the institutions that comply,
not the Jewish agitators. "The fundamental truth remains that it was
the Polish consulate alone that chose to cancel Tony Judt's speech,"
Foxman wrote. "To try to place the responsibility for that ill-advised
decision on some cabal of pro-Israeli groups is fairly ludicrous." In
the interview, Foxman stood by the point: Jews who feel so inclined are
"not wrong" to move against speakers to whom they object. "It's their
expression of freedom of speech," he said. While some segments of the
Jewish community might go too far, Foxman said, it is really the Jewish
community that is the target of a campaign of "intimidation." The
goal of Mearsheimer and Walt in arguing that the pro-Israel lobby
and Israeli officials played a vital role in the U.S. decision to
invade Iraq, Foxman said, is to scare American Jews from weighing
in for a tough stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions. "I think
part of this is an attempt to intimidate us," Foxman said. Noting
the attacks on himself, he added: "If they can succeed in shutting
me up, then they can shut the Jewish community up." One thing is
clear, at least when it comes to Foxman: "They" aren't getting very
far.
By Ami Eden
New Jersey Jewish Standard, NJ
http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3385/1/With-boo k,-Foxman-grabs-lead-role---%91Israel-lobby%92---c ritics
Oct 26 2007
As patrons filed into Manhattan's 92nd Street Y to catch a sold-out
appearance by Larry David, the scene outside was producing a punchline
straight out of his HBO sitcom "Curb Your Enthusiasm." David and one
of his "Curb" co-stars, Susie Essman, were the main event on that
recent evening. But protesters had gathered outside to jeer the
national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman,
who was slated to speak - in another packed, albeit smaller, room
- about anti-Semitism and his new book, "The Deadliest Lies: The
Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control." The demonstrators were
voicing outrage over Foxman's initial unwillingness to characterize
the World War I-era Turkish massacres of Armenians as genocide and his
continued opposition to a proposed congressional resolution that would
put America on record as using the g-word. "Larry David is in favor of
genocide?" one confused visitor asked. The mix-up could have served as
the basis for a good "Curb" plot, to be sure, but in real life Foxman
is the one who's been taking it from all sides of late. And while he
certainly has suffered some self-inflicted public-relations wounds,
he's also taken plenty of heat for things that he never said or did,
including the misdeeds of others. Legitimate or not, the barrage of
criticism has had an impact: Foxman, who has worked at the ADL since
1965 and run the organization for the past 20 years, has become an
increasingly polarizing figure for Jews and non-Jews on both sides
of the political spectrum. Despite the fact, or perhaps because,
he has become a walking flashpoint, Foxman remains the media's
top go-to guy on Jewish affairs - a status further cemented by his
high-profile national book tour. In short, he may have never commanded
more attention or attracted as much criticism. It's a high-stakes
dynamic as he takes the lead role in the Jewish community's fight
against a growing list of vocal and respectable critics of Israel and
the pro-Israel lobby, most notably former President Jimmy Carter and
the academic duo of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Foxman insists
he has no second thoughts about jumping into the center of the debate
over the pro-Israel lobby. "I'm not nervous. No hesitation whatsoever,"
Foxman said during an interview last month in his ADL office at the
start of his book tour. (See page 21.) [He was scheduled to speak
on Wednesday at the Kaplen JCC on the Palisades in Tenafly.] Still,
he conceded, "The one thing that haunts me is my credibility because
that's all we got." As it turns out, Foxman has written a reasoned,
measured response to Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and
the articles that evolved into Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
Foxman's book breaks little new ground in its bid to debunk the most
objectionable claims put forth by Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt,
et al. But for those seeking a quick and accessible road map for
understanding the weakest points in the attack on Israel and the
pro-Israel lobby, "The Deadliest Lies" does the trick - with a big
boost from the foreword by former Secretary of State George Shultz.
The question is, will it be read by anyone who isn't already settled
on the issue? Does Foxman still command the respect and have the
credibility to make headway beyond his base, to reach, as he describes
them, "the fair-minded people who may be wondering whether there is any
truth in the claims promoted in 'The Israel Lobby' and are willing to
hear the other side of the story?" Foxman essentially touches on the
issue in his book during his recounting of the outrage triggered last
year by an inaccurate claim that he had pushed the Polish consulate
in New York to pull the plug on a lecture by New York University
Prof. Tony Judt. The ADL had inquired about the event, which was
being sponsored by an outside group that was renting space at the
consulate, but it turned out to be David Harris, the executive director
of the American Jewish Committee, who had asked for the event to be
canceled. Still, the furor eventually triggered a lengthy profile of
Foxman in The New York Times Magazine last January. Written by James
Traub, the piece used the flap over Judt - who caused an uproar with a
2003 essay arguing that the idea of a Jewish state was and is a mistake
- as a vehicle for examining claims that the Jewish community is
guilty of trying to shut down debate over Israel. Among other things,
Traub's piece played into the left-wing's negative - and often unfair -
attacks on Foxman by ignoring his efforts to line up American Jewish
support for peace moves approved by the Israeli government. Traub also
incorrectly lumped Foxman in with those who argue that the Jewish
community should steer clear of criticizing Christian conservatives
on domestic policy because of their support for Israel. In fact, one
of the biggest complaints of Foxman's right-wing critics - Jewish and
non-Jewish - is his continued willingness to confront the religious
right. For example, they point to his speaking out against the Mel
Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" and a 2005 speech Foxman
gave in an attempt to rally the Jewish community against efforts to
"Christianize America." And of course they steam over his support
for the Oslo process and the Gaza disengagement, which he framed
as an issue of Israel's democratically elected government deserving
deference on issues of peace and security. In "The Deadliest Lies,"
Foxman argued that given the "preconceived notions" of his critics,
it would be "almost impossible" for them "not to assume the worst about
me." He was talking about Judt and his supporters in left-wing academic
circles, but the same applies to Jewish and Christian conservatives who
falsely claim that the ADL leader suggested "The Passion" would spark
anti-Jewish pogroms in America and tagged Gibson as an anti-Semite
during the controversy over the film. Despite his growing ability to
invite backlash from some liberal and conservative circles, Foxman
insists he has no plans to listen to those who say he needs to tone
down his approach. "We don't have that luxury," he said during the
interview at his office. Foxman in his book seemed to make an effort
at maintaining some appearance of balance, stopping well short of
full-throated apologetics for Israeli policy: "As in most conflicts,
there have been rights and wrongs on both sides," he wrote, "and
there is plenty of room for open debate about how the blame should
be apportioned - and, more important, about the best way forward." On
the question of whether Jewish groups are in the censorship business,
Foxman is guilty to some degree of wanting it both ways. He worked
hard to clear his own name in the Judt episode, but defends the right
of the AJCommittee and other Jewish entities to protest invitations
to objectionable speakers. And if such efforts are successful, he
argues, the blame rests solely with the institutions that comply,
not the Jewish agitators. "The fundamental truth remains that it was
the Polish consulate alone that chose to cancel Tony Judt's speech,"
Foxman wrote. "To try to place the responsibility for that ill-advised
decision on some cabal of pro-Israeli groups is fairly ludicrous." In
the interview, Foxman stood by the point: Jews who feel so inclined are
"not wrong" to move against speakers to whom they object. "It's their
expression of freedom of speech," he said. While some segments of the
Jewish community might go too far, Foxman said, it is really the Jewish
community that is the target of a campaign of "intimidation." The
goal of Mearsheimer and Walt in arguing that the pro-Israel lobby
and Israeli officials played a vital role in the U.S. decision to
invade Iraq, Foxman said, is to scare American Jews from weighing
in for a tough stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions. "I think
part of this is an attempt to intimidate us," Foxman said. Noting
the attacks on himself, he added: "If they can succeed in shutting
me up, then they can shut the Jewish community up." One thing is
clear, at least when it comes to Foxman: "They" aren't getting very
far.