I’m Not the Only One…

Today and yesterday I noted there was, and is, a dearth of comment on the Left about the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran’s proxies. I decided to do a bit of investigation into this lack of interest and I was about ten minutes into my link chasing when I came upon the post below by Kevin Drum in today’s Washington Monthly, a Left-wing publication.

Here’s Mr. Drum’s post, in its entirety:

ISRAEL AND THE BLOGOSPHERE.....Via email, Matt Yglesias suggests that I address the topic of why the liberal blogosphere doesn't write very much about Israel-related subjects. I can only speak for myself, of course, and my own reasons for light blogging on this subject are both predictable and banal. Still, here they are:

1. It sparks unusually vicious comment threads, something this blog hardly needs since comments here spin out of control often enough anyway. Needless to say, this phenomenon is fairly universal. For examples, see here and here.

(In case you're curious, the other subjects that seem to spawn more venom than usual are posts related to religion or feminism.)

2. The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable. It follows the same rhythms decade after decade, full of hypocrisy and posturing from both camps, and there seems little to say about it that doesn't eventually boil down to, "Both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and rein in their own extremists." Aside from being pointless, there are only just so many ways you can say this.

(NB: This may be a plausible excuse for inaction coming from a pundit or a blogger, but it's worth pointing out that it's not a plausible excuse for a president of the United States. Are you listening, George?)

3. The conflict is fantastically complex, and the partisans on both sides are mostly people who have been following events with fanatical attention to detail for many decades. Ordinary observers can hardly compete in this atmosphere — do you know the detailed history and long-accepted norms of behavior that have developed in the conflict over the Shebaa Farms since 1967? — and this has produced an almost codelike language of its own over the years. One misuses this code at ones peril (see #5 below).

4. As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides. I normally take my cues on subjects I'm inexpert in from people whose sensibilities are similar to mine, but it's nearly impossible to figure out who those people might be in this case.

5. Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism. (I gather that the opposite is more frequently the case in Europe.) Language is actually as big a problem as substance here, since words and phrases that are used innocently often have specific meanings to longtime partisans that are unknown to the rest of us.

I guess that's about it. As usual, however, I'd add that liberals have a bigger problem here than conservatives. As near as I can tell, most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way. The fact that this hasn't worked very well in the past doesn't deter them. Liberals don't really have a similarly undemanding position that's suitable for the quick-hit nature of blogging.

Of course, in the same email Matt pointed out that "you can't hermetically seal Israel issues off from Iraq issues or Iran issues or even really big-picture questions about what our general attitude toward the war on terrorism or the United Nations ought to be." True enough. Maybe we should all be trying harder and not letting feeble excuses like #1-5 get in our way. I'm not making any promises, though.

Fair enough, and a good beginning. Mr. Drum’s liberal bona fides are well known, and since he’s speaking strictly for himself, for the most part, I’ll take him at his word. I even find myself in agreement with three of his five points (points 2, 3, and 4). After all, it’s only been two days since I put up my first post, ever, on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict; in that post I maintained everyone has already chosen their side on this issue; and I tacitly admitted I have only superficial knowledge, i.e., what I glean from the MSM, of the issue(s). But I think perhaps there’s a little bit more to explain the Left’s reticence to comment on this issue.

First of all, only the bravest of souls on the Left wants to be the first into the pool with an opinion that may, just may, contradict mainstream liberal thought. Lefties are sensitive types, and they are especially sensitive to what their peers think of them. Consequently, in the absence of guidance from the Big Dogs (you can read that as talking points issued by the DNC, DLC, Pelosi, Reid, or Kerry, just to name a few; and to a lesser extent, the Big Dog Blogs), it’s a rare Lefty that will sail off on his own into uncharted waters. Why? Because the Left eats its own; dissent is not tolerated. Why risk excommunication? The powers-that-be on the Left have been, up to this point, largely silent. Matthew Yglesias:

Meanwhile, I totally understand why establishment liberal foreign policy types don't like to talk about Israel, but things are getting to the point where I don't think total silence in the face of dramatic goings-on is very viable.

Groupthink doesn’t work well at all when it doesn’t know what to think.

Second, and related to my first point, no Lefty wants to be seen as agreeing with the Bush administration, ever, either explicitly or implicitly. Were a Lefty to blog something as benign as acknowledging the threat Hezbollah/Syria/Iran represents, or Heaven Forbid!, speculating there may, indeed, be something to the theory Iran is behind this recent Mid-East escalation, that poor soul would be drawn and quartered in their comments section and bashed in other, more orthodox Lefty blogs. This hypothetical blogger would be buying into the administration’s “march to war” and wouldn’t even have to mention Dubya, the connection would be assumed or divined.

Lastly, and Mr. Drum mentioned this in passing, the Left can’t offer an alternative to the status quo when it comes to US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, let alone Iran (unless one considers capitulation and accommodation as viable alternatives). But, you say, the lack of alternatives hasn’t stopped them from criticizing our Iraq policy! True enough, gentle reader. But the Left also doesn’t want to be seen as a bunch of anti-Semites, either, as Mr. Drum states in his fifth point. And I submit that thought process inhibits comment to a greater degree than one would generally think. Although commenter Kiril on Mr. Drum’s post disagrees:

Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.

Wow. I've read a few comments on this thread agreeing with this and I just have no idea where it comes from. Either online or in real life, when talking to fellow liberals I am often the only one to defend Israel, which I tend to (try to) do as calmly and objectively as possible while being screamed at by anyone in the vicinity. We must be hanging out in different places. Wanna switch?

Posted by: Kiril on July 15, 2006 at 2:19 PM

In closing I suggest you read the extensive comments to Mr. Drum’s post. They are illuminating.