In the comments we've begun discussing the latest controversy concerning Cindy Sheehan. No, not her and her husband's divorce. That got cleared up the same day it hit the news. I'm talking about the March 15, 2005 letter to Nightline that's been shooting around the internet in various forms at least since August 11.
Before I proceed, I want to state that I do not yet have satisfactory verification that the letter to Nightline comes from Cindy Sheehan. I'll address that question in part II, later on tonight.
Here is the paragraph, attributed to Cindy Sheehan, that is under discussion:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.
DK, who is a friend of mine, was the first person I heard this from. Yesterday DK wrote:
And I thought, oh yeah, same shit, different decade. I resent like hell having to support an anti-war activist who is an anti-semite. In fact, I can't. I can't describe how much I want a voice without an agenda as nefarious as this administration's to come out of the wilderness and just speak against this inhumanity of war, but this ain't it.
Now Cindy Sheehan is a veritable pieta, and her son a christ figure, killed by the machination of Jews. Can you amen that?
studyholic responded to DK:
Being against the colonial occupation and policies of Israel is not the same as being either anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.
[snip]
No one people are saints and no one person is a saint and I'm going to support Cindy's anti-war cause. I have empathy for both Israel and Palestine and I realize the faults on both sides.
I also know that the anti-war movement needs Cindy, and she has the right to be critical of Israeli policies and not be called an anti-Semite.
That's the gist but not all of what studyholic said. I took serious issue with some of how studyholic defended Cindy Sheehan's purported remarks and you can read the rest of studyholic's comment and why I objected in the comments section. studyholic wrote in again, to respond to me. While I appreciate studyholic's good faith efforts at dialogue and mutual understanding, I am going to respond here with a more general statement of my bottom line.
I don't question anybody's right to be critical of Israel's policies, especially regarding the occupation.
What I question is the statement, "My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel." That is not a criticism of Israeli policy. That is an assertion of a lie that solidly crosses the line into antisemitic conspiracy theories about how Israel controls US foreign policy.
I have not heard Cindy Sheehan holding forth on the Palestinian need for contiguous territory, water rights, freedom of movement, freedom from indiscriminate shelling, house demolitions, uprooting of olive groves, etc. Nor have I heard her express solidarity with the Israeli soldiers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, any number of whom have gone to prison for their patriotism.
What I would like to hear now from people on the anti-war left is a solid disavowal antisemitic conspiracy theories—not knee-jerk rushing to defend Cindy's right to be critical of Israeli policies.
I think I understand studyholic's anxiety that criticism of Cindy Sheehan from the left hurts the new momentum that she's given to the anti-war movement. However, not demanding clarity and accountability on this subject hurts the anti-war movement even more. If folks on the left can't disavow a statement like "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel," the left will increasingly find that is keeping some unpleasant company.
BLOG POSTS
COMMENTS
PODCASTS
I don’t think this is anti-semitism. Alas, I think the sentence is just a statement–even if it is a bit of a stretch. While the U.S. army does not personally protect Israel, Israel is the baby of Britain and the ward of the United States–and if I am not mistaken there was a tank called the condoleeza that was situated in Palestine at one point in time. I am very much a judeophile–but I am not a zionist. The state of Israel and its actions in Palestine too closely resemble white people not too very long ago. I have my own opinions about this topic–and about the legacy of zionism.
I both believe and said that Cindy should be criticized.
But demonized and called an anti-Semite…that is what I have a problem with. I took pains to explain why Israel should be as open to criticism as any other country to underscore my point.
Ben, you simply do not know what Cindy thinks about Palenstinian mistakes. …Or, many other topics for that matter.
You also devalue the spirit and care of my detailed response by not dealing with the subtlety of my remarks or, most importantly, my call not to demonize one person for the kind of off-the-cuff wrong insights that many of us make when we are speaking like a human being and not a scripted politician.
How many times have I heard anti-Asian comments that people do not realize are hurtful and wrong. But, that does not make those people any more anti-Asian than the world.
Please don’t say that you have not made culturally insensitive mistakes-of-mind or off-the-cuff problematic statements either.
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be demonized or branded a racist for such mistakes.
So many of your posts show a great sensitivity to the fact that civil rights and discrimination are not BOTTOM-LINE or black-white issues. You expose many subtle meanings that some would say challenge status quo liberal thinking about civil rights and the South.
However, you really err in being so quick to join dk in promoting the demonization of Cindy as an anti-Semite.
So too do you overlook the fact that the United States DOES treat certain countries different than others. This, I think, was part (though not all) of the force of Cindy’s point.
The Bush administration favors Saudia Arabia too!
I wonder what Cindy would say to liberal criticism of her remarks about Israel. I think she’d probably listen given her other views. She’s also admitted mistakes in her thinking and the shift in her views in the past too.
People can change and people make mistakes, especially on TV!
Unfortunately, you latest post ignores these very human shades of meaning.
I can’t help but to ask if DK is Donna Karan.