Backing Baram

There is nothing like an accusation of any sort “ism” to alter an attentive reader. Whether it is racism, sexism, elitism or fascism, 99 times out of 100, it means the speaker is ignorant and going for shock value. Once and a while it is the truth.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Free Press, we are treated to such an accusation, this time from Michael Figa directed toward Danny Baram. In his letter to the editor, “Fight Terror with Terror?” Michael wrote in response to Danny’s Tuesday column, “America: Take a Stand on Israel,” about the necessity for an American presence in Israel in order to bring about peace. Michael’s accusation is Danny is “racist,” and his editorial is “propaganda” backed by “support from the American media.” It should be said right off the bat that Danny is basically the only good Free Press columnist. He writes well about important issues and has consistently demonstrated political wisdom far exceeding any of the other columnists.

Michael’s letter does not really concern me. His accusations are baseless, and his rhetoric is what you would get if you were to give a Sesame Street character some Karl Marx to read. What concerns me is that there is a second letter to the editor, this one by Jim Gallagher (Withdraw Israel), which has the same rhetoric and message as Michael’s: Israel is unjust and the land is rightfully the Palestinians. I understand the viewpoint of Jim and Michael as much as I do the opposing one. Jim and Michael are anti-Semites. I do not mean that these men hate Jews or find them inferior — I am not calling them racist. What they are is against the Semitic state. Read their letters and this is clear, Jim refers to Israel as “Palestinian territory” and Michael calls Israel “stolen land.” The other viewpoint is the pro-Semitic one. Michael describes them as brainwashed and likens them to Nazi’s. Though his analogy is extreme the dogmatic ideas behind it hold true. Pro-Semites are for the Jewish state. A person from this standpoint believes in the superiority of the Jewish people only as much as an anti-Semite lacks this belief. Falling into either of these dogmatic standpoints leads to the situation currently in Israel. Any person who truly wishes for peace is neither pro-Semitic nor anti-Semitic. Jim and Michael’s answer to the problem is no better than their condemnation of the actions of the Israeli government. Moderation is needed for peace to ever occur. Peace in Israel has only happened when brokered through US diplomatic intervention, the exact thing Danny calls for. The clarity and understanding in Danny’s editorial is refreshing, it was just reactionary behavior by Michael and Jim to attack him.

The rhetoric of Michael and Jim, as well as the rhetoric of the other side needs to stop. American Jews are all for Israel in principle but not in practice. Liberal Socialist are for the Palestinian people in ideas not in actuality. In America we get scathing letters to the editor, Jim and Michael are men of words not actions, anti-Semites in head, not heart. In Israel, the rhetoric of those either for or against the Jewish state is not printed in papers, but in the streets in blood. This is no solution. The only solution is a peace agreement brokered by the US and then as Elie Wiesel says, “no mention of the Jewish state for 20 years.” When the ideas behind the rhetoric stop the actions coming from them well stop, as well.