Suppose you are called upon to moderate between two debaters who are at such loggerheads, they fail to see eye to eye while articulating what seems to be two arguments which, on the surface, seem closer to each other than can be said are distant from each other.
In fact, if there exists a difference between the two
positions, it is not in what the debaters insist they see, but in the
interpretation of what they perceive as the information is filtered to them
through the lens of the conditioning to which they were subjected decade after
decade.
On one side of the argument you have House Representative
Rashida Tlaib who is of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. On the
other side you have Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Jerold Nadler and a
number of other Jews, most of whom are also members of the Progressive wing in
the Democratic Party.
You’ll find that most of the background story on what
happened that triggered the clash between the two sides – is told in the article
that came under the title: “House Democrat slams Talib for ‘antisemitic’
remarks on Israel,” written by Michael Schnell, and published on September 21,
2022 in The Hill.
The House Democrat mentioned in the title of the Schnell
article, is Debbie Schultz who accused Rashida Tlaib of antisemitism for
suggesting that it is inconsistent to claim adhering to Progressive values while
at the same time supporting the policies of Israel, which she asserts are are
fundamentally those of an apartheid regime.
Here is what Rashida Tlaib had said:
“I want you all to know that among
progressives it has become clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive
values yet back Israel’s apartheid government, and we will continue to push
back and not accept this idea that you are progressive except for Philistine
[Palestine] any longer”.
And here is how Debbie Schultz responded:
“The outrageous progressive litmus test
on Israel by Rashida Tlaib is nothing short of antisemitic. Proud progressives
do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Divisive
rhetoric does not lead to peace”.
Comment: Thus, while Rashida Tlaib restricted her viewpoint to
expressing the commonsense value that may or may not exist in simultaneously
holding two apparently contradictory views, Debbie Schultz called that approach
antisemitic without explaining how or why. She also called Israel a democratic
state without addressing the issue of apartheid. Worst of all, she deployed the
well-known blackmail of the Judeo-Israeli crime syndicate which tells America
and the Palestinians that the Jews must have it their way or they’ll open the
gates of hell to wreak havoc on everyone.
Here is how Debbie Schultz did that:
“Divisive rhetoric does not lead to peace.” Bear in mind that it has long been
established that when the Jews say “divisive language,” they mean language that
disagrees with their demands. So then, what happens when you disagree with their
demands? You do not lead to peace, they say. Unless, of course, you mean their
version of peace which is the peace of the grave.
As to Rep. Jerold Nadler, he added the
following to the debate:
“I reject the notion that one cannot
support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and be a
progressive. I embrace both of these political positions and identities,
even as I have criticized some of the policies and actions of the Israeli
governments over time. I would put my progressive record and credentials up
against anyone’s. It is wrong for progressive leaders to abide such a litmus
tests”.
Comment: Unlike Debbie Schultz who seems to have learned by rote
how to rattle off the official positions formulated by Jewish Central, Jerold
Nadler has demonstrated a superior understanding of the issues involved in this
matter.
Thus, by saying at the start of the
discussion that he can simultaneously hold what seems to be two contradictory
positions, he signaled that he can explain. And so he did. It turned out that
he developed a hedge which allows him to reject Israel’s apartheid policies
while supporting its more reasonable ones.
Nadler explained all of that with the
use of the following words: “I embrace both of these political positions and
identities, even as I have criticized some of the policies and actions of the
Israeli governments over time”.
It is clear that to avoid being seen as
speaking logic, Jerold Nadler mentioned that the positions he is taking are
“political” in nature.
Jonathan Greenblatt too had something
to say. As CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, here is what he wrote:
“In one sentence, Rep. Rashida
simultaneously tells American Jews that they need to pass an anti-Zionist
litmus test to participate in progressive spaces even as she doubles down on
her antisemitism by slandering Israel as an apartheid state. It’s absolutely
reprehensible and does nothing to advance the cause of peace”.