I go to tabletmag.com pretty regularly and look forward to
its reportage, esp. with regard to Europe, where it has done a great job
chronicling the rise of anti-Semitism.
I appreciate Adam Kirsch's dutiful wrestling with the
Talmud, though the net effect on me may be the opposite of what Kirsch
intended. In short, the more I read Kirsch the clearer I am that Talmud is
arcane, ancient, and inapplicable.
Then there's Lee Smith, a senior editor for the avowedly
conservative Weekly Standard, who, on behalf of the Tablet: "Explains the
Middle East."
Or does he?
Let me cut to the chase and say that Smith is a
Netanyahu-ite who explains the Middle East as Netanyahu might want it
explained. Smith, like Netanyahu, maintains that Obama wants to jettison the
historic alliance between Israel and the United States in favor of cementing a
new accord with Iran.
There's no question that Iran is at the root of a Shiite
axis running from Teheran through Bagdad on to Damascus and Beirut. Of course,
as most everyone knows, the United States took out the Sunni buffer to Iran
when we invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Smith isn't much interested in such previous misadventures.
He wants to keep the United States tied to Israel a la Netanyahu. He doesn't believe
there's any sincerity or real commitment behind Kerry's strenuous efforts to
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Au contraire, he thinks Obama will
do most anything to make friends with Iran.
I don't believe that.
I don't think Obama would sleep easy if Iran got close to
getting close to getting close to getting nukes.
Smith is at his worst when he explains away the viciousness
of ISIS et al. At least ISIS doesn't work for Teheran, he reasons. And that's
what counts for him.
I appreciate Lee Smith, in a negative way, for marking out a
negative space. Like Adam Kirsch, in a certain sense, he helps clarify for me
what I do not believe. That saves me steps. I wouldn't mind there being a less predictably
Netanyahu-ish take on the Middle East from Tablet, but so it goes. There's much
else to be gleaned from its writers.
What bothers me much more is a piece I came across in
today's Tablet (4/22/15) by
Liel
Leibovitz, a senior writer for Tablet. Leibovitz is more the voice
of Tablet than Smith, so it seems to me, and a good, often persuasive writer.
(Yes, he believes in Israel's right to exist and yes he can be critical of its
policies.) He's co-authored a book with Todd Gitlin, who often writes for
Tablet and cannot accused of any sort of Netanyahu-ishness.
Yet Leibovitz's new post strikes me as the most devious,
ultra-conspiratorial Netanyahu_ish
argument I've come across. He
takes as his starting point Obama's espousal of "safe spaces" for
LGBT individuals. Leibovitz is not concerned that this is Obama, leading as
often, from behind. He could care less. It's more about Obama mustering Jewish
liberals behind him — since what Jewish liberal can disapprove of minority
rights? — so that they will thereby
be silenced when it comes to selling out to Iran.
Do you think Obama's attention to LGBT rights and to police
killings of black people is all about shutting up Jews on the way to a bad deal
with Iran?
You think that's what Obama is all about?
If so, boy do I have a bridge or three to sell you.