Australia/Israel Review - Deconstruction Zone

AIR
August 2006

Ted Lapkin

L’Esprit d’escalier

As some of you are aware, I recently debated anti-Zionist freelance journalist Antony Loewenstein on ABC Television. Let me begin by conveying kudos to Tony Jones, Peter Charley, John Bruce and the rest of the "Lateline" crew for the promotion of fair debate.

I suppose that it is understandable that much of the program dealt with the ongoing events in Lebanon. But ideally I would have preferred a more in-depth discussion on Loewenstein’s grasp of the facts (or lack thereof) and his ideology.

L’esprit d’escalier is a French expression that refers to the feeling one gets after a conversation has concluded about the things one would have liked to say. And in that ‘esprit’ I make the following observations about my erstwhile (and perhaps future) debate opponent.

Loewenstein seems remarkably thin-skinned for someone who has voluntarily injected himself into the rough and tumble of political debate on one of the most contentious foreign policy issues of the day. He complains of "bullying" and "intimidation" by AIJAC. But neither I, nor my colleagues, have ever suggested that the freelancer should be physically or legally muzzled.

Thus Loewenstein’s definition of intimidation seems to have much more to do with his own tender sensibilities than with any real restrictions on free expression. At worst, he has been forced to endure some hostile telephone calls and emails [none from me]. But it seems obvious that the benefits flowing from his political opinions — book contracts and TV appearances — far outweigh any verbal vitriol he might be forced to endure. The sight of Loewenstein whinging on national television about attempts to censor him would be humorously ironic if it weren’t so pathetic.

Loewenstein’s juvenile petulance prevents him from understanding the basic facts of life in the political arena. People who venture into the realm of public policy must be willing to state their mind, take their lumps and stand their ground. The marketplace of political ideas is a tempestuous environment, and arguments on the Middle East are often more rambunctious than most.

During my professional life in politics I have been called all sorts names, both in print and to my face. In fact, Antony Loewenstein himself has described me as a "belligerent propagandist" and a racist. But I have rarely cavilled or cried ‘unfair,’ even when the most ad hominem slings and arrows of outrageous invective have been hurled in my direction.

US President Harry Truman had it right when he said: "if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." If Loewenstein is possessed of such a timorous soul, then he has no business getting involved with political discourse in the first place. Timid types who can be browbeaten into silence by mere criticism should perhaps transfer their polemical attentions to staider subjects like vegetable gardening.

Antony Loewenstein is essentially asking for license to dish it out without taking it. He cries havoc and lets slip the dogs of polemical war against Israel, but then cries foul when similar rhetoric is returned in kind. Loewenstein wants to sow the seeds of argument against Israel’s right to exist without reaping the whirlwind of outraged mainstream Jewish opinion. But in free societies it never works that way because the realm of public debate is not a one-way street.

And Loewenstein’s anti-Zionist fervour blinds him to the logical contradiction that is inherent to his ideology. In upholding his right to vilify Zionism, he asserts the legitimacy of speech that might cause discomfort to those who disagree. "Two competing narratives should be able to coexist within one debate," he declares.

Fine words in support of a finer principle.

But we then recall that Loewenstein’s impassioned vindication of free expression appears in the midst of a plaintive 340 page attempt to delegitimate his political opponents. Invidious rhetoric that depicts Israel as a moral abomination suits him just fine. But anyone who has the temerity to criticise anti-Zionism is engaged in "slurs" that aim to "automatically silence and smear".

Thus those nefarious Zionists work their ignoble censorious magic to stifle the open exchange of ideas on the Middle East by challenging Israel’s antagonists in the realm of ideas. Heaven forbid that Leftist feathers should be ruffled during the give and take of political discourse!

But how can Loewenstein’s personal hypersensitivity be reconciled with his defence brief for unconstrained political debate regardless of any umbrage that might be taken? The only way he can attempt to resolve this blatant non sequitur is through the application of an ideological litmus test.

Antony Loewenstein essentially argues that only anti-Zionist rhetoric fits the definitional bill of true political debate. By contrast he implies that mainstream Jewish viewpoints should be consigned to some lesser ideological category. In his world it is open season on Israel, and the rhetorical barbs should only move in one direction.

And by means of this argument, Loewenstein feels at liberty to have his cake and eat it too. The most extreme critique of Jewish nationalism must be protected political speech, while criticism of those who assail Israel’s right to exist must be invalidated and traduced.

When push comes to shove, it seems that Antony Loewenstein’s exalted notions of liberty apply only to sentiments that he finds politically congenial. He is as intellectually inconsistent as he is factually challenged. And in light of the myriad factual errors that afflict his book, that is a telling commentary on his character.