Letter to the Editor of Adbusters

[The following is a letter to the editor of Adbusters magazine in response to a number of articles on the adbusters.org homepage in early 2005.]

Dear Editor,

This is, in all likelihood, an exercise in extreme futility; but what else can I do. I first have to say that I respect and admire what your magazine does-- that is, in terms of its form. You have made texts comment on themselves, and that is a rare and enviable feat in media.

The content, though, suffers from the same disease you are trying to fight: political myopia. It's an inability to see past political prejudices which are grown out of a puristic (and thus naive) idealism. Your commentary on Israel is instructive, very much in step with hum-drum European political thinking and prejudice.

Looking specifically at the recent article (which has no byline for some reason) on Mordecai Vanunu-- the 'whistle blower' of Israel's nuclear program. Vanunu committed an act of treason and was given a sentence deserving of his crime. In America he could have been executed. In Saudi Arabia he would have been. Vanunu continues to violate the terms of his release and, so, will continue to be punished. This stands to reason. (And even if we oppose the laws which prosecute him--and support his cause, we still have to recognize that his punishment accords with the law and is an inevitability of life in a civil society.)

But there's more to this. The article on Vanunu states that the reason for nuclear secrecy in Israel is 'obviously' a ploy to prevent "public discourse on the issue and eliminates the need for the Israeli governement to feel accountable to its own people and to the rest of the world." In truth, Israel's policy of nuclear opacity is a strategic one which grew out of the political reality of sharing borders and missile radii with a host of hostile states--a few of which are explicitly devoted to Israel's destruction. This may all sound like politico-military rationalizing, but if you have ever walked the streets of Tel Aviv (gone to its parks, bars, schools etc) and realized that, in the matter of a few minutes, a majority of the nation's population could be wiped out by a missile attack from Iraq (in the 1990s) or Iran (today), you see it's not as much of a political poker game as you'd like to think.

The commentary on Ken Livingstone ("The Edge of the Pack: Ken Livinstone") runs the same line. Livingstone is a scandal mongerer. His political britches are too big, so he justifies his presence with extreme rhetoric. So Adbusters (along with European media) negotiates the definition and application of anti-Semitism, calling Livingstone a bold and edgy political critic. But it is not for Adubsters (or European media) to do this negotiating. As the United States has been learning over the past few decades, the definition of racism is not legislated by those who are accused of it, but by those who feel they have been victimized by it. In a nation that was raised by Holocaust survivors, Livingstone's whimsy in invoking Nazi metaphor (especially given his target) is horrifying. Is that the substance of Livingstone's 'edge'; his 'outspoken' criticism of Israel a matter of insult-hurling?

I think, of course, that it is. I think that if the aim were to produce change--and not sanctions-- the institutions which oppose Israel's actions would condemn Livingstone as an underminer of reform. To allow him to play spokesperson for Israel criticism delegitimizes the criticism: it boils it down to what it is coming from Livingstone's mouth: bile.

Putting aside reactionary attacks on Israel would open a path to change. You may find that many of the greatest critics of the nation, as in any democracy, are themselves Israelis. There are innumerable Israeli organizations and thinkers who are devoted to changing Israel's policies and military attitudes, and they generally aren't calling people names.

I leave you with the question of why it is, in your opinion as a representative of a media outlet that has considerable voice, that in a world in which 50 states are considered closed to their own polity, or 'Not Free' (www.freedomhouse.org), it is Israel that garners incessant media condemnation and UN censure?

Why in a region where the homosexual populations yearn to live in Tel Aviv, where they can walk hand-in-hand, teach in universities, and drink in coffee shops, is it Israel and not Syria (where homosexuality is a crime) that finds criticism on your homepage?

Why is it Ariel Sharon, who has had the boldness to defy his party and support base in order to make peace, is derided, while President Mugabe happily wears the suffering and political genocide of his people in the form of blithe media acceptance of his power?

And, finally, what will be your answer to Israel once it has withdrawn from the territories, once it has ended its occupation by its own political will? Will you acknowledge her democracy? Will you see a grouping of people instead of an amalgam of monsters?

I ask you these questions, Editor, with sincerity, to hear an answer (though, as I remarked at the beginning of this email, I don't expect one). And, more importantly, I ask in order to prompt a level of political thought in American liberalism (of which I'm a member, and will continue to be) which exceeds one-dimensionality, which is more than a knee jerk responding to a knee jerk. Something that actually does alter our paradigm, to shock us with unexpected truths, to defy our political ethics in favor of our morals, to be unafraid to simply use that word, moral, which for too long has been co-opted by political machines like the Religious Right and insecure institutions like the European left.


Thank you for your time.