Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, is my guest today on Barely a Blog. He applies his characteristic perspicacity to the incongruity that is the Old Right’s treatment of Israel. Why the Left detests Israel is clear, but what of old-school conservatives and paleolibertarians? Robert Novak and Charlie Reese shake hands with Alexander Cockburn—elements of the American Right meet the Left—in support of their dedicated detestation of Israel. Moreover, the myth of the plucky Palestinian so dear to many on the Right is not in the conservative tradition. In propagating this myth, they resemble those that cried bitter tears (from a safe distance, of course) for the communist ANC in South Africa. And they resemble the Left and the neoconservatives who weep for the Chechens—another aggressive, terrorist people. (You’ll often hear paleoconservatives condemn the administration for leaning on, say, Vladimir Putin, but celebrate when they sunder Israel’s sovereignty.)—ILANA

Over to Professor Gottfried:

It seems to me foolish for members of the Old Right to beat up on any Israeli government, however flexible it seems to be, because they are justifiably disgusted by neoconservative bullying and duplicity. The Israelis did not create our global democratic warmongers; nor is there any reason to assume that the two hold the same views about the surrounding world.
Having just returned from a trip to Israel, I wish to point out that I met in that country lots of Asians, including workers from the Far East, and African Jews, but very few people who bear any resemblance to the editorial boards of Commentary and The Weekly Standard.
The present Israeli government is eager to give back the entire West bank, minus possibly East Jerusalem, if it can achieve a non-violent peace with the Palestinians. There are also almost a million Palestinians living within Israel proper, who enjoy much better treatment and a far higher standard of living than their Arab cousins, who already enjoy the pleasures of Arab autonomy.
I have the distinct impression that my fellow-paleos, who weep over the tyranny of the Jewish state, are really protesting another issue, the bad manners and Stalinist techniques of the neoconservative dictators of the present conservative movement. But those issues are clearly different from the ones that the anti-Israeli Right brings up in its invectives. From what I have observed, it is the cowardice and opportunism of movement conservatives, not Mr. Olmert, which are responsible for the state of the American Right.

Paleos, take the argument up with Bill Buckley, Heritage, and Bill Rusher and not the Israelis.

—Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, is my guest today on Barely a Blog. He applies his characteristic perspicacity to the incongruity that is the Old Right’s treatment of Israel. Why the Left detests Israel is clear, but what of old-school conservatives and paleolibertarians? Robert Novak and Charlie Reese shake hands with Alexander Cockburn—elements of the American Right meet the Left—in support of their dedicated detestation of Israel. Moreover, the myth of the plucky Palestinian so dear to many on the Right is not in the conservative tradition. In propagating this myth, they resemble those that cried bitter tears (from a safe distance, of course) for the communist ANC in South Africa. And they resemble the Left and the neoconservatives who weep for the Chechens—another aggressive, terrorist people. (You’ll often hear paleoconservatives condemn the administration for leaning on, say, Vladimir Putin, but celebrate when they sunder Israel’s sovereignty.)—ILANA

Over to Professor Gottfried:

It seems to me foolish for members of the Old Right to beat up on any Israeli government, however flexible it seems to be, because they are justifiably disgusted by neoconservative bullying and duplicity. The Israelis did not create our global democratic warmongers; nor is there any reason to assume that the two hold the same views about the surrounding world.
Having just returned from a trip to Israel, I wish to point out that I met in that country lots of Asians, including workers from the Far East, and African Jews, but very few people who bear any resemblance to the editorial boards of Commentary and The Weekly Standard.
The present Israeli government is eager to give back the entire West bank, minus possibly East Jerusalem, if it can achieve a non-violent peace with the Palestinians. There are also almost a million Palestinians living within Israel proper, who enjoy much better treatment and a far higher standard of living than their Arab cousins, who already enjoy the pleasures of Arab autonomy.
I have the distinct impression that my fellow-paleos, who weep over the tyranny of the Jewish state, are really protesting another issue, the bad manners and Stalinist techniques of the neoconservative dictators of the present conservative movement. But those issues are clearly different from the ones that the anti-Israeli Right brings up in its invectives. From what I have observed, it is the cowardice and opportunism of movement conservatives, not Mr. Olmert, which are responsible for the state of the American Right.

Paleos, take the argument up with Bill Buckley, Heritage, and Bill Rusher and not the Israelis.

—Paul Gottfried