On Erev Yom Kippur, when Jews around the world are busy forsaking the worldly to the extent of giving up food, which, not being for free, is far more precious to us than air, I topped off my Kol Nidre service with an episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher”.
The evening’s first interview featured a testy exchange between Maher and Michael Scheuer, author of “Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq”. Finishing the interview, Maher introduced his panel, and began with this question:
BILL MAHER: Okay. So, did anything Mr. Scheuer said upset anybody as much as the comments on Israel upset me?
JANEANE GAROFALO: Well, I actually – no, what upsets me is that any substantive conversation about Israel gets stopped because of something similar that you did. You immediately had an attitude when he’s saying something that actually very viable, that our support of Israel, to the detriment of the Palestinian people and to the detriment of the American people, is not wise. And it’s been responsible for a lot of problems. And the way the mainstream media portrays the Palestinians is totally unfair. [applause] And you shut him down with your tone of voice and everything right – sort of right away.
WTF was this woman talking about?!?
The dialogue in question went as follows:
MAHER: …But, would you grant me this? That as long as there is an Israel in the world – and I’m a big supporter of Israel – and as long as America backs it – the kind of Muslims that take their religion that seriously that they would strap on a suicide belt, are always going to be out for us and always going to be trying to kill us?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think we can reduce it very seriously, sir. I disagree with you on Israel, but—
MAHER: In what way? You’re not a supporter?
SCHEUER: I – I hope Israel flourishes. I just don’t think it’s worth an American life or an American dollar. [scattered applause followed by scattered boos]
MAHER: You don’t – you don’t think the existence of Israel in the world is worth an American life or an American dollar?
SCHEUER: Not only Israel, sir, but Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Bolivia. I’m much more—
MAHER: [overlapping] You’re really – you’re really not telling me that Israel is on a par with Saudi Arabia.
SCHEUER: I’m telling you – what I’m telling you, sir, is I’m most interested in the survival of the United States. [applause]
MAHER: But Israel is a democracy in a part of the world that has none.
SCHEUER: What – so what, sir? It doesn’t matter to Americans if anyone ever votes again. [audience reacts]
MAHER: [overlapping] It doesn’t—
SCHEUER: [overlapping] You know, we’ll get by – we’ll get by just fine, sir.
MAHER: I wouldn’t. [applause] I wouldn’t get by just fine. So you’re saying like back in 1973, when Israel’s very existence was threatened in the Yom Kippur War, and we did come to their aid, we shouldn’t have done that, and we shouldn’t do it again?
SCHEUER: What I’m saying, sir, is we should have revisited the situation after 1973, and not be the unqualified, sole supporter of Israel at the moment. I think it earns America tremendous pain and, increasingly, dead Americans fighting wars that are not ours to fight. [applause]
MAHER: But – but, you did say, I mean, after 9/11, you said, “The only way to win is to kill more of the enemy.”
SCHEUER: Yes, sir.
MAHER: [overlapping] “Anywhere we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties.”
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. I said that exactly.
MAHER: You still believe that?
SCHEUER: Absolutely, sir.
To answer the articulate Ms Garofalo in her own language: Well, I actually – no, what upsets me is that any substantive conversation point in defense of Israel gets stopped because of something similar that you did to Mr. Maher. You immediately had an attitude when he’s saying something that actually very viable, that our support of a society which embraces our values, in an area of the world where they are almost entirely absent, is a moral imperative. And the way some folks on the "idiot left", as well as in the mainstream media, portray the Israelis is totally unfair. [applause] And you shut him down with your tone of voice and everything right – sort of right away.
Moreover, Ms. G, I’ve re-read the transcript several times and I’ve yet to find where Scheuer says anything about the Palestinian people and any unfairness to them. Frankly, all I see is cold blooded Machievellian/Kissinger type bottom line-ism. “It doesn’t matter to Americans if anyone ever votes again…You know, we’ll get by – we’ll get by just fine, sir.” Bill responds not by calling Scheuer an anti-Semite, but by saying he wouldn’t get by just fine without democracy. And you, Ms. G, complain about Maher's tone of voice; all to defend a man whose also said “The only way to win is to kill more of the enemy…Anywhere we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties.” I suspect that Mr. Scheuer would also get on just fine if every Palestinian became a civilian casualty, provided, of course, that there were no negative consequences for the US. Do you really believe that it does not matter if no one in the world ever gets to vote again? Or does opposition to Israel cleanse all other sins against political correctness?
I understand that there are times when one issue alone can be said to define good and evil, to the point where disagreement on that issue alone renders all else moot. That is why, to the extent that Americans remember Burton Wheeler today, it is not as the great progressive who ran with La Follette in 1924, but as a sympathizer with Lindbergh’s anti-Anti-Nazi American First Movement. Similarly, there was a time when the politics of France were defined solely by where on stood on the matter of Colonel Dreyfuss. Nothing else mattered.
Ms. G, have we come to a point where Progressive politics are now defined solely by whether or not one opposes Israel? Is this so self-evident in its moral clarity that even raising a question about it, in the wrong tone of voice, is an act worthy of condemnation and derision? Is a cold-blooded advocate of the Gordon Gekko, “What’s in it for me”, school of foreign policy now an honorary member of Move On? Are Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan now to be addressed only in dulcet tones so we don’t shut down their very viable opinions on the only subject which matters?
Just askin’.
Guess, I won't be co-postin' this one on Daily Gotham [WELL, THAT WAS WRONG].