The Janus-Like Punditry of Nat Hentoff

The Janus-Like Punditry of Nat Hentoff

Friday, November 29 2002 @ 08:39 PM GMT


By William Hughes

In Roman mythology, the God Janus was worshipped as a patron of beginnings and endings. They even named the month of January after him. He had two faces; one in the front, and one in the back of the head.


Recently, the punditry of Nat Hentoff brought Janus to my mind. He wrote two pieces last week which, politically speaking, were diametrically opposed to each other. It was hard for me to believe they were written by the same man, three days apart. How could he, I thought, hold these two views in his head at the same time? The first article was liberal, justice seeking and optimistic; the second, narrow, close minded, indifferent to human suffering and extremely cynical.

His commentary appearing in the Village Voice, (11/22/02), had a very strong progressive bent to it. It was entitled, “Resistance Rising! True Patriots Networking,” and it centered on the growing opposition around the country to the USA Patriot Act. In fact, it was forwarded to me by a long- time peace and justice activist. I wondered, however, if that same activist had seen Hentoff’s second piece, if he would have been so keen to have circulated that first commentary on his email list. I doubt it.

The “Resistance Rising” piece was mostly solid journalism. It praised activists for resisting the new federal criminal law by taking the initiative at the local level to protest it. Hentoff even cited historical American parallels as a precedent. His targets were the Justice Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Defense Department. He omitted, however, citing Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), for laying the infrastructure for the USA Patriot Act in the mid-90s.

The second article, however, was a rant, a smear attack, which sounded like it was penned by some shill for Ariel Sharon. It was captioned, “Israel at Stake on U.S. Campuses,” and it was published by the right wing Washington Times, (11/25/02), a house organ for the syndicated ravings of A. M. Rosenthal and other Israeli Firsters. Its main purpose was to marginalize the growing grass roots movement on college campuses that is advocating for divestment from the apartheid state of Israel.

Francis A. Boyle, a distinguished law professor, human rights activist, and recognized expert on international law, gave birth to the Israeli divestment campaign, on Nov. 30, 2000. The U. of California, at Berkeley, was the first to join up. Since then, more than 50 campuses have come onboard. Boyle predicted that this campaign “can produce an historical reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians- -just as it successfully did between whites and blacks in South Africa.”

Hentoff objected that Israel was being compared with the “formerly apartheid South Africa” in this new campaign. He didn’t try, however, to show, why that would be factually or morally inapplicable. Instead, he primarily made the specious legal argument that Israel was a “selective” target. This is kind of like a mouthpiece for NYC’s late gangster John Gotti complaining about the Feds picking on him, rather then some Chicago mobster. It doesn’t hold up under careful analysis. Hentoff didn’t label the “divestment crusaders” as anti-Semites, but he did charge that some of them are “Jew-haters,” who just wanted to demonize Israel. (Really Nat, I expected better from you.)

Some historical background is in order. In addition to the anti-Apartheid campaign against South Africa, and the ongoing divestment action against Israel, there was another gallant movement in this country that attempted to end human rights violations on foreign shores. This was the MacBride Principles campaign. It was directed at Northern Ireland and led in America by Father Sean McManus, an Irish born priest. It urged that U.S. corporate and governmental investments, in the British-controlled state, be based on a non-discriminatory policy between the Catholic and Protestant communities. I think it’s fair to say, that the MacBride Principles, a federal law since 1998, contributed significantly to the ongoing “Peace Process” in Northern Ireland.

Incidentally, the former South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Palestine, have two major things in common: First, they are all settler colonies; and secondly, the indigenous people in each were viciously persecuted by their colonizers. Alas, it still continues in occupied Palestine.

Hentoff was right to denounce the “suicide bombers,” but he failed miserably to address the massive evils of the Zionist occupation, dating back over 35 years. He made no mention of Israel stealing the land of the Palestinians; bulldozing their homes and orchards; torturing detainees; holding prisoners without trial; operating death squads; or its draconian collective punishment of innocent civilians, itself a war crime.

Hentoff’s apology for Israeli wrongdoing echoed the theme of the Harvard U. president, the overly pious Lawrence H. Summers, on Sept. 17, 2002. Then, Summers used his office as a bully pulpit to do some special pleadings for the Zionist cause. He said that he was a Jew, but he failed to disclose his Zionist identity. I wonder why?

Hentoff was right to call those opposing the USA Patriot Act, the “true “patriots” in America. I think if he had a chance to reconsider his harsh comments about those crusading in this country for justice in an apartheid Israel, he might have also come to the same conclusion about them. They, too, despite the unfair name-calling, are true patriots, who champion the values of our Republic for an oppressed people.

© William Hughes 2002. William Hughes is the author of “Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order” (Authors Choice Press) and “Baltimore Iconoclast” (Writer’s Showcase), which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes [at] mindspring.com.

-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).