National Review Online Officially Jumps the Shark

(Hat tip: Dave Hartline at Catholic Report)

People who read this blog regularly know that I am a strong supporter of Israel. But I do not believe everything done in the name of Israel is above reproach. And when an ad promoting Israel tourism resorts to T & A and outright blasphemy, I draw the line.

In contrast, National Review's Mike Potemra (a self-described "evangelical") apparently believes that ANY criticism of Israel for ANY reason is tantamount to a treasonous betrayal of the War on Terror:

Anti-Iraq War blogger Mark Shea is trying to drive a wedge between U.S. evangelicals and Israel, by posting a video on his website that he hopes will shock us into realizing that Israel is just another “secular nation-state.” The video contains a TV commercial for Israel tourism in which a couple of guys on a beach see a beautiful woman in a bikini, and one of them says, “Holy Mother of God.” The end caption says, “ISRAEL No wonder they call it The Holy Land.”

... As an Evangelical, I have emotional and religious reasons to support the Jewish believers who live in Israel; as a believer in secular freedom—America, too, is a secular (i.e., non-confessional) state, and long may it remain so—I support the people of Israel, believers and non-believers alike, who are just trying to live normal lives in the face of enemies who want to (first) put their women in burkas and (second) exterminate them. I can’t, of course speak for all evangelicals; but from what I know, many of us have a sense of humor and will not let the Sex Police of the Blogosphere turn us against a brave ally fighting a just war.

(emphasis added)

What crap! Is there ANYTHING the neocon brigade (and I genuinely HATE resorting to the overused and often meaningless "neocon" epithet, but here it seems to apply) won't justify or defend in the name of Israel and/or the War on Terror?

And it is interesting that Potemra is more worried about the fact that Israel could be offended by Mark's protest than he is that Catholics are genuinely offended by the disrespect shown to the Blessed Virgin Mary by the ad's use of "Holy Mother of God" as one man's exclamation after he gets a boob shot from a bikini-clad young woman bending over to pick up a ball on the beach.

Finally, check out the description of Mark Shea: "Anti-Iraq War blogger"? Certainly Mark has been vocal in criticising the Bush Administration in its prosecution of the Iraq War, even calling into question whether it meets just war standards. But that is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of someone who is among the top 2 or 3 Catholic bloggers in the blogosphere. This commenter at Mark's blog had the same thought:

The most interesting thing to me is that Potemra characterizes Mark as "anti Iraq War blogger Mark Shea." Most of us I think would first describe Mark as "Catholic blogger" or even "conservative Catholic blogger" -- the fact that Potemra chooses otherwise may indicate what's really bugging him.

Indeed.

Mark responds here:

... Now the amazing thing to me is that, of all the things NRO could be doing, they chose to go to bat for *this*. And not just go to bat for it, but claim that criticism of it is an attempt to "turn us against a brave ally". Because, of course, anything less than uncritical acceptance of anything the Israelis might choose to do--right down to a blasphemous jiggle ad--is endorsement of the idea of pushing Israel into the sea.

***
Had that ad been, say, something broadcast on Saturday Night Live or Bill Maher, K Lo would be linking the latest press release from Shoutin' Bill Donohue and NRO would be lamenting the tacky way in which the media was trashing religion and trying to make Israel look bad. But since it was some chucklehead Israeli put the ad together, then NRO is going to bat for it in accord with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the State of Israel. I didn't point out the blasphemous jiggle ad because I think blasphemous jiggle ads are tacky. Nope, I did it to turn people against a brave ally. Likewise, when I criticized the plan to give contraceptives to 11 year olds up in New England, that's not because I think that's a bad idea. It's because I hate America and I'm trying to foster treason. It's all or nothing at all in the weird new world of Millennial Conservatism.

Here's the deal: there's no need to defend the ad. It doesn't just offend Christians (and presumably Hindus). It offends religious Jews: religious Jews who believe (as I do not) that Israel *is* the fulfilment of prophecy. It's a tacky, blasphemous, gratuitously insulting ad.

The bizarre notion that whatever Israel chooses to do merits uncritical acceptance on pain of being declared an anti-semite or an enemy of Israel is on a collision course with itself if Israel decides that doing a Bill Maher imitation is the best way to market its tourism industry. The American conservative dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the State of Israel is also unlikely to survive its self-collision if it is so brittle that it cannot abide even the teensiest criticism of a blasphemous jiggle ad without hauling out the "enemy of Israel" sledgehammers.

Bingo.


UPDATE (22 October)
Victor points out that I was wrong to refer to Potemra as an "alleged evangelical" in my comments above. He is correct, and I have excised the word "alleged" from my original remarks. I apologize to Potemra for calling the authenticity of his faith into question.


UPDATE #2 (22 October)
Thanks to Paul Zummo who posted this in comments:

As usual, Ramesh Ponnuru has the most level-headed take on the situaton.

"To drum up tourism, Israel is running an ad that is both tacky and offensive. Mark Shea criticized the ad, and pointed out that Israel is a secular nation-state that Christians should not invest with special theological significance. Mike Potemra, in this space, then criticized Shea as an anti-Israeli prude. Shea can't believe that "NRO is going to bat" for the ad. No: Mike Potemra is. (As it happens, I think Shea's initial comments were correct.)"