BOOKS AND ARTS MAY 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Embarrassment is an important element in the pedagogy of experience. There are mistakes I will never make again because I made them once and was usefully shamed. In the winter of 1974, when I was a bright and callow student, and did not yet grasp the difference between knowledge and knowingness, I endured such a lucky education at the hands of Diana Trilling. The subject was the danger of simplification in the intellectual engagement with politics. She had signed a letter in The New York Times Book Review protesting that Mary McCarthy, in an appreciation of Philip Rahv’s liberal anti-Stalinism, had neglected the liberal anti-Stalinism of other intellectuals, herself included. I casually wondered aloud why she protested so much. I will never forget the castigation that followed. With her uncanny mixture of ferocity and affection, Diana instructed me in the art of being against Joseph Stalin and against Joseph McCarthy at the same time. She meant genuinely against both of them, equally against both of them, without making any excuses for either of them, without any “to be sure” sentences that exposed one of your dissents as a minor premise: a position forthrightly comprised of two major premises. Not a commitment and a credential; two commitments. This was not the “center,” or half of what the left thought and half of what the right thought; it was its own place on the map. And a small place it was, too: the refusal to play the game of allowing McCarthyism to extenuate Stalinism or Stalinism to extenuate McCarthyism left these brave people somewhat friendless, though in their own terrific company. Stalinism and McCarthyism are gone now, but the style of evasion remains. Everybody is “to be sure” offended by every evil, and how dare anybody suggest otherwise, but the bifocal vision, the one that manages to hit all the stresses and honor all the emphases, is still very rare.
Now to family business. Here is what I mean by “to be sure” sentences. In a worry about the future of liberal Zionism in The New York Review of Books, which is not known for its worry about the future of any kind of Zionism, Peter Beinart takes care to add: “Yes, Israel faces threats from Hezbollah and Hamas.” And: “Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not infallible.” And: “Of course, Israel ... must sometimes take morally difficult actions in its own defense.” Of course! All this will not do. Israel is also not infallible, but Beinart does not leave it at that. The racist ideologies and hostile arsenals of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the disquiet that they provoke in Israel, cannot be so glibly treated—unless, of course, one wishes to make it into The New York Review of Books, where there is no bifocal vision of Israelis and Palestinians, and Hamas is described as a “last chance for peace.” Beinart’s pseudo-courageous article is an anthology of xenophobic quotations by Israeli hawks and anguished quotations by Israeli doves: familiar stuff. I stand with the anguish, and have said so many times in these pages. But liberal Zionism must be as much Zionism as liberalism, and I do not see that the depredations of the settlers and their political sponsors relieve one of the obligation to include Palestinian behavior prominently among the causes of the conflict (in Beinart’s piece Palestinians appear tenderly as “decent people betrayed by bad leaders”), or to assert the moral imperative of Israeli security among its other moral challenges. The lovelier Israel is also threatened by bombs and missiles. Does Beinart believe that the liberal discussion of Palestine suffers from too much solicitude for Israel’s security? Does he really think that the paltry affiliations of young Jews in America are adequately explained by the alienating effects of Avigdor Lieberman and Effi Eitam? He has produced yet another theory of AIPAC as SMERSH, except that this time the omnipotent villains are destroying not American foreign policy but American Zionism.
A few weeks ago Harold Bloom, who has been posing as a Jewish scholar for many years, lauded Anthony Julius’s extraordinary study of anti-Semitism in Britain in The New York Times Book Review. As usual, he wrote wildly. He made Britain even worse than it is. Up rose James Wood to chastise him, in a letter, for his claim that the anti-Zionism of “the English literary and academic establishment” is no different than anti-Semitism, and to deliver this beau geste: “Bloom might have noted that some of the most robust left-wing discussion of Israeli policy has come from members of the British literary and academic establishment who are also Jewish (Tony Judt, Harold Pinter, Mike Leigh, Jacqueline Rose).” It is an old and easy point, often made by non-Jews who envy Jews their lack of inhibition in speaking about themselves. So what if Wood’s authorities are Jews? Can Jews not be wrong, or anti-Semitic? Wood’s Jews are certainly anti-Zionist. Judt has called for the dissolution of the Jewish state, and a few years ago he declared that if his view that American policy in the Middle East is controlled by AIPAC “sounds an awful lot, like, you know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion … well, if it sounds like it it’s unfortunate, but that’s just how it is.” (I found this disgrace in Julius’s book.) Pinter was a rabid anti-Israeli and anti-American crank. For Rose, mainstream Zionism is Jewish fascism, and also a psychopathological condition. (As one of her admirers on Amazon says, her work is “incitful.”) I do not know Leigh’s opinions, and I do not intend to let them ruin my pleasure in his films. Wood makes no mention of academic boycotts and other outrages. He seems to believe that since anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism can never take the form of anti-Zionism. This is unreliable narration. So is his superior remark that “there is more political discussion of this order in Britain than in America” because “most Americans live in almost complete ignorance of ... certain political realities and facts.” I will not defend the political literacy of my countrymen, but the appeal to an epistemic handicap is always a bad sign. What makes England so intrinsically enlightened? They have The Guardian, I know. But I was not aware that the American media, which Mort and Marty and I control, has been extolling Israel’s policies and leaders. The truth is that everyone finds the facts that are demanded by their level of honesty. And since these days you are thought to accuse someone of anti-Semitism if you accuse them of scanting anti-Semitism, I want to say also that Wood detests anti-Semitism, to be sure.
Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
37 comments
I don't understand why I can't have access to the full contents of this article.
- noga1
May 20, 2010 at 7:34pm
Awesome!
- Sophia
May 21, 2010 at 12:38am
OK so that wasn't a very eloquent comment. But it nevertheless expresses my opinion. I am so tired of the "to be sure" business and the lack of "bifocal vision." So thanks.
- Sophia
May 21, 2010 at 12:42am
This is The New Republic in full panic mode. This is a Leon Wieseltier too blinded by bigotry to recognize that The New Republic he has so proudly been the literary editor of for so many years is the house organ of American ZioNazism. Don't choke on your puke, Leon, because there is far more to come. There are decades of bile for you to puke up yet.
- ndmackenzie
May 21, 2010 at 4:31am
Wow -"bifocal"! You can't argue with that ... unless you are going to insist on a multifocal vision. LW doesn't say anything about Iran here. Aren't they also part of the problem? Or Syria? Isn't LW obligated to denounce them with the same ferocity? Why are they left off the hook? It's pretty clear that LW doesn't "hit all the stresses and honor all the emphases" here. Of course there is a limit to what one can talk about in such pieces - this is presumably why commentators like Beinart and LW write more than one piece of commentary! Just because Beinart focuses on one problem here - or one aspect of a problem - that doesn't come close to implying that is all that he thinks there is to say about an issue. Is this the best critique there is to muster? That Beinart leaves a lot out? Fine - but let all TNR pieces be judged henceforth by their "comprehensiveness" and not by their acuity, truth, or much less focus. This is a classic complaint that I receive from David Harris and the AJC on an almost daily basis - the "and what about ...?" critique. This is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't go very far and sometimes it even gives the appearance of trying to avoid looking at a difficult issue. One can focus on say, human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay without feeling the need to dwell on the horrors of Al Qaeda or the Taliban (or both!). The idea that one has to _fully_ account for all the terrible and stupid people in the world before saying anything about anything is a dumb idea.
- NR851651
May 21, 2010 at 6:40am
That's not the issue with many world problems (lack of bifocal vision) for the simple reason (among others) that few issues on the planet receive the attention Israel receives particularly in the pejorative sense - but also there's the ongoing and ancient problem of antisemitism. One simply cannot ignore history when discussing modern Israel. Further to that the fact that the Left, which theoretically supports human rights and progress is wierdly blind to many issues confronting and surrounding Israel. There is a problem on the Left regarding human rights vis a vis Jews and the Jewish state. Blindness to the situation confronting Israel is part of that, it's a huge part of it. Lack of ability to empathize with the people of Israel and merely castigating them for being "right wing" is an aspect of blindness not least to the long term effects of war as is the lack of ability to see the surrounding territory clearly. It's one thing to sit in a cushy American suburb or university, where one doesn't get hit everyday with rockets, where one's existence or the existence of one's community isn't daily fodder for conjecture if not outright attack, and abhor the Israelis for not being sufficiently open-minded, left wing and lovable (unlike of course their victims). By the same token it's one thing to berate the West in general for all our flaws and another to make Israel the scapegoat for all the woes of West including the British Empire. But this problem extends beyond Israel and involves a strange hypocrisy regarding Western liberals vis a vis oppressive, repressive, illiberal cultures. This particularly reveals itself lately in the embrace or at least willful blindness concerning certain Middle Eastern and Central Asian ideologies, which receive bags of money and praise and support from Western leftists. Most recently we see Brazil's Lula and theoretically socialist Chavez embracing Iran. Meanwhile Israel is roundly clobbered at the UN and by Western NGO's and theoretically liberal/leftist states and is threatened with cultural and economic boycotts as well as war. This makes no sense at all. So I suggest a more "bifocal" vision of this issue too. We can't sit here in the West and argue for gay and women's and other human rights, for example the right to freedom of religion, the right simply to live as who one is - openly - and ignore the lack of those rights abroad, including huge wars and genocides, mass rapes, repression of women, gays, minorities and dissidents and the ongoing and serial dislocation of millions - as in parts of Africa and Asia - particularly when discussing Israel. That's a focal point, isn't it, and the flower of historical and genocidal bias against a certain group of people (Jews) but also against the accomplishments of a country (Israel) which has tried to incorporate the best of Western ideals regardless of having been the recipients of the very worst humanity has to offer - and which in many ways has succeeded, yet which remains existentially threatened. So instead of dealing with history and with the surrounding ideological terrain and confronting the problems that feed the conflict against Israel we attack Israel. This makes sense?
- Sophia
May 21, 2010 at 8:26am
What a brilliant conclusion to an insightful article: "The truth is that everyone finds the facts that are demanded by their level of honesty. And since these days you are thought to accuse someone of anti-Semitism if you accuse them of scanting anti-Semitism, I want to say also that Wood detests anti-Semitism, to be sure." I read Wood’s paltry letter in the NY Times Book Review do out this Sunday and found cramped and nervous as if Woods was trying to justify something (his wife’s antisemitic views on Israel?). It definitely didn’t sound like the Woods I know and used to admire. His logic was forced he suggested that if one judges the Brits to be antisemitic than one can also Judge Jews to be anti-Palestinian. This doesn’t make sense since Bloom et al, who condemn British antisemitism have also been very critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Wood’s letter goes to show how even brilliant people get drawn into hysterical and illogical rhetoric when discussing the Jewish State.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 10:27am
I'm glad my plumber doesn't do open heart surgery. How about sticking to literature?
- qnetter
May 21, 2010 at 10:29am
ndmUckenzie “This is The New Republic in full panic mode…… Don't choke on your puke, Leon, because there is far more to come. There are decades of bile for you to puke up yet.” Ha, ha, ha! The resident hysterical Nazi-like Jew hater has spoken! So who is in panic mode? I need a lapel button that reads: proud to be an American Zionist. TNR in panic mode, imagine that; and yet it’s the Nation that is running a million dollar deficit and is begging for money.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 10:39am
Qnetter your plumber isn’t a good at plumbing either. And you are an illiterate, qnetter.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 10:41am
Sophia: And so the answer is... what? Is it going to be impermissible to criticise Israel until the rest of the world's problems have been solved, until Iran and North Korea and Syria and Afghanistan and Cuba and Equatorial Guinea and Chad and on and on are all happy and prosperous democracies? At what point will it be all right - let's be modest, in your opinion and that of Jonathan Chait and Leon Wieseltier, leave bittereinders like Peretz out of it - to say that Israel is committing injustice? Herewith from Haaretz today (because Israelis can be harder on their own state than any of Martin Peretz's employees can afford to be...) at http://tinyurl.com/3xznr9o: "Not a single settler has ever been caught. There have been hundreds of "terror-settler" events and all the avengers are still walking about free. There is evidence and there are traces, but there is no justice. Bullets are fired, trees are chopped down, fields are set ablaze, window panes are shattered and houses are subject to pogroms while the representatives of law and order keep themselves safe and at a distance. Soldiers and policemen already understand the principle; the spirit of the commanders explained it to them." That situation is obvious, and it is an injustice, according to Israeli commentators and outsiders. Am I supposed to be allowed to condemn it, in your opinion or Leon Wieseltier's? The Palestinians are still there, 'price tag' is practiced day-to-day, and democratic Israel has a democratically elected thug as Foreign Minister who (in his more honest moments) has advocated the mass killing of Palestinians. Is the world just supposed to ignore those things, because things in Kyrgyzstan are worse? The ex-President of the Israel Supreme Court once said that one of the burdens of a democracy was that some courses of action were not open to it, that it had to hold itself to higher standards than its enemies. I often wonder if many of the commentators at TNR actually believe that... You make a lot of good points in your post, but I don't actually think Western leftists and liberals are as blind to the issues that you mention as you might think - although in some cases they may have a different appreciation of their features. They might note, for example, the trickiness of protecting womens' rights by forbidding them to wear certain sorts of clothing (burqas _or_ bikinis). They might note the steady deterioration, the narrowing and restriction, of womens' rights in Iraq after an invasion that was supposed to be about the liberation of Iraqis. They might cast their minds back to prehistory in the mid-1990s, and remember that one of the chief reasons behind Afghanis' acceptance of the Taliban was the widespread violence and rape associated with the warlords - many of whom were reinstituted after the American invasion. Perhaps the only thing worse than prescriptions from us leftists in these cases are the prescriptions of Martin Peretz and others on the right: essentially, bombing the Backwards Races into democracy hasn't worked too well either over the last decade.
- SMacEachern2
May 21, 2010 at 12:23pm
I'm with Sophia and Jack as to this piece.
- basman
May 21, 2010 at 12:52pm
And particularly on what Beinart wrote.
- basman
May 21, 2010 at 12:54pm
SMacEachern2 “Is it going to be impermissible to criticise Israel until the rest of the world's problems have been solved,….” A predictable post from the other Mac. No one said that it’s “impermissible to criticize Israel.” This is a familiar antisemitic trope. Wieseltier and even Peretz have criticized Israel for certain of its policies. What is at stake isn’t “criticism” but demonization and de-legitimization by the likes of the pukey Jew hater nazi minded Muckenzie.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 12:57pm
SMacEachern2 “Is it going to be impermissible to criticise Israel until the rest of the world's problems have been solved,….” A predictable post from the other Mac. No one said that it’s “impermissible to criticize Israel.” This is a familiar antisemitic trope. Wieseltier and even Peretz have criticized Israel for certain of its policies. What is at stake isn’t “criticism” but demonization and de-legitimization by the likes of the pukey Jew hater nazi minded Muckenzie.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 12:57pm
Leon Wieseltier writes: -- A few weeks ago Harold Bloom, who has been posing as a Jewish scholar for many years, lauded Anthony Julius’s extraordinary study of anti-Semitism in Britain in The New York Times Book Review. As usual, he wrote wildly. He made Britain even worse than it is. James Wood was right to excoriate Harold Bloom for a review that was at once mendacious and malicious. The Bloom who wrote that review was only "posing as a Jewish scholar" because he was in reality acting as a hasbarbaric propagandist seeking to defend the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. In attacking Wood's condemnatory letter Wieseltier writes: -- It is an old and easy point, often made by non-Jews who envy Jews their lack of inhibition in speaking about themselves. There is neither knowledge nor knowingness in this statement which I presume Wieseltier pulled out of his rectum the last time he got worms. The reality here is that Jews and Gentiles who defend the Israeli oppression of the Paletsinian people - all the while pretending they are defending Jews - demonstrate a total inhibiition about speaking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in any terms other than its effect on Jews. And when anyone else seeks to do so we see moronic responses like the near daily attacks by Martin Peretz and the dummy for his ventriloquism - Jonathan Chait - or Jeffrey Goldberg. The only lack of inhibition they show is in presenting arguments consisting of little else but mindless smears. Peter Beinart correctly identifies that for Liberal Zionism la via diritta era smarrita and that the inferno is in sight. The neo-Nazism of the Israeli settlers has become the National project of Israel - it is what Zionism has become. There is certainly no room for liberalism in that project. And we see the effect of blind support of that Illiberal Zionism in the intellectual destruction wrought on those who seek to support it even as they deny its effects - the malicious mendacity espoused by the likes of Harold "the scholar" Bloom, Leon "the critic" Wieseltier, Jonathan "the dummy" Chait, and Martin "the racist" Peretz. There is no knowledge in their heads, their is no knowingness in their heads - there is nothing in their heads but a chaos of mindless and malicious bigotry.
- ndmackenzie
May 21, 2010 at 4:09pm
ndmuckenzie Vomits again: “James Wood was right to excoriate Harold Bloom for a review that was at once mendacious and malicious.” This from someone who has not read Wood’s little hysterical note to the times defending his antisemitic friends in merry old England. Now, Wieseltier didn’t say that Bloom lied he said that he exaggerated the antisemitism in England: “He made Britain even worse than it is.” And the antisemitism in England as Julius demonstrated and with which Wieseltier agreed is pretty horrid. Our Muckenzie who dwells in sewers adds: “There is neither knowledge nor knowingness in this statement which I presume Wieseltier pulled out of his rectum the last time he got worms.” There you have it. Muck lives in filth and vomit and thinks everyone else does also. The best riposte to the Jew hating garbage he or she writes is to repost his dreck.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 4:19pm
In the meantime: “US lawmakers back Israel missile defense aid" http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iZkwGc0de9kU4XW0QtVJ5aaoDdyw (AFP) "WASHINGTON — The US House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly backed President Barack Obama's plans to help Israel deploy an anti-missile system, in an unmistakable election-year show of support. By a 410-4 margin, lawmakers endorsed Obama's plan to give Israel 205 million dollars for its production of a short-range rocket defense system called "Iron Dome." "With nearly every square inch of Israel at risk from rocket and missile attacks, we must ensure that our most important ally in the region has the tools to defend itself," said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman. "The looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the persistent threat posed by Iran's allies Hamas and Hezbollah, only serve to reinforce our longstanding commitment to Israel's security," the California Democrat added. Israel completed tests in January on its Iron Dome system, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells fired at Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah. The next phase is to integrate the system into the army. Israel hopes the Iron Dome will help counter rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and from Lebanon. Palestinian militants have fired thousands of home-made rockets into southern Israel, prompting Israel's devastating assault on the Islamist Hamas in Gaza on December 27, 2008. The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah also fired some 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during a 2006 war with Israel. The group is believed to have an arsenal of some 40,000 rockets.”
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 4:22pm
In between time: "Churches Worldwide to Show Support for Israel May 23 Meanwhile, Congress Funds Israeli Missile Defense System Christian Sites Vulnerable in Jerusalem and West Bank Christian leaders at more than 1,500 churches in all 50 states and in more than 50 countries are scheduled to hold religious services Sunday (May 23) focused on educating their congregants about the importance of Israel to their faith."
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 4:23pm
Andrew Sullivan describes Wieseltier's piece as: -- really another nasty attack on former colleagues, this time Peter Beinart and James Wood. Notice a pattern here? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/when-will-the-wieseltier-hit-piece-come-out.html
- ndmackenzie
May 21, 2010 at 4:24pm
I understand the political position of the liberal anti-Stalinists from a very long appreciation of the Partisan Review, Dissent and the New International. I was introduced to Max Shachtman in my 20s, in Floral Park, N.Y. and he filled me in on some unique history, ideas and persoanalities of the NY intellectuals. My life was never the same after that experience, in Floral Park. Through Uncle Max, I met cousin Carl. I worked for cousin Carl for two years ("interning"), assisting cousin Carl edit a pro-Israeli journal of opinion, "Crossroads." You can find it at the Tamiment Institute Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives on E15th Street in Manhattan, filed under YIPDME. (Same library Elena Kagan used to reaserch her senior thesis on Local New York.) Over time, YIPDME became NED. I learned from cousin Carl that it is possible to be a life-long supporter of Israel and a pro-Liberal Zionist and (you guessed it!) an anti-semite. Secular non-Jewish supporters of Israel need to be very careful when discussing the Jewish State. I have learned that anything you say can and will be used against you.
- LawrenceGulotta
May 21, 2010 at 4:25pm
The invaluable Jeff Goldberg has posted a series of dialogues with Beinart: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/goldblog-vs-peter-beinart-part-iii-zionism-reloaded/57088/ This is for everyone here except Muckenzie who is too antisemitic and just plain too stupid to be able to appreciate Jewish subtlety.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 4:30pm
LawrenceGulotta I appreciate your pro labor credentials, cousin Lawrence. However, no one here called you an antisemite. Yes, we are a touchy bunch; and why the hell not? Had you come from a people that was eliminated from existence in Europe and the Muslim world you would be touchy too.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 4:35pm
Oh brother. As if the Brits are not and haven't been antisemitic (for centuries) and as if British policy regarding the Yishuv, people fleeing the Shoah, later survivors of the Shoah and toward Israel haven't been highly problematic? The flip side of that was the British creation of Jordan, their involvement in 1948 and recognition of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem (including the ethnic cleansing of its Jews and the non-creation of a Palestinian Arab state). On top of that or probably contributing to it: British attitudes toward Jews vs the idealization of Arabs, a vision straight out of "Lawrence of Arabia," flowing robes and all, and even images of Christian suffering (St. Peter as "First Palestinian" a la Arafat) vs Shylock and The Killer of Jesus. So you tell me. Also - this baloney about not criticizing Israel - give us a break. Here's Goldberg on the "taboo" against criticizing Israel (Chapter 43 thereof): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/01/the-taboo-that-just-wont-shut-up-chapter-43/34306/ Anti-zionism and its corrolary the "new" antisemitism have NOTHING TO DO with "criticizing Israel." It has to do with those who argue against Israel's existence, about its Jewishness, not about its borders. And, it does no good whatsoever to ignore the fact of antisemitism, new or old, and the way it's affecting discourse about Israel and the dehumanization of Israelis who are just not seen OR who are seen as Nazis or vampires or octopi or spiders just as American supporters of Israel are now called "Afrikaners" for pete's sake and members of an all powerful cabal; whereas Palestinians are portrayed as completely innocent victims who simply have "bad leaders." Israeli victims of terror are not counted, ditto Jewish victims around the world - they probably deserved it right? because of the unrivaled horrors of The Occupation. Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghetto for as though there is no difference between dead population and burgeoning population. That all reflects bias and it should concern, especially, the Left since theoretically we don't buy into bias. Right? What about outright lies? as in conflating the extermination of millions of people with the non-extermination of millions of people and simultaneously, endlessly mourning the naqba whilst ignoring the history of Middle Eastern Jews? The Left doesn't buy into this kind of ignorance - do we? Thus endless historical revisionism should also be a concern of real intellectuals be they professors or simply thoughtful people. Post-modern histories that seek to replace facts with narratives are part of this discussion and this overlaps too with university-level discussions about women's rights and the excuses made for the lack thereof (ditto gay rights, freedom of speech etc). Here again there's unbelievable blindness and bias against Israel. So nobody's arguing against Criticism of Israel. That's a straw man and you know it. We're arguing against blindness and beneath that or driving it: the apparently never-ending "problem" presented by the existence of Jews, self-determining or otherwise.
- Sophia
May 21, 2010 at 4:36pm
Andrew Sullivan. Get a grip.
- Sophia
May 21, 2010 at 4:39pm
I can't see the whole article either. What gives?
- nhrds@earthlink.net
May 21, 2010 at 5:08pm
Leon proves a bit of Beinart's point: to criticize Israel much as an Israeli citizen like David Grossman or Gershom Gorneberg would is to risk one's fellow American Jews calling him anti-Israel, stifling debate our children want to have so they can form their own conclusions about how their Jewishness should be a part of their lives and how they should relate to Israel. Moderate Jewish America is losing its young, and one of the major reasons is the altecockers won't tolerate dissent. Oh yeah, and Andrew Sullivan: why do journals that purport to be serious even utter his name?
- Stuart Wilder
May 21, 2010 at 5:18pm
Stuart Wilder “Leon proves a bit of Beinart's point: to criticize Israel much as an Israeli citizen like David Grossman or Gershom Gorneberg would is to risk one's fellow American Jews calling him anti-Israel,…” How does Wieseltier’s article prove that, Stuart? And what does Grossman, one of my favorite writers, have to do with this?
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 5:52pm
I can see the whole article fine, nhrds@earthlink.net. Try opening the second part on a separate tab.
- jdyer
May 21, 2010 at 5:57pm
Thanks Sophia - I hope you start publishing essays if you can find a venue. I got sidetracked by Chait's post "The Downside of Anger", that responds to Beinart's Daily Beast post that responded to Chait's "A Reply to Peter Beinart" post that originally responded to Beinart's NYRB essay on Liberal Zionism. AFTER I had read several other offshoot blogposts. So, I am copying my summary comment from noon today here in case anyone besides the 2macks wants to follow the Beinart effect wihtout entangling it with Bloom, Julius, and Stalin: All in all, a fine jobs program for Jewish writers? For the RealPolitik context of Beinart's concern about the erosion of American Jewish liberal support for Israel, try David Rothkopf's blogpost at ForeignPolicy.com "It is Time for Israel to Understand the New Normal", urging Israel to re-take control of their narrative while stoutly defeating postmodernism's 'end of history'. Beinart takes Goldberg's challenge (Why NYRB?), noting that it was supposed to appear in the NYT Sunday Times Magazine, but NYRB is NOT anti-Israel [disclosure, I cancelled my sub to NYRB because of the overwhelming presentation of the Palestinian narrative in post-Gaza NYRB], and is interviewed by Marc Tracy at Tabletmag, "... I do think I’ve shifted, and it’s partly personal things, and also I didn’t envision that you were going to have a government of Shas, Avigdor Lieberman, and Benjamin Netnayhu. ..." "...Liberalism asserts that for the Jews to be good and free, they must become liberal. Zionism asserts that for the Jews to exist at all, let alone be good and free—or liberal for that matter—they must first have a Jewish state. ..." from Benjamin Kerstein's elegant response at newledger.com, written from Israel, to the "narcissistic hypocrisy" revealed in Beinart's NYRB essay. The Economist's blogger M.S. explores one thread from Beinart: "...The connection to Israel is the product of a powerful ideological project based on religious and political identity. ..." TNR’s captcha filter rebelled at my inclusion of all the URLs. Just news.google “Beinart Liberal Zionism” and explore the dialog on your own.
- K2K
May 21, 2010 at 7:50pm
I hope Beinart is going to go back to domestic American political analysis, and stop kvetching about Israel. on to part 3 of Goldberg's dialogue with Beinart. ... this is like watching fight night with multiple screens. from : "Curing the Israel Estrangement Syndrome" Peter Beinart misdiagnoses the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict and misunderstands American Jews' relationship with Israel. BY JAMES KIRCHICK May 21, 2010 foreignpolicy.com "...At the end of the day, if Beinart truly thinks that the Israeli government is to blame for the current impasse, his problem does not lie with Israel's defenders in the United States. Rather, his dispute lies with the Israeli electorate, which, after all, voted the Israeli government into power. But rather than confront this reality -- that his own prescriptions for the Middle East are wildly out of step with the Israeli people -- Beinart targets those in his own country who have loudly criticized the Obama administration's bungled diplomatic attempts to pressure Israel. ..." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/21/curing_the_israel_estrangement_syndrome?page=full
- K2K
May 22, 2010 at 1:51pm
I seems like I'll have to wait for the print version to read the article.
- noga1
May 22, 2010 at 5:53pm
What Sophia said.
- drheingold
May 22, 2010 at 10:20pm
"What Sophia said." Aye. She nails it in eloquent yet economic fashion. Concision and focus. That is a fairly rare phenomenon these days.
- jacko
May 23, 2010 at 9:15am
Jackson rightly points to a Christian-Jewish..... or if we insist on being touchy.... Jewish- Christian convergence taking place these days.
- jacko
May 23, 2010 at 9:18am
jackson picked up "Churches Worldwide to Show Support for Israel May 23" from theisraelproject.org. I actually was thinking last night of trying to find one of these churches to hear what they had to say this morning. Certainly was not going to be the Congregational Church down the street that sponsors a Fresh Air summer camp program for the inner-city children of Ramallah, which I think is strange because there are plenty of inner city children 20-25 miles away who could really benefit from such a program. It seems the announcement came from Christians United for Israel, Reverend Hagee's organization, so I guess only evangelical Protestant churches are supporting Israel today. A different topic for TNR? In a separate news story, the battle of liberal versus conservative hits college campuses? "WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Dozens of presidents of university student bodies invited the Israeli ambassador to speak in the wake of his controversial appearances on two campuses. "We, the undersigned, clearly recognize the shared values that bind the United States and Israel," says the letter to Michael Oren released Thursday and signed by 51 presidents of student bodies in 30 states and the District of Columbia by midday Friday. "We also understand the importance of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Finally, we would be delighted – and honored – to welcome you to our campuses any time." The letter, initiated by Brandon Carroll at Virginia Tech and Wyatt Smith at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, notes disruptions Oren faced recently speaking at the University of California-Irvine and protests ahead of his commencement address this weekend at Brandeis University. "Such behavior is absurd and offensive," it says. "Please be assured that these individuals do not remotely represent American college students or mainstream campus leaders." " I can not yet find the list of signatories to this petition, but am grateful that free speech is still possible at Virgina Tech and Vanderbilt University.
- K2K
May 23, 2010 at 12:25pm
K2K. When I speak of convergence I mean it more in the realms of a generalized phenomenon. I would include the American Catholic Church in such a description. I have absolutely no proof I can point to. No surveys or documentation that might help any power point presentation. That said, I stand by my statement. The nature of the Islamic challenge makes it psychologically logical according to its own parameters. Of course there is sadness that comes with having to make a choice (can't we all just get along?) but then brothers and sisters in sadness it will be. If the powers of Islam are intent upon prosecuting their threats against Israel and The Jews (nobody has been given any reason to think they are just joshing) there is little doubt as to where most American Christian sympathies will be invested. Mark my word. It grows meaningfully even as we speak. Its kind of ironic the Christian getting in touch with his inner Jew. Mayhaps vice versa as well.
- jacko
May 23, 2010 at 7:18pm