SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Cambridge Journal

MARCH 6, 2011

Cambridge Journal

BY MARTIN PERETZ

“Fear Stalks the Streets of Gadhafi’s Capital”; “Rebels Plead for Help.” The two quotes above are from headlines over articles on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on Thursday and Friday. They tell you as well as anything does of the terror that rules Libya.

President Obama had first given a morsel of hope to the popular insurrection in Libya by allowing Hillary Clinton to suggest, although ever so tenuously, that America might impose a "no-fly zone" on Muammar Qaddafi's increasingly brutal attacks on the populace. But as days pass, and more and more people—both heroic rebels and just ordinary unarmed folks—are killed, Obama's stalling demonstrates how wary he is of taking a stand against any force in the Arab world regardless of how cruel and murderous it is. His mind is still stuck with the principle that any government in office is a legitimate government whether or not its rule is maintained by force or not. Nor is this just favoritism to Muslims. The United States has barely lifted even a diplomatic finger against Zimbabwe or the "Democratic" Republic of Congo, whose people are as least as miserable as anyone in Yemen—or Libya, and Libya is, by the way, a wealthy country. And, of course, until this late whiff of rebellious hope had wafted through that vast territory stretching from the Maghreb to Mesopotamia, all the regimes in it sustained their power by stepping, as George Orwell put it, on the human face forever.

The president had no objections to any of them, not even to Syria whose dictator is so methodically remorseless that barely a voice has been raised against him in the streets. Maybe Obama concluded instead that this grim silence can be interpreted as vast popular support for the Assad dynasty. The administration's courting of Damascus turned out to be one of the biggest, if unnoticed, flops in its annals. (It almost had comic or tragicomic aspects: Two boy geniuses, Jewish besides, Jared Cohen and Alec Ross, the first now working for Google, convinced the American government—including our hip secretary of state—that they had a computer key to regaining U.S. influence with Syria and in the rest of the Islamic orbit. I've written about these hotshots before.)

But in Libya, and here and there in other centers of desert rebellion, aroused men and, incidentally, quite a lot of women have added the word "America" to their chants. This is not in grievance against us. It is in hope that we will help them. We do not really deserve this trust, and I fear that Obama is about to betray it further. Or has already. His instincts are not on the side of suffering people. (What was his "community organizing" in Chicago all about? And, to ask an altogether unasked question, what did he and it accomplish besides adding a chic line to his resume?)

Now, Hillary will say anything that pops into her head or is put there by someone else. "No-fly zone, o.k., no-fly zone." "No, no-fly zone, o.k., no, no-fly zone." But she's already making excuses for why we should not intervene in Libya. You see, she's noticed that there are "opportunists" among the rebels of Benghazi. Opportunists: outrageous. Imagine, here is Hillary Clinton, the spouse of Bill Clinton—no opportunist, he—put off by opportunists and opportunism! We don't really know what they want, she whines. What they want is freedom. Believe me: It is as clear as what you want, Mrs. Clinton.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is actually the administration spokesman for what we will not do in Libya. On Saturday, The New York Times headlined his point of view as "Gates Ratchets Up His Campaign of Candor," as if it were more than just one opinion among others. Candor = Truth right? No. Gates's imminent departure from the Pentagon—this is his shtick: he's always about to leave but when already?—has been deployed as evidence of his impartial wisdom. After all, he'll have no chips in the game. Ipso facto prudent, astute, whatever.

The fact is that Gates has, because of his deeply conservative reluctance to expend some little American power with the freedom fighters in North Africa, on the shores of Tripoli, become someone oh-so-sagely quoted at liberal dinner tables across the country. This is a primordial but cumulative moment for these liberals: They can, they will, now turn their backs on anyone and everyone. No matter who the oppressor, no matter who the victim or hero.

Gates's timidity is buttressed by the ignorance of the American public. Do we want to get into another Muslim war? After all, there is Iraq, where we still are, though also halfway out. And Afghanistan, into which we are still adding troops, though planning a half-certain exit. But Libya is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, and its divisions are more tribal than religious. It is true that Qaddafi has had intimate relations with France (shameful relations), with Italy (even more shameful), and with Great Britain (mostly oil-driven economic ties, which led it to the release on fallacious grounds of the organizer of the Pan Am 103 catastrophe in which 270 lost their lives). Midweek, Hillary announced that the Obama administration may look into prosecuting the ruling colonel for the crime carried out in 1988. Pardon me, isn't this a joke?

In any event, we have Libya more or less surrounded by the American military, both personnel and assets. The U.S. European Command (EUCOM)—including the Seventh Army, the Sixth Fleet, and the Third Air Force—includes fully 113 bases, small and large, in Italy alone. This proximity to Libya is enhanced in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany, where EUCOM is headquartered (plus Israel). (Our facilities in Turkey are crippled by the ugly fact that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the 2010 recipient of the Qaddafi Prize for International Human Rights, a non sequitur if there ever was one. Erdogan visited Germany late last week and told ethnic Turks residing there to be Turkish before they are Germans. This story was reported in The Economist which is sympathetic to the premier's Islamism but was peeved by his attack on Europe, including in a separate episode France. This whole story of the revolts among Arab states poses a terrible strategic problem for The Economist because of its consistent favoritism to them over decades.)

The Africa Command controls many less assets than EUCOM. But troops and materiel can be deployed from neighbors and near-neighbors of Libya. Even CENTCOM has performed rescue missions during the current turbulence, at least in Tunisia. What is being asked of or suggested to the United States, specifically, is that it take out Libya's radar facilities. A grim face on Secretary Gates does not make a chore like this either complicated or hard. Nor is leaving surplus military equipment for the rebels either taxing or perilous.

The people of Libya have been brutalized for more than four decades by a psychopathic monster who has mesmerized rough-brained bigots like Stephen Walt. But this monster has evoked little real fraternity on the American political scene. It is true that Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain were the first to speak up for realistic help to the insurgents and rebels. Almost everybody else was simply calling on Qaddafi to go. Including the president of the United States. An empty gesture. Obama has no credibility with Arab leaders, mostly because he played his first two years in office as their apologists.

But, then, Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, broke the silence of the Democrats, Lieberman not being thought a Democrat by most other Democrats. Now, Kerry and I have known each for about four decades, first in Massachusetts "peace politics" and then more generally. We were not close, however, and I was not especially friendly. You'll have to wait for my autobiography, which I am not yet writing, to discover the secrets on our rocky road. Either you'll be interested or not. In recent years, however, I have come to respect Kerry enormously. We also had a "really clear the table" dinner one night in Boston, and it did clear the table.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry saw it as his obligation to help the president whenever he could. I understand that from both patriotic and partisan perspectives. And he took Obama's messages to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria. I know no secrets but I have a sense of what ensued on these multiple visits. Not, by the way, by anything Kerry told me. Still, Kerry is a realist who tries to leaven his point of view with hope for peaceful outcomes. I myself am of mixed minds about what we might expect in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I miss the wise presence of Richard Holbrooke in that terrible war zone. It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to.

Lebanon and Syria are an entirely different reality. Obama is lucky that real wars were going on elsewhere so that the utter failure of American policy in the Levant was barely noticed. The president thought he could entice away Bashir Assad, the tyrant-president of Syria, from his links with fundamentalist Iran, and break the historic ambitions of Damascus to dominate Lebanon. He flopped in both, strengthening Tehran, weakening Beirut, and showing Saudi Arabia to be a state the prowess of which is only oil and money. Given the storms around the Arabian peninsula—even Bahrain and Kuwait—the near-nonagenerian and terribly sick monarch, King Abdullah, has been reduced to handing out $36 billion to his own citizenry, if that's what you can call people without political rights, as a bribe to be quiet. After all, Abdullah was to lubricate both the unbelievably corrupt Lebanese and the ever-purchasable Damascenes to distance themselves from Shia millennialism.

Kerry's position on Libya is his declaration of independence from the president's fantasy foreign policy.

The fantasy is not an ambitious one. It has no poetry and, more important, it gives no hope. Moreover, it doesn't employ power either. Barack Obama has not advanced a single humane cause outside the United States nor diminished autocratic rule anywhere. Neither of these is on his agenda. The president does not believe that America is a worthy doer of good but rather a historically tarnished doer of evil. His blithe but buoyant talk echoes his egotism and pretentious overbearance. The rebels plead for help. They will be dismayed and disillusioned.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 280 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

280 comments

"What is being asked of or suggested to the United States, specifically, is that it take out Libya's radar facilities. A grim face on Secretary Gates does not make a chore like this either complicated or hard." Oh, I know. I've often felt myself that people just wander onto TV shows and claim, without any basis in fact, that it could be difficult to effectively mount specific military strikes against key targets no matter how we might want to take them out. I mean, come on! It's just not that hard a nut to crack. The history of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan offers sterling proof of how easy it is to over-estimate the problems in advance.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2011 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so, Peretz seems to have been to a Cambridge MA dinner party with too many handwringing liberals? what a ramble through all his geographic grievances whilst occasionally coming back to Libya. page A8 Monday, Mar7, 2011 edition of the New York Times - does Qaddhafi read the NYT?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?hp "U.S. Weighs Options, on Air and Sea" Thom Shanker "...Even without firing a shot, a relatively passive operation using signal-jamming aircraft in international airspace could muddle Libyan government communications with military units. Administration officials said Sunday that preparations for such an operation were under way. ..." One should really consider what Egypt, Algeria, and Tunisia (members of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue) will do as Libya's descent into an African-style civil war threatens their fragile stability. Egypt is already reported to have Special OPs, and medical personnel, in Benghazi. Might want to accidentally shoot down any of Qaddhafi's helicopter gunships next time one is in action. What will he do - declare war on everyone?

- K2K

March 7, 2011 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was fast ironyroad. You need to think through your criticism before you type it out. Taking out radar facilities in a country like Libya isn't that complicated. I'd be surprised if the US doesn't have detailed maps of all its airfields and radar facilities. I have some criticisms of Peretz' article, but I'll post them tomorrow.

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geoffrey Robinson, jurist, has argued that Libya is a clear case for intervention. The question however is who and how? The UN will not act. The US (it seems to me) need not take the initiative. Where is NATO?

- bruce108

March 7, 2011 at 6:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the contrary, I don't know why irony hesitated so long before posting his comment. But I look forward to reading the uncomplicated explanation for why he is wrong, including why "taking out Libya's radar" is both the beginning and end of the matter.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2011 at 8:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

drivel

- Tristan

March 7, 2011 at 8:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Lebanon and Syria...Iran...Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait. "Here's the Pitch: How Kirby Persuades Uncertain Customers to Buy $1,500 Vacuum" Joseph P. Cahill When Marty knocks, do not answer the door.

- michaelg

March 7, 2011 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. U.S. decides to "take out" Libyan air defense systems. 2. With smart bombs, we can just hit the key targets with no damage to civilians or non-military plant. Pretty cool. 3. Mission underway. 4. We take out eleven key sites just as planned. Pilots and equipment all doing their job to perfection. You have just received a visit from the US Air Force, yessir! High-fiving all around. 5. Oh wait, unfortunately a slight error in reading the targeting information for one location has led to us hitting the hospital next door to the air defense installation. 6. ?

- ironyroad

March 7, 2011 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "Taking out radar facilities in a country like Libya isn't that complicated. I'd be surprised if the US doesn't have detailed maps of all its airfields and radar facilities. " During the last American attack on Libya, the Eldorado Canyon raids in 1986, the most effective air defense systems, and the ones responsible for the only American casualties, were ZSU-23/4 radar-directed antiaircraft guns.... which are mounted on a tracked chassis and, thus, quite mobile. Just out of curiosity, how could that - still quite dangerous - antiaircraft system be 'mapped'?

- SMacEachern2

March 7, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty, I don't know if you've noticed this, but "Conservatives" invaded Afghanistan, then invaded Iraq on false pretenses, have spent over a trillion dollars on both wars without raising taxes to pay for them, and are now using those deficits to justify cutting social spending. So it's not Obama's "conservative" impulses that are holding him back. All current "Conservatives" are all for judicious air-strikes and no-fly zones. Interesting, considering we don't buy any Libyan oil. So what is your justification for an act of war on another soverign country? All this news makes you uncomfortable? Thinking of all those Libyan Rebels being oppressed makes you want to wade in, six-guns blazing, to support them? It's a "great opportunity" for America to throw her weight around? I think you need to be aware of this impulse in yourself, and also aware of the need for restraint. I agree it's a tempting opportunity for America to "throw it's weight around". But I don't think it's YOUR role to encourage that sort of thing. YOU should be the voice of caution, not yet another War-Hawk.

- AllanL5

March 7, 2011 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again we hear from a hard-liner who thinks the US military is always the answer - anything short of its use is just muddle-headed hesitancy and terribly inadequate wishy-washyism. We ought to have done more in Congo too. Though Mr Peretz is not specific, one assumes he thinks we ought to have used some little (though sufficient) force to ensure a specific outcome. If the Libyan dictator falls, and clearly he deserves to fall hard, who exactly are we supporting in this revolution? Are these the forces of an emerging liberal democracy, or even of any government less dictatorial than the current regime? I am not convinced that we need to pick sides in every civil war and revolution in the world, and then attack the other side with armed force. Even George W. Bush was less irrationally exuberant about the opportunity to launch an unwarranted invasion than Marty and Leon Wieseltier have demostrated in these pages lately. Have we really learned so little? Or anything at all? When the Iraq war was launched, I wondered how it could be. Had nobody learned anything from Vietnam? Would we really launch another war on such shaky premises as we had done in the 60's? I explained it to myself as a lack of historical awareness from one generation to the next, but deep down I felt this was simply not an acceptable excuse. What should we make of this, then? While we are still stuck in Iraq? It is simply that some people never learn at all. Neil

- purcellneil

March 7, 2011 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"During the last American attack on Libya, the Eldorado Canyon raids in 1986, the most effective air defense systems, and the ones responsible for the only American casualties, were ZSU-23/4 radar-directed antiaircraft guns.... which are mounted on a tracked chassis and, thus, quite mobile." What is your source for the above, SMacEachern2?

- Packard

March 7, 2011 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Purcellneil “If the Libyan dictator falls, and clearly he deserves to fall hard, who exactly are we supporting in this revolution? Are these the forces of an emerging liberal democracy, or even of any government less dictatorial than the current regime?” That’s the one question Peretz’ article didn’t address and that omission weakens his argument. If the rebellion turns into a full scale civil war we need to know who the opposition will before we decide to support it.

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm afraid I stopped at this all too Peretzian parenthesis: "What was his "community organizing" in Chicago all about? And, to ask an altogether unasked question, what did he and it accomplish besides adding a chic line to his resume?" Except that of course this question was asked again and again during the 2008 campaign, but perhaps Marty didn't notice because he was too busy doodling "I <3 Barack" all over the Spine. In any event, it's trivial to find full details via this here internet thing, accompanied by both positive and negative interpretations.

- frippo

March 7, 2011 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2, the last attack on Qaddafi by the US Air Force put an end to his attacks on US targets.

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me see. An explicitly punitive raid intended as retaliation and deterrence, but having little or no tactical military purpose, achieves its goal. What does that tell us about intervention in rebellion quickly becoming a civil war?

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2011 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is itching for a fight. I am ready, are you, angry scamp?

- nr106646

March 7, 2011 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How kind of you, 106646, finally and explicitly to acknowledge that, far from objecting to "fights" between posters, as you repeatedly claim, you in fact seek them out, try to start them, and, clear to any honest observer, use them as a deliberate tactic to try to discredit any argument that you do not like and do not know how to counter. That has been quite evident to me. I appreciate your candor in making it clear to all.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama is going to say what he said today, then he needs to follow through with actions - otherwise it is empty rhetoric far more damaging to the civilians of Libya increasingly under attack by tanks and helicopter gunships. Just posted at NYT: "... “The violence that’s been taking place and perpetrated by the government in Libya is unacceptable,” Mr. Obama said at the White House, after a meeting with Australia’s prime minister, Julia Gillard. “I want to send a very clear message to those who are around Colonel Qaddafi. It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there.” ... But Mr. Obama made clear that military options were on the table as well. “We’ve got NATO as we speak consulting in Brussels around a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya,” he said. With Ms. Gillard standing next to him, Mr. Obama said, “Australia and the United States stand shoulder to shoulder in sending a clear message that we stand for democracy, we stand for an observance of human rights, and that we send a very clear message to the Libyan people that we will stand with them in the face of unwarranted violence and the continuing suppression of democratic ideals that we’ve seen there.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/africa/08president.html BTW, both the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce have embarked from Crete after more Marines arrived on board. Saif Qaddhafi was previously quoted as threatening to turn Libya into "Somalia on the Med", with piracy and millions of refugees flooding Europe. Maybe Saif is prone to hyperbole, but an African-style civil war in Libya will certainly de-stabilize Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria. and Italy. The Berbers (3% of Libya's pop) are with the opposition (under-reported part of the story). That would put most of Libya's border with Algeria outside of Qaddhafi's control.

- K2K

March 7, 2011 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard: It's an article by Carlo Kopp (who certainly knows his stuff) in 'Air Power Australia', at http://www.ausairpower.net/Eldorado-Canyon.html... "The most effective system appears to have been the vintage ZSU-23-4P / Gun Dish which was deployed in large numbers about the el Aziziya Barracks. US sources suggest that the lost F-111F was fatally damaged by one of these weapons while attacking this target...."

- SMacEachern2

March 7, 2011 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "SMacEachern2, the last attack on Qaddafi by the US Air Force put an end to his attacks on US targets." Really? Eldorado Canyon was 15 April, 1986. Pan Am 103 was 21 December, 1988. Care to rethink that?

- SMacEachern2

March 7, 2011 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AFP report four hours ago: "PARIS — The Arab League supports imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Moamer Kadhafi's government forces attacking rebels, French officials said Monday, quoting the league's secretary general. Secretary general Amr Mussa [Moussa] told French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe that the league backed the idea when the pair met in Cairo on Sunday, foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters. "Mr. Musa confirmed the support of the Arab League for a no-fly zone," Valero said. ..." some background on the in-fighting within the Arab League over whether to recognize the governing council in Benghazi was posted eight hours ago at: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/342514 Arab League Sec-Gen'l Amr Moussa has apparently started his campaign for the presidency of Egypt :)

- K2K

March 7, 2011 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz: "[Obama's] mind is still stuck with the principle that any government in office is a legitimate government whether or not its rule is maintained by force or not." Apparently the fact that Obama himself and others in his administration have plainly said otherwise does not matter. I suppose that is because you can't believe what they actually say, you need instead to look for revelations of their true beliefs in acts and omissions. Thus a debate over the efficacy of, and legal authority for, a no-fly zone is blown up into a symptom of something hidden to we uninitiated, those of us who don't actually believe Obama is some irrational, alien creature we need to psychoanalyze to understand. This is now a common motif in foreign policy commentary at TNR. Take a disagreement on policy, totally disregard stated reasons on the other side of the disagreement, and cook up some pseudo-explanation that is plausible only to those who already hate Obama, and are only looking for more reasons why. How is this take on Obama and foreign policy different from the Beck, Huckabee, Palin, etc., on Obama and domestic policy? Why am I reading this crap in TNR, and not reading any push-back from anyone there? Maybe Chait doesn't feel qualified to write on foreign policy, but he is at least as qualified as Peretz and Wieseltier, and knows a specious argument when he sees one.

- dpaup

March 7, 2011 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the URL on the Arab League in-fighting is: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/342514 Now that the Arab League officially backs the no-fly zone, NATO (without Turkey) can act without UNSC approval. AL Sec-Gen Amr Moussa has started his campaign for the presidency of Egypt. I imagine the 145,000 Egytpian migrant workers who have so far fled Libya are an important new constituency. All the reports I have read are consistent in their being robbed by Libyan military before the migrants reached the border, and, the transport back to Egypt of thousands so far from the Tunisian border camps by the British, French, Germans, and US has been handled quite well. except for the no smoking ban on the German frigate, offset by the Egyptian film festival :)

- K2K

March 7, 2011 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be clear, I don't think the issue of a no-fly zone is easy, one way or another, and am inclined to believe the Obama administration is erring on the side of deference to military advisers and of trying to stay within the four corners of SC authorization. I just don't understand how anyone can merely assume that it is an easy call in favor. But that is what Peretz does. According to Peretz, it wouldn't matter which side I come out on over the issue, just the fact that I hesitate means I am some sort of moral alien.

- dpaup

March 7, 2011 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dpaup: you said it brother. I'm waiting for April. I was undecided to renew or not - and this one just pushed me over the edge. There this precious line: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals. How about this one: "Gates's timidity is buttressed by the ignorance of the American public." Six years as DefSec, and Gates evidently knows less than Marty about the American public. Or this one: "... the president's fantasy foreign policy. The fantasy is not an ambitious one. It has no poetry and, more important, it gives no hope ...". Because when I think of US foreign policy, Robert Frost and Disney's "When you wish upon a star" jump into mind. And this one: "The president does not believe that America is a worthy doer of good but rather a historically tarnished doer of evil." The nigger Kenyan evidently hates America. And the award goes to: "His blithe but buoyant talk echoes his egotism and pretentious overbearance." The nigger boy been uppity.

- icarusr

March 7, 2011 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once one sorts out the few stalks of wheat from the chaff, this article is essentially an argument of sorts for a no-fly zone in Libya. But, what will a no-fly zone accomplish? How significant will it be in the ending of Qhadhafi’s regime? Yes, we can ground his “air force” such as it is. But of what does his air threat consist? What has been its impact so far? The Libyan Air Force is a joke. Yes, there have been air-ground attacks against the anti-Qadhafi forces, but it’s not clear that they have had much tactical effect. Its operations have so far been characterized by extreme inaccuracy. The vast majority of Libyan airframes are not airworthy. Of its most capable aircraft, the 32 French F-1s acquired in the 1970s, a French defense website reported, “La Libye n'a plus que deux Mirage F1 en état de vol.” Virtually none of it’s MIG-21s are flyable and perhaps 20-30% of its approximately 125 MIG-23s and 40 Su-22s are able to get off the ground. The ancient Czech and Yugoslavian light attack airframes and the 35-40 Hind attack helicopters are probably in similar shape with several claimed shoot-downs by anti-Qadhafi forces over the last two weeks. The Daily Telegraph recently cited this US DoS cable via Wikileaks: “On October 7, [2009] a Libyan MiG-23 fighter jet crashed during a demonstration flight at the third annual Libyan Aviation Expo (LAVEX)....The cause of the crash is unknown but, according to our contacts, the jet was "very old." Some believe it may simply have run out of fuel. Comment: The crash of the jet tragically highlighted the weaknesses of Libya's military airfleet.” Also, the piloting and maintenance of what is left of the LAF has a substantial foreign contractor component. And that brings us to another issue: Oil revenues to Qadhafi. Production in Libya is reportedly down by 2/3 (and probably more than that). And, the majority of Libyan oil, which lies in Cyrenaica, is lost to Qadhafi unless he can retake the east. Once the lag in sanctions effects is over--in 1-2 weeks--the revenue to the regime from oil already in the global pipeline will stop. At that point, Qadhafi will begin to have difficulty paying the foreign specialists who play a role in sustaining his air power and the Tuaregs from Niger and Mali who are a key part of his loyal ground forces. Time does not appear to be on Qadhafi’s side. He may get some temporary tactical advantage from his few operational aircraft but likely not much beyond that. We also have to ask how much refined gasoline, spare aircraft parts and usable ammunition Qadafhi has at his disposal. Once he no longer has oil revenues, he will no longer be able to purchase additional supplies for his forces. What kind of gasoline refining capacity does Libya have and where is it located? Libya Online says that “Libya [has been] seeking a comprehensive upgrade to its entire refining system, with a particular aim of increasing output of gasoline and other light products (i.e. jet fuel),” suggesting that the regime may run out of fuel fairly quickly. Looked at from this perspective, the fighting over the oil ports of Ras Lanuf and Brega looks like desperation on Qadhafi’s part. It seems like now or never for him as oil revenues run out. The real question--in my view--is the emerging dynamics of post-Qadhafi Libya. The centrifugal forces are real and significant. The Cyrenaicans will demand an equitable division of political power and at least half the oil revenues since they produce the bulk of Libya’s crude oil. Whether Tripolitania and the western tribes will accept that development is open to question. If they don’t, it is possible that Cyrenaica will want to secede and go its own way with its own oil. Saving the people of Libya, the simplistic rationale of this article for a no-fly zone, is ONE motive for the US and others to interpose themselves in the Libyan situation. Another less selfless one would be a desire to put themselves in a position to engineer an “acceptable” post-Qadhafi outcome. This, no doubt, is what Libyans of many stripes are afraid of. There have been several indicators from the admittedly ad hoc leadership in Benghazi that no foreign intervention is wanted. The embarrassing episode of the British SAS trying to offer “help” underlines how fraught the situation is. The NYT is reporting that unnamed, unquoted “rebel commanders” are “begging for airstrikes.” Would it be too much to ask the newspaper of record to document these supposed pleas? We should not forget that the concept of Libya as a unitary state was forced on King Idris in the 1950s by the West at the behest of the international oil companies for their convenience. King Idris, an easterner, preferred to remain simply Emir of Cyrenaica. And with good reason since, ultimately, the westerner, Qadhafi, overthrew him in 1969 and took control of Libya, appropriating Cyrenaican oil for his own uses. We should NOT get into the business of trying to force Cyrenaica into an arrangement that easterners do not want in pursuit of our narrow goals. This will backfire strategically. Happily for us, the 40-year long reign of Qadhafi has blotted out the memories of much of our old skulduggery, and our “reconciliation” with the Colonel did not have time to run its full course before this revolution kicked off. Hence, we are not implicated in Libyan regime brutality as we are in Egypt and Bahrain. Our long-term strategic position in Libya, as I have said elsewhere, looks like being RELATIVELY strong. So let’s try not to poison the well. I won’t say there is NO scenario in which a no-fly zone would make strategic sense if the LAF exceeds expectations and makes a significant tactical impact. And some discrete--i.e., clandestine--actions here or there may be in order at some point, but Obama and Gates are right to be cautious and ignore ill-considered cris de coeur. And, by the way, all the lamentations over the suffering in Libya could be applied similarly to Bahrain. I have yet to hear Peretz, Wieseltier, or anyone else call for an end to King Hamad's repression of HIS people.

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

March 7, 2011 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, I made the call this morning; I think I have a few issues left too, but I needed to get off their automatic renewal list. I'm not sure racism is the right handle for Peretz and Wieseltier. I just don't know--I don't understand their antipathy, and frankly I don't have any more time to waste trying to understand it.

- dpaup

March 7, 2011 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry Marty, not buying your BS. We have spent too much of our blood and treasure being the cop on the beat. Let the Euro's do it as they are the ones who benefit the most from Lybian oil. Or better yet, the Chinese, of the Indians....spend some of their wealth, that used to be our wealth, on keeping the world safe for business.......that's the price of entry to being a world power.

- rbstanley

March 7, 2011 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many excellent comments supporting, expanding, explaining, and justifying irony's initial post (although all of these good efforts stand perfectly well on their own and were surely not offered in support of irony but out of a similar understanding). Still awaiting the "uncomplicated" rebuttal to irony and the justification of Peretz's latest bunch of nonsense. But, will it ever come?

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2011 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This mad dog of a poster, roidubouloi, spent whole days attacking posters like Noga on another thread. Now he pretends to be an innocent victim.

- nr106646

March 7, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2 "Packard: It's an article by Carlo Kopp (who certainly knows his stuff) in 'Air Power Australia'," He is not the last word on these issues. The most you can say is that he supports partly your own views.

- Packard

March 7, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “And this one: "The president does not believe that America is a worthy doer of good but rather a historically tarnished doer of evil." The nigger Kenyan evidently hates America.” Where did Peretz use the word “nigger” or even “Kenyan” in the article? If you have to make things up by way of rebuttal, it’s obvious that you don’t have a sound argument.

- Packard

March 7, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard: "He is not the last word on these issues." Of course not... if you can find the last word on the question, I'd be interested in seeing it. It is significant, though, from someone who is pretty well-informed on the issue. More broadly, I was illustrating the problems with a facile assumption that air defense radars could be simply mapped and eliminated.

- SMacEachern2

March 7, 2011 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2 “arnon: "SMacEachern2, the last attack on Qaddafi by the US Air Force put an end to his attacks on US targets." Really? Eldorado Canyon was 15 April, 1986. Pan Am 103 was 21 December, 1988. Care to rethink that?” Not at all, this was the sole exception and he paid dearly for that attack.

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just out of curiosity, SMacEachern2, do you think that we should let Qaddafi massacre his Libyan opponents at will? At what point would you advise intervening militarily on behalf of the people massacred in Libya?

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This from Hitchens: "And yet there is a palpable reluctance, especially on the part of the Obama administration, to look these things in the face. Even after decades of enmity with this evil creep, our military and intelligence services turn out not even to have had a contingency plan." So decades of inaction in US policy, and Obama is at fault. "If you will the end—and President Barack Obama has finally said that Qaddafi should indeed go—then to that extent you will the means." There you go - press the guy to make a strong statement, and when he makes it, then ask him to commit young American lives to another ten-year war in a Muslim country .... Have we not seen this movie before?

- icarusr

March 7, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: many thanks for the kind words. I have been reading TNR for twenty-seven years and commenting for six. I just can't take this nonsense any more. When the chief foreign policy analysts of TNR are Marty and Leon, it is time to read other things. I may of course be reached on gmail or yahoo, same handle!

- icarusr

March 7, 2011 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard: I will grant you that in respect of the President, Marty is not an over racist or bigot. Bear in mind however that no matter how much Marty hates Jimmy Carter - and he hates Jimmy Carter - he has not implied that Carter is a "moral alient". The terms of abuse one uses, or one chooses to use, in respect of someone one does not like, say much about the general orientation of the person.

- icarusr

March 7, 2011 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "this was the sole exception..." Some sole exception - 270 dead. You made a blanket statement that's wrong, and you'd don't want to admit it... and that's the best you can do? "Just out of curiosity, SMacEachern2, do you think that we should let Qaddafi massacre his Libyan opponents at will?" Nope - and I don't drown kittens either, which is just as relevant to what I actually said. You made a claim* that was factually wrong: that it would be simple to map and eliminate Libyan air defense radars. That is incorrect: it might be doable, but it would not be as simple as you think, only in part because a number of those radar systems are mobile. If you'll remember, it took ten years of air patrols to degrade the Iraqi air defense systems between the Gulf War and the American invasion - and allied pilots were still getting shot at during the invasion. This is not a trivial question, despite what you and Peretz believe. (*Two, actually, if you include the count the claim that Eldorado Canyon ended Libyan terrorism. You're having a good day, eh?)

- SMacEachern2

March 7, 2011 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Says nr106646: "roidubouloi is itching for a fight. I am ready, are you, angry scamp?" followed by: "This mad dog of a poster, roidubouloi, spent whole days attacking posters like Noga on another thread. Now he pretends to be an innocent victim." To the contrary, 106646. I said nothing whatsoever about myself here. Not a single word. What I said is that your claims about yourself, that you deplore attacks on posters, are self-evidently false. In fact, you are doing your very best here to provoke. This is because, as I have always understood, you use flaming as a deliberate tactic to try and discredit arguments you do not like and do not know how to answer. Then, if you get a response in kind, YOU claim to be a victim. I never claim to be victim of anything. Since I didn't rise to the bait the first time, you are now trying to up the ante. And I am giving you lots or opportunity to demonstrate that your claims about yourself and your intentions here are false. So far, you are doing very well.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2011 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of this verbal violence is unacceptable.

- jacko

March 7, 2011 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Peretz is wrong about Obama's policy towards Libya: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8366779/Barack-Obamas-warning-to-Gaddafi-supporters.html "Mr Obama, speaking after talks with visiting Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, said the two countries agreed that violence by the Libyan government against its people was unacceptable. "I want to send a very clear message to those who are around Colonel Gadhafi. It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there." said the US President. "In the meantime, we've got Nato as we speak consulting in Brussels around a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya. "In addition, we have taken the lead on a host of humanitarian efforts and I just authorised an additional $15 million that will be provided to aid organisations that are already on the ground.""

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Turkey is still supporting Qaddafi: "NATO mulls Libyan military action: Obama" 07/03 http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/07/nato-mulls-libyan-military-action-obama/ "But Turkey, which has the second largest NATO army, opposes a military strike on Libya. Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said a NATO intervention was “out of the question” and that Ankara wants a peaceful solution to the crisis."

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's just not that hard a nut to crack. The history of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan offers sterling proof of how easy it is to over-estimate the problems in advance." Irony, I don't know any reputable policy maker who under-estimated the difficulty in Afghanistan. Iraq was a different issue, since what was under-estimated wasn’t the ease with which Saddam’s regime would crumble, what was underestimated was the difficulty of setting up a democratic regime. Question is, will Libya be more like Iraq or like Afghanistan?

- Packard

March 7, 2011 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To what verbal violence, specifically, are you referring, Jacko?

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

March 7, 2011 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The unacceptable violence.

- jacko

March 7, 2011 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr doesn’t want to do anything about the Libyan thug because he doesn’t care about the well-being of Africans.

- nr106646

March 7, 2011 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No verbal violence here whatsoever. Simply, roidubouloi calling out cooly, calmly and clearly nr106646 for being the shit disturber he's showing himself on this thread at least to be. Icarusr, sorry kid you can't leave. That's just the way it is.

- basman

March 7, 2011 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

03/07/2011 - 6:28pm EDT | Packard: "Question is, will Libya be more like Iraq or like Afghanistan?" Based on Libya's history and demographics, I would go for Somalia on the Mediterranean, with Cyrenaica (Benghazi) possibly consolidating effective governance as Somaliland has done. Libya's southern desert is a bit more like Pakistan's 'ungovernable tribal areas' without the population density. Which is why no one is talking about anyone's ground troops, although Egypt just might be considering helping out their tribal brethren in the east. Too bad we can not count on some old-fashioned Ottoman patricide.

- K2K

March 7, 2011 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...6. ?... Collateral damage. If wise heads in these matters under some internationl consensus decide to institute a no fly zone or like measures, they will do so knowing quite clearly the risk of that and will implement their measure(s) taking that into account.

- basman

March 7, 2011 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K zeroed in on my mischief. " Unacceptable " seems to be the presidents go to synoptic watchword these days. I'm having some difficulty accepting unacceptable as sufficient.

- jacko

March 7, 2011 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"gratuitious verbal percussion" Not bad.

- jacko

March 7, 2011 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K “Based on Libya's history and demographics, I would go for Somalia on the Mediterranean…” That’s another plausible scenario though it’s hard to say at this point how the rebellion in Libya will play out.

- arnon

March 7, 2011 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey jack, that was nice, dry and subtle. I missed it.

- basman

March 7, 2011 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why Cambridge Journal? What happened to Tel Aviv Diary?

- basman

March 7, 2011 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ick, stay around. Packard: OK, I take your point, but it's both difficult and in the end stupid to pretend that an invasion of a another country is entirely a matter of defeating a military defense structure. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did not merely promise that we would neutralize Iraq military power -- which of course we did -- they also, and fatefully, suggested on many occasions that our intervention would be welcomed without reservation by all Iraqis, barring a few recalcitrant Ba'athists. Likewise Marty's comments in his piece assert that Gates's facial twitches are a kind of disingenuous mask hiding an attempt to convince Americans that a U.S. enforced no-fly-zone over Libya would be difficult to set up with all sorts of negative possibilities if it goes wrong -- or even if it goes right. This is adolescent drivel, suggesting that the Sec Def is inventing problems that don't exist. In fact, anyone with two brain cells and two minutes thought will understand that the difficulties and uncertainties that the administration is thinking about, and that Gates sketched out in his interview, are real. They are not insurmountable, and the situation is fluid, but Gates was absolutely correct to lay them out for us.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2011 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What happened to Tel Aviv Diary?" Umm, maybe he's back in Cambridge? Of course, there may be some too-subtle-for-me joke in there.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 7, 2011 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Umm, maybe he's back in Cambridge?... Maybe but if so, I was under the impression he was in Tel Aviv for a longer haul.

- basman

March 7, 2011 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"AFP report four hours ago: "PARIS — The Arab League supports imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Moamer Kadhafi's government forces attacking rebels, French officials said Monday, quoting the league's secretary general." Arab countries have air forces. Why can't they enforce a no-fly zone? Why are they waiting for the Europeans and America to put out this fire for them?

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 7:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus: "There this precious line: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." ironyroad: "ick, stay around."

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...03/08/2011 - 7:34am EDT | noga1 Icarus: "There this precious line: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." ironyroad: "ick, stay around."... Despite my exegetical prowess, which is considerable, I can make no sense of the immediately above except as malign. It is not funny; it makes no good point; it is acontextual; it is unsubtle; and it is unconstructive. As malign, it makes its own malignant point.

- basman

March 8, 2011 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, that Obama is black has nothing to do with Mr. Peretz's comment. Calling Obama incompetent and "saved by his commanders" because he doesn't do exactly what Bush-II would do in this instance is what Peretz is saying. And I'm astonished that Peretz would say such a thing.

- AllanL5

March 8, 2011 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz has a house in Cambridge, an apartment in Manhattan, and his one small class teaching gig in Tel Aviv seems to have been very short-term. In Cambridge, he gets to look at his Degas, and drink wine at dinner parties. Sounds like Libya's tribes are quite different than those of Somalia due to location between ancient Tunisia, and even more ancient Egypt civilizations. I still think the US should shoot down a Qaddhafi helicopter gunship in active assault against civilians, and then "apologize for the accident". copied from today's WSJ, the best explanation so far of who is who in the battle inside Libya : MARCH 8, 2011. "Behind Libya Rifts, Tribal Politics: Groups Sidelined by Gadhafi Form Opposition's Core; Ancient Allegiances Bear Upon Battle for Brega." By CHARLES LEVINSON (found via link at RCP; apologies for any copyright infringement) BENGHAZI—On Saturday night, rebel fighters charged into the Libyan coastal village of Bin Jawad, stronghold of the Hasoony tribe, after residents there assured them the town would welcome forces opposed to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Instead, rebel fighters say, they walked into an ambush. Hasoony tribesmen—who leaders from other tribes said had been armed and paid off in recent days by Col. Gadhafi—opened fire. Rebels suffered at least a dozen deaths, according to various accounts, and retreated. Men mourn Monday at the burial of a fighter killed in Bin Jawad. Pro-Gadhafi tribe members invited rebels into the town, then ambushed them. The Hasoony tribesmen's decision to back Col. Gadhafi illustrates how tribal allegiances are helping to guide the battle to control a fractured Libya. Many members of the new ruling class taking shape in eastern Libya are from long-privileged tribes that were relegated to second-class status under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader, in more than four decades of power, empowered some tribes, weakened others and employed a divide and rule strategy, say Libya experts and tribal leaders. Now, both Col. Gadhafi and his opponents are competing for tribal loyalties to tip the balance in their favor. "Having the tribes on your side means you have the people," said Maj. Gen. Ahmed el-Ghatrani, a defected Libyan army commander now serving the rebel forces. The dynamic was visible days before the Bin Jawad ambush, when rebels repulsed Col. Gadhafi's forces when they tried to take Brega, an oil-refinery city just east of Bin Jawad. Rebel fighters credited their fighting prowess for Brega's defense. Tribal sheikhs in eastern Libya offered a different explanation: Col. Gadhafi had in recent days tried to woo either the Zuwawa or Mughariba—two tribes who have for years feuded over land and other resources—with aid, money and weapons that would give them the leg up against the other. Both resisted. "The two tribes united for the first time," said Hamad Gobaily, a resident of the area and rebel volunteer. "That was the key to our success." Leaders have for centuries derived power and legitimacy from the tribes in this stretch of North Africa. The Senussi religious order that for more than 150 years effectively ruled eastern Libya—as well as parts of Chad, Niger and Sudan—owed its success to its ability to unite the region's tribes under a flexible vision of Islam that made space for different tribal customs. The Senussis' success in eastern Libya—a region known as Cyrenaica—partly explains why the Italians struggled as colonial ruler there from 1911 until World War II. In what is now western Libya, tribes waged separate struggles. But in the east, tribes mounted a unified opposition to Italian rule. Historians say the Italians, in repressing the eastern rebellion, were responsible for the death of about half of eastern Libya's population, many of them in concentration camps outside Benghazi. Col. Gadhafi's predecessor, King Idriss Senussi, maintained power with the support of his privileged castle guard, known as the Cyrenaican Defense Force. Their ranks were filled almost exclusively with members of eastern Libya's Saady tribes. Early in his reign, Col. Gadhafi targeted Libya's powerful eastern tribes, redistributing their land to others and awarding them few influential posts. The backbone of Col. Gadhafi's regime instead came from three tribes—his own small Gadhafa tribe, based in the town of Sirte, which had occupied a marginal place in Senussi society, as well as the Mugharha, concentrated in Sebha, and the large Warfalla tribe in the country's west. The Warfalla fell out with the regime in the 1990s when members were implicated in a coup attempt. Sirte and Sebha remain the two Libyan regions most firmly under Col. Gadhafi's control. These weaker tribes' empowerment helps explain why Col. Gadhafi's supporters appear to be clinging to power more desperately than their counterparts in Egypt or Tunisia, where tribes play a less prominent role. "These guys know they aren't going to fare very well if the regime goes down," said Jason Pack, a Libya scholar at Oxford University. Before standing up to rebel forces at Bin Jawad, members of the Hasoony tribe had a taste of what may lay in store in a post-Gadhafi Libya. Early in the uprising, armed rebels stormed the farm of the Hasoony tribe's leader in Benghazi, Hillal Hasoony, and killed him, say tribal leaders and local officials. Rebel officials say Mr. Hasoony helped Col. Gadhafi's intelligence chief, Abdullah Senuissi, to slip out of the city as the regime's hold collapsed last month. "The Hasoony had problems with the youth, and then Gadhafi came and paid them a lot of money and gave them arms in Bin Jawad," said Sheikh Mohamed al-Idrissi, the leader of the Harabi Tribe in Benghazi. "Gadhafi is offering the tribes anything they want in exchange for their support." Other senior Hasoony members have fled Benghazi, and tribe leaders couldn't be reached for comment. Col. Gadhafi has said he enjoys broad support among Libya's people and tribes. Mr. al-Idrissi's Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members' land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes, Mr. al-Idrissi said. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising. "If you scratch the surface, you'll find a lot of the new leaders, a lot of those who defected to the rebels early, are from old tribes and families who served the Senussi monarchy," Pack said. " —Margaret Coker in Tripoli, Libya, contributed to this article. [thank you to] Charles Levinson

- K2K

March 8, 2011 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: the Arab League has flip-flopped on the no-fly zone, but the Gulf States (that would be Persian Gulf, not Gulf of Mexico) Council then endorsed a no-fly zone. I think the Arab League is far more concerned about Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia and see chaos on the coast of North Africa as an EU headache. I read, unconfirmed, that Algeria is supporting Libya's Touregs, who are loyal to Qaddhafi, which may be true, or not, or related to the Berbers being in opposition. If anyone's air force will actually help Libya's opposition, it will be Egypt, in part due to tribal overlap on the border, and maybe to get protection money for helping to secure the eastern oil for the reborn Republic of Cyrenaica.

- K2K

March 8, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Peretz has a house in Cambridge, an apartment in Manhattan, and his one small class teaching gig in Tel Aviv seems to have been very short-term. In Cambridge, he gets to look at his Degas, and drink wine at dinner parties... I have a house in Toronto with an easterly garage and a westerly garage. I get to look at my Wonder Woman posters and drink Cold Duck at soirees pour un watching reruns of Macedonian Heritage Hour. Now back to what I laughingly call practicing law.

- basman

March 8, 2011 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So who is on the right side of the issue, certainly not the LSE: "LSE academic’s ‘slap threat’ to Jewish leader" http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/lse-academic%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98slap-threat%E2%80%99-to-jewish-leader/

- arnon

March 8, 2011 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ick: The following is quite likely to be of dubious value to you but please allow that I consider you a Premo Pain in the Ass. My world would suffer a bit at your selfish decision to withdraw from these boards. In that you effort to intellectual honesty I value your contributions and every now and then you even put forth with Ick poignancy a perspective that I find unique and worth the trouble to consider. Don't go, man.

- jacko

March 8, 2011 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... certainly not the LSE" Harvard academics in Qaddhafi's court http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/146862455377487

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@AllanL5: "(That) Obama is black has nothing to do with Mr. Peretz's comment." It's called a "dog whistle," Allan. Such things have a long history in our discourse. If you think Peretz is above anti-black racism, read this: http://bit.ly/cPMAV7

- JTester

March 8, 2011 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just asked icarus not to leave the boards, Noga, what's malignant about that? On basman's point: I live in an apartment in Knoxville with a laundry room in the basement. I get to look at the KC-135s circling to land at the Air National Guard base, and I sip a glass of calvados while sticking pins in a wax doll of Harold Bloom (it's just one of a whole series of famous literary critic wax dolls, including Yvor Winters and Sacvan Bercovitch -- the pins don't come with the figure, though, in case you thought they did).

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do with your pins what you will voodoo monster, but keep you hands, pins, off Sacvan Bercovitch.

- basman

March 8, 2011 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NPR bigotry, and hypocrisy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4 "NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation Part I"

- nr106646

March 8, 2011 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko, Irony and malahat: many thanks. One more month left - four more Peretz and likely two more LW posts. Honestly, if the quality of the writing and analysis does not improve, it will be difficult to justify the subscription. All they have to do is put someone who knows something about foreign policy to write about foreign policy, and someone with more a back-of-the-envelop sense of military strategy to opine on military options. It is sad that in one paragraph of Frum there is more cogent analysis than three Peretz posts.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey icarusr, am I not pretty? I told you that you couldn't leave. I view that as one mode asking you to stay, simply more restraining orderish.

- basman

March 8, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Allan: please see below. JTester: thanks - precisely. There are some on this board who will accuse any and all of 1) anti-seimitism; or 2) pro-Islamist sentiments at the slightest suggestion that the state of Israel might have done something less than absolutely holy in its sixty years, or that Arabs and Muslims might well have a civilization, or just lives, worth protecting. But mind - if you so much as suggest that the subtext - not terribly hidden either - to all the "Obama has no clue", "Obama does not understand", "Obama does not care" arguments might be something a little deeper than mere policy disagreements or questions of competence, then WHOA ... After all, anyone who has ever managed so much as a neighbourhood potluck would know that relying on trusted advisors and executives is a mark of competence. It is not a criticism of Obama's *competence* if, to understand Afghanistan or Pakistan, he relies on the advice of generals on the ground. And again, note that the criticism is *not* that he *does not* understand - that is a sign of competence - but "cannot" (stupid) or "refuses to" (evil), and needs to be "rescued" by his commanders. What we are seeing in Peretz's posts are on longer his late at night drunken doodlings. These are supposed to be Edited Reflections of a Sober Mind. The choice of words cannot be put to mere alcohol or loneliness. His characterisation of Obama as needing to be "rescued" by his commanders on a region where, long before he became President, Obama had shown interest in and deep knowledge of, is not just a criticism of policy options or even of competence. It is a - interesting words used above - malignant and malicious dog whistle, painting Obama as a naïf or a "moral alien". And no, Peretz is not, himself, alien to such dog whistles. Those who continue to defend this blot on TNR would do well to read his own sad, and long forgotten repentance.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hehe basman - of course you are ... but you are not far ;) ...

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: I finally finished Bloom's "invention of the human". I don't want to see the word "canny" again for at least the next two years. Stick as many pins into him - I mean, *him* and not just wax models - as you can. Ugh.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am relieved that, in the midst of this discussion about what is to be done in Libya and by whom, we still manage to get a rundown of what some anti-Semite or other is doing. It is critical that all matters in the world, both large and small, be considered from the perspective of the continued existence of anti-Semitism. And, if there is nothing important to say in that regard, critical that in the midst of any discussion on any subject we none-the-less pause to consider anti-Semitism.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2011 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I just asked icarus not to leave the boards, Noga, what's malignant about that?" Where did that "malignant' spring from, I wonder? And out of curiosity, what have you got against Harold Bloom that you keep bringing him up every so often without there being any cue for his name to appear?

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidubouloi is upset because his NPR has been outed as an antisemitic radio station. What a hypocrite.

- nr106646

March 8, 2011 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one cares what icaros is reading. I hope he stands by his decision to vamoose it from here.

- nr106646

March 8, 2011 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...nr106646.. Not worth responding to.

- basman

March 8, 2011 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does anyone really think that NPR’s attitude towards the Middle East conflicts is not affected by their attitude towards Jews? The people in the video first talk about Jews and then switch to “Zionists.” The NPR guy says that there is no “zionist” problem at his stations, but that there is a problem with Jews that is to say Zionist groups control of the media.

- nr106646

March 8, 2011 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I hope he stands by his decision to vamoose it from here." I hope not. icarus is a dear boy, and his input is priceless. He is the best representative around (well, maybe only second to roi) of the moonstruck Obama proponent, whose intolerance to any criticism of their idol immediately translates into an attribution of KKK sensibilities ("Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals.") So why would anyone wish him away from these boards? Funny how roi is so upset about antisemitism being inserted but is quite cool with the crude way icarus uses racism to criticize Peretz's position. It's probably one of the lessons he learned from his fabled mentor who had initiated him into the arts of the semi-professional politician: He who fights the most dirty lives to have another fight...

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "Where did that "malignant' spring from, I wonder?" Er . . . from your own comment: "As malign, it makes its own malignant point"

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "He is the best representative around (well, maybe only second to roi) of the moonstruck Obama proponent, whose intolerance to any criticism of their idol ..." blah blah blah ... You miss the point entirely; you have not been reading - really reading - anything I have written on the subject of Libya and Obama, or more accurately, Obama and Peretz. Let me just make the following two points. First, certain sorts of criticism, when viewed in the abstract, may be seem as neutral, but in context, import entire subtexts. I am not sure how familiar you are with race relations in the United States, but the subtext matters and colours how criticism should be viewed and assessed. I will give you an example from personal experience. Every time I sit down with high school friends and criticise Iranian society - regardless of what the criticism is - the immediate reaction is (from my Secular but Muslim born, and highly educated, friends), "it's understandable that you would view Iran in that way." I can site hard statistics issued by the regime, and all I get from friends is a pat on the head and a sympathetic nod meaning: "the alien Baha'i never adjusted to Iran and of course he does not like anything about the country." And I know this is more or less what they mean because I have heard other Iranians talk about Baha'is, or Jews, or Armenians, in much the same way. Transported to the United States, the subtext is race, it is always race; we can pretend it is not, but it is. This does not mean that any criticism of Obama is racial in nature or coloured by race. But it does mean that a certain angle of approach - one, for example, that personalises policy- and decision-making - cannot but help be framed and shaped by that subtext. And so, "He is wrong in ordering drone attacks on Pakistan, because of xxx" is a perfectly valid policy criticism. "I don't like his lack of passion; I wish he were more like Clinton in connecting with people." Is a perfectly sound - if in my view somewhat misguided - *personal criticism*. "He cannot understand Pakistan and needs to be rescued by his commanders," said of *this* president and commanders *he* has chosen, reeks of something else entirely. You are right about the malignancy; Peretz's heart is darkened with a deeper hatred than mere policy or even personal differences with the President. That poison, when it oozes in a specific way, has a name. Peretz knows it; he has seen it in himself; that is why he repented. Second, and in some ways more important, bad criticism is more dangerous than mindless support. Even if I or Roid or anyone else were accused of numbly supporting the One - and, of course, my many posts on Libya and Egypt represent, if anything, too much rather than too little reflection on the subject - well, you can dismiss it as mindless and not pay attention to us. The reason I reply to Peretz and LW is that their misguided criticism is risky, by creating verbal fogs that mask real dangers for the United States and the West. The some times deranged criticism of Bush masked serious shortcomings in policy and management; I admit that I tuned out the more substantive arguments raised by France and Germany because of my extreme unease with the utter hypocrisy of much of the rest of their criticism of the US. Had they been more tempered, we might well have had better policy at the end of the day. In the same vein, moronic and misleading criticism of Obama - and much of what Peretz and LW write these days is moronic - risks diverting attention from the real shortcomings in US policy, politics and strategic thinking right now.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"icarus uses racism to criticize Peretz's position" I criticise not Peretz's position - I can't figure out what his *position* is - but the implicit bigotry of his incomprehensible and reprehensible drivel. Two different things entirely.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As it happens, NR, that's not quite true. I, for example, care what icarus reads, as he sometimes posts interesting and intelligence comments that arise from his reading.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sorry, typo -- intelliGENT

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Er . . . from your own comment:" That was not my comment. Check it out again.

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, aside from your rushed reading, which might be forgivable when one is somewhat excited, I wonder how it did not occur to you that "malignant" would not be an adjective I would ever apply to you. Now what set of circumstances assembled in this vitriolic thread could cause you to ignore the lessons of your own experience and my record when I criticize your opinions?

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus: You did not make the case that Peretz's criticism of Obama is rooted in KKK-type of racism. If that had been the case, I can't see how he would have worked so hard to get Obama elected. Is it possible that he didn't notice that Obama was black when he was running for president? In my opinion, Peretz's wrath at Obama is rooted in bitter disappointment and anger that he, like many other American Jews who fear for Israel, were duped by Obama's rhetorical flourishes in support of Israel. He can blame no one but himself for being duped. I see no racism in that disappointment. Quite the contrary. Peretz would have loved nothing better than to support and hug Obama as the embodiment of Jewish-Black solidarity. But please don't let my two cents interfere with the pleasure you seem to derive from slandering Marty as a genuine racist.

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as an aside, I'm not saying that Peretz cannot be bigoted at times. I noted such instances in the past and complained about it openly. But who among us is without this sin, I ask you? Some bigotries are forgiven, or downplayed, and some are not. Depending on who says them and who listens and the levels of affinity or discord between the two.

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Upset? Me? What a scurrilous accusation. To the contrary, I believe all conversations should be interrupted at regular intervals for administration of the Jewish loyalty oath. This consists of quoting or linking to some anti-semitic expression by someone, matters not who, where or when. Then we can see who jumps up, salutes, and expresses sufficient outrage to be considered worthy. The priests os the cult of anti-anti-emitism are thus reassured of their virtue and the world can turn. This cannot be confused with icarus's interpretation of Peretz's remarks as being tinged with racism. Because whether you agree with him or not, his comments were relevant to the subject, Peretz's blog. His remarks therefore fail the test by actually being germane. Great to see all the usual foamers at the mouth here today, in high lather spittle-flecked and baring their teeth. Here is abig shout-out to all of you. You're beautiful.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2011 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm not saying that Peretz cannot be bigoted at times." Bigotry, like conservatism, is a temperament. If you have the disposition, you end up being rather indiscriminate about it ... As Oscar said, "We are all in the gutter; some of us look up at the stars." We all are sinners; some of us at least try to contain it; others scream it from the rooftops, atone and repent, and start again. I don't doubt for a moment that Peretz is bitterly disappointed. I cannot peer into his heart to see what motivated his zeal before and what is driving his hatred now. What I do know is that in his writings, in his imagery, the tone of his criticism, the nature of his arguments there is a subcurrent that is not far from the darkest corners of American society.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Great to see all the usual foamers at the mouth here today, in high lather spittle-flecked and baring their teeth" Perfect description of roidubouloi and Icarus. The liberal left has sold its sould to the Jew haters which is why they can't stand to be reminded of who and what they are.

- nr106646

March 8, 2011 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...there is a subcurrent that is not far from the darkest corners of American society." So you can discern a real resemblance between the way Peretz criticizes Obama and a KKK member? In this case, it makes sense not to give your money to a magazine that offers its pages as a platform for spewing of racist hatred.

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I see -- it was basman's comment. Wince. The sequence/layout of ick's comment, followed by my comment, followed by a direct comment on those comments, adjacent to a post of yours, confused me. Of course I assumed there was something peculiar with "malignant," that you wouldn't describe me as that -- hence my original question. In fact, I had misread something other than what I thought I was misreading, but I wasn't assuming you were actually calling me malignant. Apologies all around. Drinks on me if we were in a real place.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So you can discern a real resemblance between the way Peretz criticizes Obama and a KKK member?" You do not have to be a KKK member to be a bigot; it is not necessary to burn crosses and churches to use dog whistles. I thought that with the demise of the Spine and Peretz's atonement, things would improve. Four more weeks to decide.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You do not have to be a KKK member to be a bigot;" Yes but there is a difference. A KKK member is a bona fide racist who would indeed think "Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." A bigot can be anyone who, for example, just like that, when in conversation with a Hebrew speaking person would say: my, what an ugly language Hebrew is. It's very different from thinking: Who the hell does that fucking Jewess think she is? I'm sure you can see the difference. Peretz's criticism of Obama has never even passed by that route, mocking his culture or language or looks or intelligence. What are you basing your judgment on, except that it makes you feel good to believe that Peretz is THAT kind of a hard core bigot? How do you conclude from the statement "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." that what it actually means is: " Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." ?

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@noga1- When Peretz writes ""It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region..." he's saying that certain intellectual, shall we say, deficiencies of an Ivy-League educated black man are clear to him, Marty Peretz. Mind you, Peretz doesn't have actual EVIDENCE that POTUS cannot, for instance, point to Afghanistan on a map or conduct a productive conversation with Karzai. Rather, Peretz just blurts out his opinion, which is obviously tied to the fact that he simply loathes the President's foreign policy. Disagreement is not enough for him, though. It's a fact that Peretz has a history of writing and saying racially inflammatory things. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

- JTester

March 8, 2011 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think there are certain kinds of prejudice, tailored to specific targets, that can be communicated in an indirect way. For example, remarks made about money and a grasping (read "unchristian") nature can be -- not always but often -- correctly assessed as a dedicated taunting of Jews in particular. The Irish suffer from implications that they are basically gregarious folks who are fun to be with but lack the focus and rigor of the Anglo-Saxon mind. They don't get the money/Shylock thing. As far as African Americans (and black people more generally, e.g. from the Caribbean) are concerned, they don't get either the Jew thing or the Irish thing. They hear rather an implication that they are childlike people, basically not very bright, who in some unfortunate cases have been helped into jobs with responsibilities they cannot discharge by well-meaning white liberals. It's been a classic trope of American racial pathology since Reconstruction (which I simply don't believe that Marty is unaware of). Remember, this isn't an accusation that Obama is unfit for the job -- that was said about GWB -- it's a suggestion that he's particularly unfit for the job -- eveyone knows why -- and needs an adult to take the toys away. Which is a classic American racist jibe.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Contrary to Icarus’ angry comments, Martin Peretz’ article is coherent. In it he answers the question he posed in the title “Who’s on the right side of the Libya issue?” He is wrong about Obama, but he makes some pretty cogent observations. Many posters here can’t seem to stand any criticism of Obama and would dismiss any article that criticizes him. Other will dismiss any call to American intervention anywhere and also dismiss the article. That is their right, but such emotion reaction is a way of avoiding dealing with the article as a whole. Ironyroad’s comment about Black American sensitivity to criticism singles them out as “childish.” He tells us that they are not adult enough to accept criticism and can’t argue back. This is obviously wrong. It’s also a little strange for loudest and rudest defenders of Obama here including ironyroad are not Black.

- arnon

March 8, 2011 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "Ironyroad’s comment about Black American sensitivity to criticism singles them out as 'childish'.” No it doesn't. "He tells us that they are not adult enough to accept criticism and can’t argue back" No he doesn't. Examples of alleged rudeness would also be appreciated, as the charge is hereby denied.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2011 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree with JTester and Irony. That is precisely what I mean by the "subtext" of American history. Noga: two points. First, please read this sentence carefully: "is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot". Even assuming that the premise is correct - that Obama suffers from a particular inability to comprehend (or is morally evil) Pakistan, a country on which he had spoken at length when he was a Senator - the mark of a good leader, no matter how stupid or ignorant he is, is to listen to his expert commanders. Even if Peretz is correct that Obama knows nothing and can't learn anything, Obama is to be commended, rather than criticised, for listening to his commanders. Read what Peretz wrote: Obama "is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot ...". Not that a leader knows when to rely on his commanders; but that this poor ignorant sap ... Second: "A bigot can be anyone who, for example, just like that, when in conversation with a Hebrew speaking person would say: my, what an ugly language Hebrew is." I was wondering how long it would take you to bring that up again. Really sad, in many ways. Well, good luck in everything.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon: ironyroad is never rude. Other posters are rude and crude. He often agrees with them and, as we see in this thread, defends them unconditionally, and never notices how rude and crude they can be, but he himself is careful not to ever be rude. It's the irony way.

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus: For a while now, his tone toward Obama has been contemptuous, and I think I agree somewhat with your assessment. Peretz hated Clinton, but I don't think he would be using similar language or arguments (painting him as some simpleton who can barely function on his own. There is a tinge of that, "Now you listen here, boy"). However, I don't think he's engaging in dog whistles. If in fact his writing reflects some bigotry, it's entirely unconscious. He likes to think of himself as a liberal when it comes to matters of race. Also, when Noga points out that Marty Peretz was thrilled that we would have our first black president, his current derision, by your theory, would simply be the opposite side of the coin. Of course, it could also be this simple: He had a huge crush on Obama (and there was something a little over-the-top about his admiration), Obama rejected him so he feels spurned. Peretz so strongly identifies with Israel that he might take some of Obama's very mild criticisms of Israel as a personal attack. And someone spurned can get pretty nasty, as the Bard himself pointed out. So much for amateur psychology.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 8, 2011 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And someone spurned can get pretty nasty," As I said, I have no idea whence the animus - you and noga might well be right about the spurning thing. The point is, how does it come out? What are the weapons does one use in combatting the enemy? That tells you what your true colours are. Remember jackson and that infamous 500+ thread in which he kept calling me Harem Boy? The point was not that jackson was insulting - he insulted anyone and everyone. The point was the particular insult he used when he ran out of argument. Peretz is not yet at the point of attacking Obama the way he attacked Americans of Arab or Muslim origin - for which he apologised - but it cannot just be disappointment or disagreement that leads to this specific sort of characterisation. I am not going to speculate as to its source, but what is clear is that, as I noted above and as irony put it, it is of the same species as what one finds in the dark corners of American history.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am not going to speculate as to its source, " But you have been speculating with the utmost confidence that its source is hard core racism. You have not shown us how his statement that Obama, clueless about military things, has to be rescued by his generals from making a mess of things, is directly to be translated and construed as that "nigger boy" or however you formulated it. By the way, it's William Congreve, not Shakespeare, who said: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Congreve it is. Icarus has speculated no such thing. He is saying that Peretz's criticisms of Obama are racist in tone, not that racism is source of Peretz's contempt for Obama. Remember, Obama's race did not keep Peretz from voting for Obama. It is Obama's rejection of hard right-wing Israeli politics that has so enraged Mr. Martin. Believe me, had Obama not spoken out about the settlement building, Peretz would not be so furious. His expression of his rage is what's tainted with racism.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 8, 2011 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: read irony's comment, and Jtester, and my comments above context; the explanation is to be found there. And no, I have speculated that it is hard core racism. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I have said, repeatedly, and what irony has also pointed out, is that the way Peretz has phrased this and most of his anti-Obama drivel is quite similar to the way subtle racist messages are communicated in the United States these days. "clueless about military things, has to be rescued by his generals from making a mess of things" - that is not, of course, what Peretz said. You manage, again, to distort what I say and reword Peretz to whitewash him. Given that at issue is the specific wording of Peretz's writings and their contextual import, you might wish to pay closer attention to the words used - by him and by me.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*I have NOT speculated ...

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh my! Did you think, 106646 (truly the perfect screen name for you), that when I referred to "all the usual foamers at the mouth here today, in high lather, spittle-flecked and baring their teeth," I meant to include you? Because you seem to have taken it rather personally. Of course not. There is nothing you have said here on this thread that might make that an appropriate description of you. Besides, why would I want to hurt your feelings on a day when you have been the source of so much fun and entertainment? Here you have been cultivating the image of someone who objects to abusive language and wishes to see these threads rid of such. And it has taken no time at all for you to shoot that cultivated image to tatters. As we see above, it requires no provocation, no insult, nothing whatsoever beyond an opinion, or even the intimation of an opinion, that you don't like for you to trot out your insults and abusive language. Why, 106646, it turns out that the person whose behavior you object to is none other than you! Moreover, we can see that you actually do your best to provoke an insulting or abusive response to you and that all it takes to infuriate you is not to give you what you are looking for. Insulting you doesn't make you nearly so angry as refraining from insulting you. Good to know. As for this "Jew hatred" stuff, it comes so naturally to you, doesn't it? But you see, 106646, there are particular people who deserve our scorn and disdain for their words, their opinions, their deeds or all of the above. Some of those people are Jews. It is not Jew hatred to scorn them. But it does not take more than a moment or two for those who want to defend execrable words, opinions, or deeds to issue the dreaded accusation of Jew hatred, now does it? In addition to blowing up your own image as someone who deplores insults and abusive language, you are doing your best to make Walt and Mearshimer look good. You have had a very eventful and successful day, 106646. A day to be proud of.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2011 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JTester: "It's a fact that Peretz has a history of writing and saying racially inflammatory things. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here." He says things in an inflammatory WAY. There's often truth to what he says, but my guess is that he has no desire to elucidate or convince, but to provoke. Which makes his platform at TNR rather useless.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 8, 2011 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That is their right, but such emotion reaction is a way of avoiding dealing with the article as a whole." I found the article as a whole to consist of little but psychotic ramblings not even worthy of comment. When something is self-evident "drivel," as someone said up above, commenting upon it only lends it credibility it does not deserve. I did find some of the comments worthy of comment, but for varying reasons.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2011 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do find it interesting that the defenders of Peretz find it necessary to psychologize his critics rather than mount much of an argument in favor of what Peretz says. Although not insulting or abusive per se, this is still a tactic of attempting to discredit the speaker rather confront the speaker's thought directly. As is so common here for those who seem to admire Peretz, they constantly make other posters, rather than posts, the subject of their comments. Not admirable.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2011 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"noga: read irony's comment, and Jtester, and my comments above context; the explanation is to be found there." Sorry. The explanation, as you call it, is based on speculation rooted in suspicion, and does not show how this: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." (Paraphrasing: Peretz has very little confidence in Obama being able to figure out Af/Pak complexities. Obama either doesn't get it, or refuses to get it, which yields the same result. Therefore he needs the help of professionals who know better, to rescue him from his own ignorance, whether it is natural or manufactured.) Where, in any of it, do you read "Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." ?? Ironyroad's explains that "It's been a classic trope of American racial pathology since Reconstruction" . What exactly in Marty's formulation echoes that "classic trope"? Can we have an example of that classical trope so that we can compare and contrast? Anyway, the only thing that puzzles me about Peretz's statement is why he doubts that Obama is not genuinely clueless. He does suggest that Obama "refuses" to learn about the AfPak realities. How can his generals, then, rescue him, if his ignorance is voluntary and resistant to their advice?

- noga1

March 8, 2011 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: "What if it was 2008 and Peretz had made the same statement about Bush? No one would have perceived that as having any racist/bigoted subtext/animus." You're right. But it is not 2008; Obama is not Bush; and Peretz did not make this comment about the latter. Every piece of communication is made, and received, within a specific context. Language itself becomes pointless absent context. Now, because of this context, each phrase uttered carries several meanings at the same time, not all of which are at all times clear to the listeners. We have, on a separate thread, explored aspects of this "hidden" meaning - the existence of layers of meaning is what makes irony possible, for example. But just as you can "embed" an ironic meaning in an innocuous-seeming statement, so you can embed a racist meaning in an innocuous-sounding one. I were to say, "Mr. Rosenberg likes gold" to a group of, say, Muslims or Arabs or skinheads, it has a totally different meaning from saying, "Mr, Goldfinger likes gold" to a group of Bond aficionados. These are perhaps too obvious, but the history of race relations in the United States is replete with such examples. (Reagan's "Welfare Queens" speech is actually a good one.) This is not to say that a black man cannot be criticised without racial implications. Farrakhan is an asshole no matter what colour his skin; Sharpton is an odious frog; Harold Ford is an empty, grasping suit. For that matter, you can criticise Obama's odd cadences, his love of the teleprompter, his silly "I thought it was a good speech" comments, or his inability to connect emotionally like Clinton - or, for that matter, his knowledge or understanding of Israel - without the least bit implying racial animus. But Peretz's particular critiques have a different flavour entirely.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The explanation, as you call it, is based on speculation rooted in suspicion" It is based on context. You would be the first to pounce on similar dog whistles about Jews or Israel; your protestations of not being able to see the context are not terribly convincing.

- icarusr

March 8, 2011 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

liberal leftist hate. " NPR has released more statements. First, Schiller walks the plank and says he resigned. While the meeting I participated in turned out to be a ruse, I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR’s values and also not reflective of my own beliefs. I offer my sincere apology to those I offended. I resigned from NPR, previously effective May 6th, to accept another job. In an effort to put this unfortunate matter behind us, NPR and I have agreed that my resignation is effective today" http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/08/npr-puts-ron-schiller-on-administrative-leave.aspx will Schiller go into therapy like Galliano "On Monday morning, a video, posted on the Web site of a British tabloid, The Sun, showed Mr. Galliano sitting alone in the bar and blearily telling some appalled-seeming patrons, “I love Hitler” and “people like you would be dead” and “your mothers, your forefathers” would all be “gassed.” The video was reportedly made several months ago." These pathetic bigots when caught always say the same thing: I didn't mean it. It's not who or what I am. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/fashion/02galliano-dior.html

- nr106646

March 9, 2011 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(03/08/2011 - 10:45pm EDT | roidubouloi) I'm mad at you for giving that twerp the benefit of a response. My advice which is worth every thing you are paying for it is take a complete pass on her or him. He or she, I assume its a him, benefits from the attention you pay him. It gives him the illusion that he's worthy of a response.

- basman

March 9, 2011 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironyroad's explains that "It's been a classic trope of American racial pathology since Reconstruction." Can we have an example of that classical trope so that we can compare and contrast?" Yes and no. The history of Reconstruction between 1865 and 1877 is so large, so complex, and in some ways so ambiguous that it's difficult to think of one thing that would serve. Any one example has the problem of being one bit of flotsam bobbing about on a sea of ugly reality. And of course it's not necessarily the case that every single accusation of childlike stupidity was baseless -- many black writers including Booker T. Washington have discussed this (there's a great example in his Up from Slavery that I wasn't allowed to include in a reference book entry I wrote once). Generations of slavery and absence of education didn't prepare people so well for leadership. You know, it's like asking for an example of antisemitism and telling me you'd like something to compare and contrast. There's a database of centuries to choose from. What do you pick? There are crude populist examples and subtle literary examples. There are academic treatises and there are dumb jokes. It could be Russia, it could be France, it could be America. I've read the first couple of paragraphs of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises (about Robert Cohn) to students, and some have immediately seen it and some haven't seen it at all and some have seen it, sort of. Just believe me -- it's there. If you dip into Eric Foner's massive Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution you can see how much that idea was embedded in white responses to black political organization and educational self-improvement.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

:-)

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just believe me -- it's there. " If you have to resort to faith, it means you CANNOT make a case for your accusations. It's no good telling me about reconstruction and what not. How is that relevant to Obama, anyway? Obama's ancestry doesn't go back to slavery, he is not Caribbean. He comes from a middle class family and his father was a Kenyan senior governmental economist. Are you telling me that Peretz is so far gone in his racism that he is unaware of all this and all he can see is skin colour? Based on the same type of thinking, I could accuse you of antisemitism for repeatedly picking on Harold Bloom. BTW, as I googled for the exact credentials of Obama senior I found that his third wife, Ruth, was Jewish and that Obama has half-Jewish half-brothers. Those Jews can really insert themselves into any story. Not that it has any bearing on anything Obama is. Just an interesting tidbit. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning it though I have heard much about his Muslim half-brothers.

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 7:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Considering how little it takes for anyone to be accused here of anti-Semitism, I don't see why picking on Harold Bloom should not suffice.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What have you done, ironyroad? Do you have an irresistible impulse to italicize certain phrases? Can't you contain these stylistic passions?

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 9:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you have to resort to faith, it means you CANNOT make a case for your accusations." I suspect Irony is asking you to rely on his expertise, and the fact that discussing race relations in the United States is not given to analysis through comparison of specific examples. Especially because (see below) no matter how cogent the example, it can always be distinguished from the current case. (Believe me, as a lawyer, "distinguishing" current facts from controlling precedent is my bread and butter. And no, I am not asking you to take me on faith, but I am not going to give examples of how one distinguishes in law.) "It's no good telling me about reconstruction and what not." But of course, you again miss the point - whether it is deliberate, I cannot judge. To say, "it's no good telling me about reconstruction and what not" when discussing the history of race relations in the United States is akin to saying "don't tell me about the Holocaust and what not" when discussing anti-Semitism in Europe. Slavery and what happened afterwards - not just reconstruction, but the whole history of the South (and, in part, the North) following the war shapes the discourse between the races in the United States. It is in the very fabric of language. That is why you hear so much about "code words" and "dog whistles". Irony has set it out above, and you have yet to actually answer him. "How is that relevant to Obama, anyway? Obama's ancestry doesn't go back to slavery, he is not Caribbean." Again, Obama's actual "ancestry", or his place of birth, or that of his father, and whether Peretz is aware of all of that, has little to do with the nature of the discourse - the subtext - of language and race relations in the US. If Peretz were to call Kerry "boy", it means one thing; if he were to call Obama "boy" it means quite another, and the fact that Obama's mother was white and he was middle class does not change anything at all. That is why the cartoon of a White House planted thick with watermelons was so offensive - not because there is anything offensive in watermelons, or Obama has any relationship to watermelons, but because of the history of racial stereotypes in the US. I give you the benefit of the doubt that all of this rather pointless defense of Peretz and bobbing and weaving and rather bizarre arguments about the lack of relevance of Obama's skin colour to race discourse in the United States arises mostly out of deep ignorance of US social history. That, frankly, is the most charitable interpretation one can put on your line on Obama.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the analysis of George Friedman of Stratfor on the subject of a non-fly zone in Libya. Rather supports the points irony made at the outset. http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110308-how-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-backfire?utm_source=SpRep&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110308b&utm_content=readmore&elq=abf0e921dc41488ebcad0938319fb98c For extra credit, compare and contrast with the mad ravings of Martin Peretz and the defenses offered in his behalf. We were promised an "uncomplicated" explanation of why irony was off-base. Still waiting.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leaving aside whether one agrees of disagrees with Friedman, this is what actual analysis of tactical and strategic alternatives looks and sounds like. To say that the contrast with Peretz and the Peretzian is glaring would be gross understatement. But words fail.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: thanks for the link. But I doubt very much that people who think Obama is "clueless" about foreign affairs and needs to be "rescued" by, er, his hand-picked commanders (there is a disjunction there, but what do I know) really much care about "analysis". Obama is clueless and therefore whatever he does, or does not do, is wrong, regardless of any circumstances. Any actual analysis of his critics' proposed options is simply, in this narrative, mindless support of the One. I submit to you that not a single word in that article will have any impact on the detractors. "The no-fly zone is a low-risk action with little ability to change the military reality that creates an impression of decisive action." These are golden words. Incidentally, these are almost identical to the words Fouad Ajami used in 1990 in defending the ground force option against Iraq ;) ....

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am sure you are right, icarus. But I none-the-less think it helpful that the record not be limited to "he said, she said" to the extent that Peretz makes what might be considered policy claims. I also find it helpful to have something concrete with which to compare Peretz's spew. Incidentally, I think the accusations of mindless support for the One are what is mindless, a near total fabrication. Likewise, there is far more evidence that Obama's detractors cannot bear to have their criticism critiqued than there is unwillingess to see Obama criticized. Apparently the insistence that criticism be coherent and argued persuasively with reference to both facts and alternatives is considered to be indistinguishable from "mindless support.". Bunch of propaganda nonsense served up for the sole purpose of mindlessly discrediting Obama and anyone who does not accept on its face the mindless effort to discredit. There is nothing new under the sun. I am tentatively invited to visit Iran this summer as a guest of my hotshot parisien in'l lawyer friend who is Iranian Azeri by extraction. What do you think?

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I strongly recommend you go - three days in Tehran would be good (but no more. You should visit the Crown Jewels, the Carpet Museum and the National Heritage Museum or whatever it is called these days), avoid July and August, try not to fly Iran Air (Mahan has far fewer crashes), you definitely want to hit the Caspian coast, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kermanshah, skip Mashad, Kerman is a gem but hard to get to; if he is Azeri, he will want to take you to Tabriz - interesting, but even more interesting is the Oromiyeh salt lake, in advanced stages of death, but the pink flamingoes are awesome. Oh, and in the mountains (you have to hit the mountains), about three hours north west of Tehran you will find Masooleh. Worth two days in the region. Stunning. Familiarise yourself with the concept of ta'arof; read Honeymoon in Purdah by Alison Wearing - it's interesting, though towards the end it kinda loses steam. And, of course, visit the Jewish centres/communities in Hamedan (where my ancestors come from). Tradition has it that there is 2500 years of continuous Jewish settlement there - from the first batch of freed slaves after the conquest of Babylon - Esther would have been the third generation of that crowd.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Terrific. Thanks for the advice. They have a dacha (or whatever they call them in Farsi) on the Caspian so I know we would be spending some time there. My host is well familiar with the Jewish community in Iran. I can avoid Iran Air, but cannot avoid August as that is when they will be visiting from Paris in Iran.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Vivian Schiller, NPR chief, resigns amid uproar over 'sting video'" "Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, stepped down Wednesday in the wake of a sting video that showed an NPR fundraiser disparaging conservatives and criticizing Jews. With the Vivian Schiller departure, NPR is left to fight criticism that intolerance is part of its DNA." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/0309/Vivian-Schiller-NPR-chief-resigns-amid-uproar-over-sting-video Bigots fighting bigotry, that's rich.

- nr106646

March 9, 2011 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wasn't saying, Noga, that I was relying on faith. I was asking you to take on faith in a general sense what I was saying because I have done some fairly respectable study of nineteenth-century America and particularly of post-Civil War history, culture, and literature. And this you know. It's not the case, at all, that there are no examples of a particular type of hostile/patronizing attitude (there was a range) toward African Americans in political office and other leadership positions in the first era in American history when that phenomenon happened. There are thousands of examples of different kinds, from reported speech to cartoons to private correspondence to literature (a classic example: T.W. Dixon's very popular novels The Leopard's Spots and The Klansman from the 1900s). I could spend an hour finding and directing you to precise references (and sometimes illustrations) in e.g. Foner's Reconstruction, David Blight's Race and Reunion, Eric Sundquist's To Wake the Nations, or period classics such as WEB DuBois's The Souls of Black Folk. I didn't think you'd require that before trusting me on this. However, as I noted, one example or two or three are always insufficient to establish the generality. Hence my drawing a parallel with antisemitism, a large and complex history of prejudice not entirely contained in a few clear-edged examples. As icarus noted above, also, it's not really relevant where Obama comes from in reality as the odd implications in Marty's formulation don't have anything to do with Obama as an actual individual but with a racial projection. Rather like the case of a Sikh attacked for being a Muslim because the attacker was confused about turbans. Finally, I want to emphasize that I have NOT indicted Marty for racism. My contributions here, such as they are, are mainly about the Libya intervention issue (did you see the NYT's David Sanger along with Wieseltier and others on CR last night?). I'm not exactly sure what Marty meant by the way he expressed that reference to the president, but I know what the historical implications of it are. I'm talking implications and not intentions here, even though it may be a small difference.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yeah, sorry about the italics. All I did (I promise, ma'am!) was italicize a couple of book titles. This site is a damaged web site. Messed up html capability is worse than no capability at all.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm not exactly sure what Marty meant by the way he expressed that reference to the president, but I know what the historical implications of it are." I have a sneaking suspicion that Noga understands full well what you mean. No other way to explain her reformulation of Marty's phrase.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, ironyroad, I'm not satisfied with your response. My question to icarus from the very first was how he got from this: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." To this interpretation: "Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." which is all about a pretty base and basic kind of racism to be found at the core of KKK's ideologies. Icarus said: "Peretz's heart is darkened with a deeper hatred than mere policy or even personal differences with the President. That poison, when it oozes in a specific way, has a name" Icarus is accusing Peretz of the vilest type of racism, the kind that you, ironyroad, researched in your academic capacity. When you provided the academic explanations as to why icarus's reading is right in your eyes, you were supporting his accusation. Yet you could not demonstrate to this ignorant reader (in your eyes and your friend's eyes) why this is so. You can only speak of abstract subtexts that have to do with nineteenth century literature and trying, in spite of lack of material, to indict Peretz of racism. Now you are saying that you did not actually make that case. So what has all this discussion been about? The argument from authority, as you must know, is a rhetorical fallacy. This is an example of why it is called a fallacy. Because, for all your expertise, you cannot prove that Peretz' statement is a subversive racist allusion to ""Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." You can't because it is not to be found in the words. It's funny how you try to play "authority" but when we had a discussion about Palin's use of "blood libel" you insisted that you knew for sure it was an antisemitic slur. Despite my attempts to explain your mistake. You even took umbrage at Dershowitz for defending her. Where was your deference to, if not my expertise (what do I know, eh?) than Dershowitz's ? _________ FWIIW, I too do not support intervention in Libya. If the rebels need help, let their Arab brethren provide it. I don't see why any American soldier's life ought to be risked in that venture.

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have a sneaking suspicion that Noga understands full well what you mean. No other way to explain her reformulation of Marty's phrase." In my "reformulation" I tried to break down the statement to its components so as to look for the simplest and most straightforward manner of understanding it. Icarus's reformulation manufactured a slanderous lie: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." "Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." So, don't let's talk about "reformulations", OK?

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ha, I see Michael Walzer agrees with me; http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=392 "So why not call in the Egyptian and Tunisian armies? A high-tech force isn’t necessary here; with logistical help, these two armies could do the job. And who knows? Promoting democracy in Libya might push them to do the same thing, a bit more eagerly than they are doing now, in their own countries. When intervention is necessary, neighbors are the best substitute for insiders.."

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's no obligation to accept anything I say at all Noga. I was assuming that I wouldn't have to prove by example an argument for which individual examples don't really suffice. I'm offering an -- in my view, informed -- opinion that there is a peculiar implication in Marty's phrasing that echoes a traditional attitude to black office-holders in the U.S. that emerged with great intensity during Reconstruction (and has persisted in corners of American society); to wit, that they are essentially clueless and inept and have to be guided at every moment by capable white folks until they can be removed. I don't know if the implication is there by accident, or by design. Language can be ambiguous. It is, however, there. Again, this is quite a separate issue from the truth content of the point being made, which I also regard as minimal. I think that "strategic rescue mode" is an utterly meaningless term, for example, but that's not what's at issue. Were Marty to say, for example, that he in no way intended to imply that Obama's race had anything to do with his purported cluelessness, I'd be inclined to accept that (whereas I would be disinclined to accept a similar get-out from, say, Mike Huckabee). I'm really don't want to reopen the Palin thing again, but I believe you are mischaracterizing my argument somewhat. My basic position was that the "blood libel" phrase seemed rather far away from its traditional meaning, but whether it was or whether it wasn't did not relieve Palin of the responsibility for some other things she said (or, in my particular view, didn't say). I didn't take umbrage at Dershowitz, as I explained at the time.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a slanderous lie" ... isn't that kinda redundant? Of course I "reformulated"; any explanation of subtext requires contextual interpretation. I am just saying that if you can "reformulate" to wash out the subtext, it means you are aware of it. You can't cleanse a text unless you see the stain - see what I mean? The problem with your defence of Peretz is not your doggedness - that is, I suppose, admirable - but your denial of fairly concrete circumstances related to race relations history in the United States in doing so, and your dismissal of the relevance of history, cultural context and expertise in the process. You can raise the temperature as much as you like ("slanderous lie","vile", "dear boy"), but you will not get a reaction because right now, you are in full justification, not explanation or understanding, mode. You are, in short, what you think you behold: it is not us who doggedly defend the One, it is you who cannot brook a single criticism of Peretz. Brush aside history! Deny the relevance of expertise! Social studies, psha! For Peretz has said his piece on Obama; he has laid bare Obama's weakness ("clueless"); no challenge is allowed! In all your comments, you have put down, there is not one word in response to the specific points I have raised in respect of US social context. Snark and sarcasm and abuse by the Imperial pint, but no real reply. Hard to take seriously, you know :).

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, I will ask you again: Where do you see in this statement: "It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to." that Peretz is in effect saying this: ""Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals." ? Where is the racist stereotyping you see so clearly in this judgment? Where is the "nigger" in this sentence? Where are the "white generals"? "There's no obligation to accept anything I say at all Noga." I would say that this rather dismal attempt to stick by an interpretation that you cannot support yet persist in holding on to, does not do much to inspire any confidence in your judgment. Since you are the one making the allegation that this is an utterance infused by historical anti-black racism, I put it to you that it is YOUR OBLIGATION to either prove it, or admit that you cannot do it. To accuse a journalist of Peretz's record of being a KKK-type racist, is a libel. It's a character assassination. When you assist in such endeavours you had better be damned sure you are 100% correct in your judgment. Are you seriously contending that Peretz is subversively making a racist slur that depicts Obama as a "Poor little nigger boy"?

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to say, given the casual way in which the slur of anti-Semitism and many other slanderous lies are tossed around on these blogs, it is amusing to read that one must be "damned sure you are 100% correct" before leveling an accusation of racist use of language against Peretz. Is this a new standard or simply a standard to be applied uniquely to defend Peretz?

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...given the casual way in which the slur of anti-Semitism and many other slanderous lies are tossed around on these blogs, " Seeing as roi has several times accused me of being antisemitic (and a Nazi), I would have to agree with his assessment about how casually this slur is bandied about in these threads.

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found Walzer’s “op ed” of that’s what it was interesting and when Walzer speaks I listen and tend to approach him as someone presumptively correct. But I didn’t buy his argument this time. The key quote from Mills relevant here, I think, is this (as noted by Ted Bromund): ….But the case of a people struggling against a foreign yoke, or against a native tyranny upheld by foreign arms, illustrates the reasons for non-intervention in an opposite way; for in this case the reasons themselves do not exist. A people the most attached to freedom, the most capable of defending and of making a good use of free institutions, may be unable to contend successfully for them against the military strength of another nation much more powerful. To assist a people thus kept down, is not to disturb the balance of forces on which the permanent maintenance of freedom in a country depends, but to redress that balance when it is already unfairly and violently disturbed. The doctrine of non-intervention, to be a legitimate principle of morality, must be accepted by all governments. The despots must consent to be bound by it as well as the free States. Unless they do, the profession of it by free countries comes but to this miserable issue, that the wrong side may help the wrong, but the right must not help the right. Intervention to enforce non-intervention is always rightful, always moral, if not always prudent… So here the Millian argument flows from the premise that Kadaffy is importing into his war foreign mercenaries. On this premise, as I read this text, there is no principled reason for non intervention. I of course readily bow to Walzer in his understanding of Mill but do not understand necessarily why Kadaffian mercenaries engaged in civilian slaughter as a tactic and engaged in air strafing of rebel forces and civilian populations do not in Mills’s terms invoke the need for humanitarian intervention or, in more modern terms, the duty to protect. I find a tension in Walzer’s initial rejection of intervention on a humanitarian ground but his looking to it in the face of a likely Qadaffy victory: …What if it looks as if Qaddafi is going to win? Would we be willing to go all the way with Mill and say that if the rebels lose, it’s because the country isn’t ready, isn’t “fit,” for democratic government? I don’t think I am tough enough for that… I don’t understand the willingness to intervene at some later point but not at an earlier point. An answer may lie in the distinction between between intervention short of ground invasion and intervention as ground invasion. But unless I am missing it, Walzer doesn’t entertain that distinction in his argument and that muddies it some and makes it incomplete. Some of Bromund’s comments speak to the importance of maintaining that distinction, while he proceeds from the premise of Kadaffy’s use of foreign mercenaries in addressing these issues: …The U.S. should be working with its allies to warn the states of north and central Africa — and others, but the African states are the most likely sources of assistance — that any cooperation with Qaddafi, or any evidence they looked the other way, will be viewed with extreme disfavor and lead to public denunciations, the reduction or elimination of aid, and further steps if warranted. With the administration now (finally) committed publicly to the idea that Qaddafi has to go, it is literally the least we could do… Finally, for Walzer advancing a principled argument proceeding by moral reasoning, I also find a tension between that in him and his final reversion to a kind of pragmatic reckoning in arguing that at the acceptable point of ground invasion intervention : …So why not call in the Egyptian and Tunisian armies? A high-tech force isn’t necessary here; with logistical help, these two armies could do the job. And who knows? Promoting democracy in Libya might push them to do the same thing, a bit more eagerly than they are doing now, in their own countries… If a point is ever reached that ground forces are warranted—and Walzer countenancing that proceeds, I diagnose, from his failure to make the distinction I noted—I don’t know why neighboring forces are better to make that fight that forces under some international banner, some true collation of the willing, a consensus that Walzer (to me) inexplicably rejects: “In any case, they could act effectively only as part of a NATO force, and NATO is second-worst to the United States as a potential intervener.” I agree that at such a hypothetical point the U.S. ought not act alone but if the U.N. will not act—as Walzer assumes—I don’t understand NATO as objectionable. After all from Mill, once more: …But the case of a people struggling against a foreign yoke, or against a native tyranny upheld by foreign arms, illustrates the reasons for non-intervention in an opposite way; for in this case the reasons themselves do not exist… On a different point: Peretz as racialist in the above piece. I don’t buy it, Ironyroad’s impressive scholarship and his and Icarusr’s interesting arguments notwithstanding. One analogy I’d use is the venerable dicta of SCOTUS in assessing the amplitude of Congress’s power under the American Commerce Clause. SCOTUS cautions against piling inference on inference to get to non commercial intrastate activity affecting interstate commerce sufficiently to invoke Congress’s Commerce Clause jurisdiction. So for myself, I find that the arguments for a racial subtext to Peretz’s piece consiss of that same piling on inferences descending ultimately to abstraction. The issue I take it is not that some of Peretz’s tropes have racialist resonance, that scholarship can demonstrate, but whether Peretz consciously is laying into some of his criticisms of Obama racialist animus: two separate issues. And to me no good case has been made for answeriing the latter issue affirmatively.

- basman

March 9, 2011 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: I doubt it. Also should be Mill not Mills, which spellings I have shamefully confused at times.

- basman

March 9, 2011 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The angry whelp roidubouloi is now defending antisemites. Martin Peretz is a "racist," but over "educated" lefties who slur Jews are not antisemites.

- nr106646

March 9, 2011 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: "The issue I take it is not that some of Peretz’s tropes have racialist resonance, that scholarship can demonstrate, but whether Peretz consciously is laying into some of his criticisms of Obama racialist animus: two separate issues." That is exactly my position. I am made uneasy by the way in which Marty's tone and phrasing conjures up a very unpleasant tradition in American politics in respect of black office-holders, going back to the end of the Civil War (and one I simply cannot believe Marty would be unaware of), but I do not see enough evidence to indict him on intentionality.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The issue I take it is not that some of Peretz’s tropes have racialist resonance, that scholarship can demonstrate, but whether Peretz consciously is laying into some of his criticisms of Obama racialist animus: two separate issues. And to me no good case has been made for answeriing the latter issue affirmatively." Basman: I entirely agree with you that the two issues are separate. And, in fact, I have no evidence at all to prove affirmatively, in a court of law, that Peretz is consciously driven by racial animus. I don't know the man; I don't know his mind, or at least such of it as is left. The real issue is precisely the first point: that the way he formulated his specific attack on Obama is well within the "tropes that have racialist resonance." The point is that Peretz is too well-educated, too steeped in the American tradition, and too aware of similar anti-semitic tropes around the world NOT to be aware that his use of certain language can be taken as, or may demonstrate, racial bias. Look - articling for interviews, I was taken to lunch by a firm. We got into the restaurant and one of the lawyers saw the headline in the Sun. He said something to the other guy and then, without missing a beat, turned to me and said, "you probably don't follow hockey." Other than my tanned skin and funny name, nothing suggested that I don't follow the national pastime. Was he racist or ethnocentrist? Probably not. But he was acting on certain stereotypes as sure as if he had said anything about money, had he found out that I have Jewish roots. Or there was the Selection Committee at a well-respected, and quite liberal, college in Toronto; the name of a candidate came up, and the rather elderly chair muttered something about eating at the High Table. The individual in question had an East Indian name; I knew him: grew up in posh surroundings in Toronto and Oxford educated - could have taught the old fart a thing or about eating at the High Table ... The point is simple: these tropes are far more damaging to society, and to the polity, than burning crosses. The man in the hood - you know where you stand. The lawyer - not a single one of my Canadian friends thought what he said was problematic, and every single one of my immigrant friends instantly understood what was meant (all of them successful and far, far from the rabble-rousing multi-culti crowd). The veiled statement, the harmless criticism, is all the more dangerous because it becomes acceptable in polite society.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, not to forget the more important issue, David Sanger made some good points on Charlie Rose last night. One in particular involved asking the question: what happens if a no-fly zone is imposed, yet events on the ground don't really change and Ghadaffi begins to crush the opposition? Do we just say oh dear, lost that one, and withdraw our air cover? Or does the call then come to ratchet up our involvement and provide more concrete support to the rebels? And if it does, what do we do -- especially as having taken the step of a no-fly zone may well encourage people into thinking that if things turn nasty we'll stand behind them? Neither Leon Wieseltier nor Ann Marie Slaughter seemed to want to deal with this possibility.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr and irony: You are both strong and subtle thinkers. I think Peretz's criticisms of Obama of a piece with his criticisms of people with whom he disagrees and, due to his own unfathomable demons, he doesn't like. At this juncture--dsiagreement meeting animus--he is shamelessly and unself contollably insulting, conflating criticism with personal broadsides. He is unstinting at this juncture, gratuitious insults leaping o'er bounds of any propriety and any civility of discourse. I find Peretz an equalist on the evidence of his posts over the years, his initial support for his state's governor, for Obama, his adulatory comments on black intellectuals he champions like John McWhorter and the late Shelby Steele for examples only. It is in the context informed by disagreement mating animus where I locate his absurd comments about Obama and not having a whit to do with racialism. I don't think it's enough, intellectually, to say "I don't have evidence of his intentions" but also to say, on the other hand, he used forms of expression that he must needs know, by virtue of his own learning, have built in, historical racial animus. Only respectfully, there is having it both waysism in saying both things. It's effectively a raciialist calling him out, which makes the issue a little serious, which is to say, the latter way of the both waysism casts an inference piled on inference innuuendo of Peretz's raciialism, when all is said and done, and as I read your comments. Finally, icarusr, fwiiw, had I been at that luncheon with you and had I heard the lawyer telling you that you probably are not interested in hockey, then, barring something reasonably extenuating then and there, I would've told him, I'd like to think, to "fuck himself." To me you are being entirely too generous, (subtle :-)) in gving him the benefit of a certain benign ethnocentricity.

- basman

March 9, 2011 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a journalist of Peretz's record" ... Greenwald, in 2007, on Peretz: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/meaning-of-marty-peretz.html Ackerman, who used to write for TNR: "Everyone who works at TNR knows Marty is a racist." http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-see-you-crawling-in-your-garden.html Fallows on Peretz: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/a-harsh-thing-i-should-have-said-martin-peretz-dept-updated/62613/ Shafer on Peretz: http://www.jackshafer.com/misc_columns/20091128_perfervid_peretz.php Alterman on Peretz: "his obsessive and unapologetic hatred of Arabs, the evidence of which is visible nearly every day on Peretz's "The Spine."" http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=my_marty_peretz_problem_and_ours Salon on Peretz: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/27/marty_peretz_friends "The New Republic's owner and editor in chief combines perfervid prose with unrepentant bigotry ... Repeat offenses: Racism, overheated prose." http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/24/hack_list_5 And so on. Oscar sued for libel and ended up in jail ...

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy "a journalist of Peretz's record" ... Greenwald, in 2007, on Peretz: http ://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/meaning-of-marty-peretz.html Ackerman, who used to write for TNR: "Everyone who works at TNR knows Marty is a racist." http ://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-see-you-crawling-in-your-garden.html Fallows on Peretz: http ://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/a-harsh-thing-i-should-have-said-martin-peretz-dept-updated/62613/ Shafer on Peretz: http ://www.jackshafer.com/misc_columns/20091128_perfervid_peretz.php Alterman on Peretz: "his obsessive and unapologetic hatred of Arabs, the evidence of which is visible nearly every day on Peretz's "The Spine."" http ://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=my_marty_peretz_problem_and_ours Salon on Peretz: http ://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/27/marty_peretz_friends "The New Republic's owner and editor in chief combines perfervid prose with unrepentant bigotry ... Repeat offenses: Racism, overheated prose." http ://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/24/hack_list_5 And so on. Oscar sued for libel and ended up in jail ...

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am made uneasy by the way in which Marty's tone and phrasing conjures up a very unpleasant tradition in American politics in respect of black office-holders," Does it conjure such a tradition? Again, can you provide an analysis of the statement as conjuring that tradition? Where do you see the white supremacy in it? Where do you recognize a "nigger" in it? You have devoted quite a lot of energy and thought in support of icarus's reading of this statement and now you say you have doubts about it. How can you go to such lengths of persuasion over something you have doubts about? I just don't get it.

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: "The issue I take it is not that some of Peretz’s tropes have racialist resonance, that scholarship can demonstrate, but whether Peretz consciously is laying into some of his criticisms of Obama racialist animus: two separate issues." Where is the racism in the following, Basman? “President Obama had first given a morsel of hope to the popular insurrection in Libya by allowing Hillary Clinton to suggest, although ever so tenuously, that America might impose a "no-fly zone" on Muammar Qaddafi's increasingly brutal attacks on the populace. But as days pass, and more and more people—both heroic rebels and just ordinary unarmed folks—are killed, Obama's stalling demonstrates how wary he is of taking a stand against any force in the Arab world regardless of how cruel and murderous it is. His mind is still stuck with the principle that any government in office is a legitimate government whether or not its rule is maintained by force or not. Nor is this just favoritism to Muslims. The United States has barely lifted even a diplomatic finger against Zimbabwe or the "Democratic" Republic of Congo, whose people are as least as miserable as anyone in Yemen—or Libya, and Libya is, by the way, a wealthy country. And, of course, until this late whiff of rebellious hope had wafted through that vast territory stretching from the Maghreb to Mesopotamia, all the regimes in it sustained their power by stepping, as George Orwell put it, on the human face forever.” If Martin Peretz is a racist why would he show concern for the appalling condition of Black Africans in the Congo or Zimbabwe?

- Packard

March 9, 2011 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gosh, 106646. How do you manage to demonstrate such utter confusion in so few words? You are truly an artist of bumbling confusion. I didn't say anything that could possibly be construed as a defense of anti-Semitism or anti-Semites. I was merely pointing out noga's hypocrisy in demanding "100% certainty" before Peretz may be accused of making remarks tinged with racism while herself casually flinging around accusations of anti-Semitism and all sorts of other things, inventing words that she falsely attributes to other people before smearing them for it, and so forth (with plenty of company from certain people who know who they are). It is not for nothing that noga was dubbed, by mollysimon, The Gargoyle of the Spine. Mine, however, was a rhetorical question. I didn't really expect that noga had anything in mind other than one standard that should apply to the slurs and smears she and her pals fling around and a very different standard to which she holds everyone else. And you silly boy didn't even get the point! What really impresses me about you, 106646, is not only that you constantly inject yourself into conversations with insults and such while claiming to deplore such conduct, but that, as far as I recall, you have absolutely nothing else to say of any kind on any subject other than to issue insults. That's a really high standard of hypocrisy you are setting here. It seems that you are an artist of bumbling confusion and a genius of hypocrisy, all at once. (By the by, I don't suppose anyone has ever referred to you as over-educated, have they?)

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard you are reading me incorrectly. My position is that Peretz is neither racist or racialist. I accede to Ironyroad's scholarship as to the historical racism in certain forms of expression not dissimilar to things Peretz said above in trying to take down Obama. I'm saying that's coincidental and is impertinentl to any issue of any racial animus allegedly lurking beneath the text of his remarks.

- basman

March 9, 2011 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, 106646, I understand that you have difficulty in following the conversation, but I have not said anything here that accuses Martin Peretz of racism or anything approving or disapproving of that sentiment. I have previously expressed my opinion that Peretz is an anti-Muslim racist in contexts where there was plenty of evidence in his own words. What that has to do with anti-Semitism I cannot fathom But then, for some people here, everything is always about anti-Semitism no matter what the subject or the day.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts." This is one of Cass Sustein's favourite beefs and he talks about it here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/constitutional-law/sunstein-chair-lecture.html "Opening his lecture, Sunstein declared that one of his goals was “to drive a wedge between the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ and ‘Truth.’” Identifying truth specifically with factual accuracy, he outlined three mechanisms by which false rumors gain traction in that marketplace and become widely held beliefs. Biased Assimilation The first of these mechanisms he termed “Biased Assimilation.” Belief formation is a motivated process, said Sunstein, and when an individual is presented with a statement of unknown accuracy, he or she will respond to it with preconceived notions of what is correct. If the statement is in agreement with the individual’s bias, the individual finds validation and holds the belief even more strongly. If the statement disagrees with what he or she already believes to be true, studies have shown that generally the person will not change opinions, but rather will still find validation in his or her own belief, rejecting the statement as questionable for one rationalization or another. “What supports your prior convictions will be new and fresh…and have credibility,” said Sunstein. “What goes the other way will seem preposterous and easily dismissed.” Once a false rumor has thus been accepted, a correction then becomes difficult to accept. The first reaction, he said, is to ask “Why is my belief being denied?” and to answer the question by stating, “It wouldn’t be denied unless there was some foundation for it.” “The very denial of the false rumor focuses people’s attention on it,” said Sunstein, “and the focus of their attention tends to leave a kind of cognitive echo in the mind, thinking ‘It’s probably so.’”

- noga1

March 9, 2011 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, in case it wasn't obvious, I have been and am still supporting my reading of the statement. Just because I join a temporary argumentative position on a disagreement doesn't mean I have given up my own individual position. In this case, my position has to do with tone and phrasing, at a level below the visible one, exactly as antisemitic remarks may look ok on the surface, but not below. I don't know what I can tell you that I haven't said already. Like the rest of us here, I have a mind. In that mind, language conjures things, both literal and suggestive (denotative and connotative, if you like). I can't help it that my reading, education, whatever is triggered in a particular way by Marty's statement. Maybe something like this is kind of obvious unless it's not obvious. It seems obvious to me that Marty isn't saying, for example, that Obama suffers from a lack of good intelligence on what's happening with the Pakistani nukes, for example, or that both the president and the military have a strategy which has failed to produce the goods in Helmland province. It seems obvious to me that Marty is not (because it would be entirely stupid) saying that Obama doesn't have enough knowledge about Af/Pak. So "hasn't a clue" cannot mean that he's not receiving briefings, getting expert advice etc. The only way to read that statement is as a comment on Obama's intellect, leadership abilities, and relationship to American military commanders on the ground. That comment suggests that Obama, a guy who actually irritates people by thinking about things before he does them, is intellectually incapable of discharging his leadership responsibilities and has to be led around by the generals. This kind of image was extremely prevalent in American history in respect of black politicians and still has roots there as one can hear between the lines from various people. Will that do, as analysis? I'm at a loss there because I thought I already provided you with exactly that. It's not clear to me what you are disputing, to be honest. Are you saying that there is no such thing as what I've been describing? Or are you saying that Marty is such a wonderful human being that he wouldn't even unintentionally invoke an old American tradition of describing black office-holders as basically clueless fumblers who need their hands held by competent whites? That reminds me of the story of when Freud visited the United States for the first (and only) time and was discussing his theory of dreams and their release of unconscious and unacceptable desires with a group of people. A respectable Massachusetts lady informed him that her dreams were always virtuous.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2011 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems that noga is quite the student of the manner in which falsehoods insinuate themselves into thought and the difficulty of countering them once they have been assimilated. I am not surprised at all. I have always said that she is a studied propagandist, no mere amateur, but that was just an intuition based on the behavior I can observe here. Now we see that she has studied indeed and puts the lessons she has learned to consistent use.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2011 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Packard you are reading me incorrectly. My position is that Peretz is neither racist or racialist. I accede to Ironyroad's scholarship as to the historical racism in certain forms of expression not dissimilar to things Peretz said above in trying to take down Obama. I'm saying that's coincidental and is impertinentl to any issue of any racial animus allegedly lurking beneath the text of his remarks.” Ironyroad’s point is trivial since you can‘t convict anyone of racism because they used an expression which might have had racist connotations at one time. And why would a racist show concern for the welfare of Africans?

- Packard

March 9, 2011 at 11:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard: "you can‘t convict anyone of racism because they used an expression which might have had racist connotations at one time." "And why would a racist show concern for the welfare of Africans?" We are not in court; and the point is not whether Marty used "an expression" that was racist at some point, but that he is using a structure in his argument that still resonates in certain circles, because of its unsavoury history. As for your last statement, one is at a loss to respond. The history of Missions in Africa is packed with rank racists who nevertheless wanted to improve the lot of poor uncivilised Africans. If you insert yourself into the debate, for God's sake at least read something on the subject before commenting.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 11:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama is simply incapable of taking a principled stand on one side of any issue and sticking to it. In addition, he and his super-genius assistants, most of whom have never seen the outside of a classroom or a meeting room, have no idea how to implement a policy decision that happens to get made or to measure the effects thereof. Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars" was a classic example of endless dithering resulting in no practical outcome and no clear course of action that anyone was committed to. It is also annoying, and significant, that Obama always wants to stand above the battle while decisions are being made, e.g., a meeting that was supposed to be held today about Libya featuring Hillary, Donilon, Pannetta, and others, but not Obama. Where was he? Playing basketball? Granted, left to her own devices, Hillary would probably have nuked all these places by now, but at least she would have done something; instead, she is constantly left with egg on her face because apparently the Great One never talks to her. All that being said, blind hatred of Obama or Gadhafi (however we are spelling it today) does not yield an answer to what the U.S. should be doing about Libya. Yes, everyone is suddenly discovering how much they always hated Gadhafi but conveniently neglected to mention until it became chic; but the fact is, we have been and still are supporting many others like him because we thought there was something they could do for us. And another fact is that recently we have always failed when we intervened or tried to "help" with some other country's troubles, see Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, etc., while we have ignored far worse situations that Libya such as Darfur and Rwanda, and had to be dragged into Bosnia and Kosovo after most of the damage was already done. So perhaps we ought to think about what we are doing before we plunge into another local war that we cannot afford, have no troops to fight, and are probably incapable of "winning" or resolving anyway. Peretz and others may not want to see it, but there has been an element of anti-U.S., anti- West, and/or anti-Israel sentiment behind the current protests, especially in those places (probably all of them) where we have been propping up the dictator they are trying to get rid of. The insurgents in most of these places are likely to be less friendly toward Israel and us when the shooting is over and they all start looking for someone to blame. It may be pleasant to assume that people are rebelling so that they can claim their political and civil rights, but that does not seem to be the case. It seems that what the rebels really want is work, or the money that comes from work, so that they can have and enjoy what they see other people having and enjoying. But that is not going to happen either, not any time soon, because of infrastructure damage, a breakdown in social order (from too much to too little), and because there's a global recession going on, remember, so those jobs are probably just not there. We can't all work for the government. Who is going to be blamed when the streets turn out not to be paved with gold, and who is going to be expected to fix it? We are, that's who. And meanwhile, since few if any of these uprisings, though admirable in many ways, seem to have an identified leader or leadership structure, and since things may get worse long before they begin to get better, the winning faction is itself likely to splinter and factionalize, probably resulting in more little mini-wars in which the U.S. will find itself in its usual position--the middle, being shot at from all sides and not even knowing whom to shoot back at. So maybe the failure to jump right into the Libyan conflict isn't so stupid or craven after all, nice as it would be to have something else to prove Obama is a secret Islamist. The time to intervene, if there was one, was when it looked like Gadhafi was was just lining up and shooting innocent protestors. Now what is going on in Libya looks a lot to me like a good old civil war, very possibly one that we should allow to follow its own course at least for the time being. You have to draw the line somewhere, and we shouldn't be trying to fix all these other nations before we fix our own.

- mlottman

March 9, 2011 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: "This kind of image was extremely prevalent in American history in respect of black politicians and still has roots there as one can hear between the lines from various people." So is it racist if I see Clarence Thomas this way? I can't think of a stupider justice. And any language about his not knowing anywhere to go without Scalia's telling him where to go is not at all racist. It's fact. But back to Hemingway: I looked at those first three paragraphs, and was astonished anyone could MISS the anti-semitism. I thought you had to be wicked smart to get into UVA. God, another reason I have so little respect for "Papa." What a prick. Anyone, to all: I've considered this racist subtext business, and I'm not convinced it's there. I do think, however, that there's a huge amount of castration subtext going on. And I've been thinking this for months.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 9, 2011 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: exactly. Basman: all diversity training is based on what you call "both wayism": one has to assume the good faith of the trainee, but you try to instruct them to avoid modes, methods and language of argument that will have a differential impact on people because of their history, context, and so on. When Hillary blurted out her "working Americans, white working Americans" (or whatever the specific wording was) it was clearly not because she is racist. And when Clinton said, in respect of South Carolina, that Jesse Jackson also won there, it did not prove to me that he is in any way racist. I don't think for one second either of them is racist. But, they used constructions, one overtly and the other covertly, that fitted well within ugly traditions in rural Pennsylvania and the South. They deserved to be pilloried, as they were, for their comments; what was going through their heads was and is between them and their conscience.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So maybe the failure to jump right into the Libyan conflict isn't so stupid or craven after all, nice as it would be to have something else to prove Obama is a secret Islamist." Something "else"?

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: "And any language about his not knowing anywhere to go without Scalia's telling him where to go is not at all racist. It's fact." His very appointment was one of the most craven acts of racism by Bush the Father.

- icarusr

March 9, 2011 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, I said a ways back (p. 2 or 3) that the story of African American incompetence after the Civil War wasn't completely baseless at all and Booker T. Washington writes about this in quite an amusing way in Up from Slavery. Southern blacks' experience didn't make them very prepared for leadership and in the strange circumstances of Reconstruction it could go wrong. And human beings are still not all exactly equal today, either, in terms of abilities and capabilities. So, yes -- you can be African-American and stupid the same way you can be Irish-American and stupid and wherever you want to go after that. It probably won't hinder you becoming a judge. You don't even need the hypenated American part, either -- there's a rich global diversity of stupidity out there. However, there is something strange about Marty's formulation, as I tried to parse it for Noga, above.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, two things: Yes, it's difficult to argue for Hemingway on the basis that the author isn't the narrator, as in The Sun Also Rises there is an extremely high level of narrative empathy with Jake Barnes. And what's the "castration subtext"?

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony let’s indeed isolate one of the statements that discomforts you: ...It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to.... We are on common ground in thinking that this statement is absurd. Clearly, Obama has a deep idea of what is going on in the AfPak region just as he has a deep idea— in contrast with some other presidents--of whatever policy issues he has to confront. (Disagreeing with Obama of course is something else entirely.) It’s notable that Peretz ends with the phrase “Or refuses to,” which suggests that Obama does understand what is going on in the AfPak region but will not allow that understanding—an understanding, which to be an understanding must conform to Peretz’s own understanding—to rise to the level of correct policy, whatever that may be. For the concession of a suppressed grasping cuts against the criticism, of course, that Obama doesn’t, can’t, understand matters here. Now my reading of this statement, excepting the refusal to grasp, is the very one you say it cannot bear—that essentially Obama is clueless about the realities of matters in the region and that he is depending on what his generals tell him. It’s as dumb as a statement as you think it is. But while you, as I do not, reject that reading of the statement, as too stupid a thing to say, I am of two minds about your saying that the statement reflects Peretz’s contention that Obama is intellectually incapable of discharging his leadership responsibilities as a general matter. I agree that that is suggested by “and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot” but I think the issue is not one of intellectual inability as such. Rather, I read this as Peretz stupidly saying, in a crudely formulated way, with a host of right wing critics of this Administration, that Obama is a foreign policy dud, for whom nothing as worked out—which itself is really the point of Peretz’s piece. For Peretz and his fellow critics, Obama, like Jimmy Carter, is inept, naïve, callow, opaque, feckless, timid, unrealistic, lacking in strategic vision, somewhat hostile to American greatness, somewhat harboring guilt for past American sins. It is in these respects Obama is unable to lead. In my view this latter litany provides the context for “strategic rescue mode” whatever exactly Peretz means by that. (I have wasted too much time trying to uncontort stupid, ambiguous things Peretz has said in the past.) So one point that emerges here and is telling against your sub textual concern is that in Peretz’s criticisms of Jimmy Carter you will find similarly worded barbs meant to convey the same kind of criticism. The other point is that you probably have will have to defend the same kind of sub textual concerns apparent in Peretz’s fellow critics. For to a man and to a woman, they together with Peretz don’t believe that Obama in his foreign policy knows what the hell he is doing. What you have to answer is how does one make that case yet escape the charge of sub textual racialist forms of expression continuous with “This kind of image...extremely prevalent in American history in respect of black politicians and still has roots there as one can hear between the lines from various people”? How do I, as Molly Simon argues, if I want to, I actually don’t, level against Clarence Thomas the charge that he is a relative legal know nothing who does Scalia’s bidding or some such, without invoking and revivifying certain forms of historical racial animus? Finally, I’d argue, look how tortured your whole point becomes. From some stupid and crudely formulated statements that are, I contend, arguable and therefore ambiguous as to both their textual and sub textual meaning to intimations of racialism leveled against Peretz, which is finally, as I have argued, is what your position must come down to be meaningful, is a move so attenuated as to invalidate those very intimations. Icarusr diversity training, with which I am unfamiliar, has to assume both wayism? Why? Your point here, I think, hinges on assuming, as you say, “the good faith of the trainee.” Assuming that good faith one then makes the trainees sensitive to insensitive forms of expression, ways of argument, the things you list. Fair enough. But that isn’t what I’m talking about and I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about vis a vis Peretz, Hillary or Bill Clinton in their examples which you cite. You don’t credit Peretz with good faith at all nor the Clintons though their bad faith differs. The Clintons, clearly, as you say, nowhere near racist or racialist, were not above, on the worst construction of what they did, exploiting racial tropes for political advantage. If true by all means lets pillory Hillary. Peretz, in contrast, on your reading of him, is just plain malign in his larding his comments with racist resonances because he has, unlike the Clintons, no instrumental reason to do so. No one acting in good faith deserves “to be pilloried.” So I guess I’m not sure of the pertinence of your point about diversity training because, as just noted, no good faith is involved, as I see you seeing it, in the case of Peretz.

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...In this case, my position has to do with tone and phrasing, at a level below the visible one, exactly as antisemitic remarks may look ok on the surface, but not below. I don't know what I can tell you that I haven't said already." Let's imagine that a group of eminent academics gets organized to write a letter to the editors of TNR in which they protest that Marty Peretz is a racist dispenser of anti-Obama slurs and that they demand that action be taken immediately (no matter what kind of action, public shaming, or curt dismissal or whatever). They provide as a rationale the example of this statement and adduce icarus's reading of it and your supporting explanation as the proof that their allegation is correct. Would you add your signature to this letter?

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 6:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thoughtful comment, 03/09/2011 - 11:46pm EDT | mlottman, except I would hope Obama was playing golf, not basketball, instead of attending that meeting on Libya yesterday. would not want you to be dragged into the dominant commentary on this thread on the racism implicit in language :) Maybe he was in a different meeting trying to stop Cote D'Ivoire from a civil war, a truly bad indicator of the failure to effect peaceful transfer of power AFTER free and fair elections. Anyway, France just recognized the opposition council in Benghazi as Libya's government. I still think Benghazi should hire the Egyptian Army and Air Force while various NATO assets accidentally misfire missiles at Qaddafi's bunker, and then apologize for the "accidents". Just saw my first robin today, so maybe the world is not about to end this year...just seems like it.

- K2K

March 10, 2011 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "Would you add your signature to this letter?" No, I wouldn't.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman to ironyroad “Irony let’s indeed isolate one of the statements that discomforts you: ...It is clear to me that Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on in the AfPak region, and is in strategic rescue mode by his commanders who grasp what he cannot. Or refuses to....” If this is supposed to be an example of a racist comment, then ironyroad has no idea what real political life is like. Much worse was said about Ronald Reagan and George Bush almost weekly without the writers being accused of being racists. The left was proud to denounce Regan and Bush as dunces. Unlike those who charged these presidents with stupidity, M.P. only accused president Obama with ignorance. Martin Peretz even qualified his charge of ignorance by “Or refuses to....” This means that his ignorance is self willed and not a sign of stupidity. Those who read the attack on Obama as “racists” are not just wrong, they are also using the charge of racism as a political tool. This is disingenuous, malicious and bigoted.

- nr106646

March 10, 2011 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Baseman: "How do I, as Molly Simon argues, if I want to, I actually don’t, level against Clarence Thomas the charge that he is a relative legal know nothing who does Scalia’s bidding or some such, without invoking and revivifying certain forms of historical racial animus?" Of course you'll be revivifying racism. And I'm sure you'll find any number of Republican conservatives, who just love Clarence, ready to take aim. Interestingly, blacks refer to Clarence as an Uncle Tom. But what to do? I'm not in a court of law, I'm not an employer, and I'm free to use whatever strong and colorful language I choose. If some one to read that as racism, that's their choice. But I'd argue that there is no racist trope going on: I'd say that about Clarence if he were white. So in a way, here, I may be contradicting Icarus: Is it possible that Peretz merely has complete contempt for Obama? That his writing is completely race neutral?

- MOLLYSIMON

March 10, 2011 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Should add: "I"d say that if he were white. AND in the same language."

- MOLLYSIMON

March 10, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, re my point on diversity, *even assuming good faith*, statements could be pregnant with meaning, depending on context, that arises out of either subconsciously held views or cuturally accepted modes of expression or viewpoints. In those context, it is not necessary to condemn the utterer as having particularly nasty views, to note that certain expressions arise from or confirm stereotypes, and should be avoided. In this same sense, I need not be persuaded that Marty is uniquely or viciously racist, to note that the use of certain language or imagery either plays into or confirms socially and historically significant, and problematic, stereotypes. Let me put it this way. If I go to Anglo-Saxon lawyer in a major law firm, dressed in a $2000 suit and driving a Porsche, and say, "Money is really important to you, isn't it?", the sentence means more or less what it says and would not be taken the wrong way (it has happened, when I left the private sector to teach full time: "money isn't everything", says I; "it isn't?", said he; "it's really important to you, isn't it?" I replied ...). If I go to my colleague Mordecai Hertz ($2000 suit and Porsche, and a yarmulke) and say the exact same thing, I should not be surprised if he were to deck me. *In the exact same context as above*, I would not, under any circumstance, formulate the question in the same way, because, in fact, the two contexts are never the same ...

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR, if you would care to read various people's earlier posts (not necessarily mine) before diving into the discussion, it might help. We've been through this several times here. The question is not whether Bush or Reagan or whoever were attacked viciously or unfairly or whatever. They were, and no doubt one can disagree over whether it was deserved or not. But -- apart from Kayne West's unjustified attack on Bush after Katrina -- next to none of it had anything to do with race. Marty Peretz's comment, however, as (in different ways) icarus and Noga and basman and I have taken a close look at, is a little different. It may well not be intentionally racist -- hence I wouldn't sign the imaginary petition Noga sketched out -- but it does have clear echoes of a long tradition of contempt for black office-holders in America. However, basman's reading of it -- if you take the time to go through his post -- has a lot going for it. And Molly may also have hit a target with the notion of a race-neutral contempt. But that would imply that what I called "too entirely stupid" reading of Marty's comment is indeed the intended meaning. Which in turn creates its own weirdness. BTW Molly -- I'm still very curious about that "castration subtext" idea you mentioned yesterday. Can you give us more on that? Where do you see it?

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... but it does have clear echoes of a long tradition of contempt for black office-holders in America." The only reason you hear these "echoes" is that Obama, the subject of the statement, is black. Other than that, you have nothing that points to such a reading. Your stubbornness reminds me of a story about my favourite converso, Luis de Leon who translated the "song of songs" into Spanish in a literal, chapter-by-chapter translation, directly from the Hebrew text. His translation angered some friars, who denounced it to the inquisition as “a love letter with no spiritual meaning, scarcely differing at all from the love poetry of Ovid”. Luis’s response was that he had no intention to cover the spiritual meaning of the poem but wished to concentrate on its literal meaning. “If the Holy Spirit considered it appropriate to use the figure of human love for the love of Christ and his church, why should it be considered unworthy in his exposition?” And continues, “because he [the accuser] hears kisses there and kisses in Ovid too, he judges that it is a love letter, like Ovid’s”. Why wouldn't you sign a letter if you are convinced that you are reading Peretz's statement accurately? That is, is there any other reason except the obvious one that you wouldn't like to collude with others in a public shaming ritual? ____________ And another thing: You wrote: "Noga, in case it wasn't obvious, I have been and am still supporting my reading of the statement. Just because I join a temporary argumentative position on a disagreement doesn't mean I have given up my own individual position." I don't understand what you are saying here. What does it mean to "join a temporary argumentative position on a disagreement" while not giving up on your own personal position? If a consensus emerged on this board that ironyroad is a capricious, humourless and unpredictable poster, would it be alright then for me to join this consensus at this particular moment while simultaneously asserting that I have my doubts about such a view of ironyroad? Can I conform to a popular position in spite of having doubts about its veracity?

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly Simon If someone expresses pungently what he thinks, say, about Thomas, and has no racial bias,, and that necessarily harkens back to, invokes, historical rhetorical modes of racial animus, what to do? I say apart from a counsel of reasonable sensitivity say your piece and let’s deemphasize these subtle and at times attenuated concerns, which begin to harbor political correctness. The same guy who wrote Barney’s Version, Mordecai Richler, wrote in the late sixties a little book called The Incomparable Atuk. It can be read in a couple of hours. He in part of it caricatured liberal whites’ politically correct posturing meant to avoid giving offence to blacks meeting up with black hyper sensitivity and self victimization. The levels of irony, the assumptions about the other spiral down into infinite regress. His point, or part of it, was the constricting impossibility of getting to sheer human to human communication in these circumstances. Peretz indeed has contempt for Obama. Peretz being Peretz cannot confine himself to principled disagreement. He must needs be vitriolically personal. He’s the lizard mortally biting the frog carrying him across the water thus sinking them both. It’s in his nature. Can his writing be race neutral? (I’ve left out the “completely.”) Sure it can, as much as can anybody's who hates Obama..

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The only reason you hear these "echoes" is that Obama, the subject of the statement, is black." And the only reason Shylock's money lending characterisation is objectionable is that ... he is Jewish, perhaps? Of all the comments you could have made to make me laugh out loud, this one just takes the cake. Comment of the year, I should say.

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Can his writing be race neutral? (I’ve left out the “completely.”) Sure it can, as much as can anybody's who hates Obama... That will include blacks who might hate Obama too: we all share the same language which has all our history subtly and complicatedly embedded in it.

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That is, is there any other reason except the obvious one that you wouldn't like to collude with others in a public shaming ritual?" Yes, Noga, there is. I believe in free speech. Marty is entitled to use the language he wishes to use whether I like it or not, and I am entitled to say why it has ugly implications rooted in American racial history whether he likes it or not.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was talking to someone and I said, "I'm just an average Joe." He said to me, "You suffer from delusions of grandeur." No point: just causing a laff riot.

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, something else has been bugging me about Marty's screed. It's this: "Two boy geniuses, Jewish besides, Jared Cohen and Alec Ross, the first now working for Google, convinced the American government—including our hip secretary of state—that they had a computer key to regaining U.S. influence with Syria and in the rest of the Islamic orbit." Could anyone explain to me why it's the slightest bit relevant what the ethnic or religious identities of these two people are? If they were employees of the Dept of State at the time they made their trip, they were U.S. government servants. In that case, when the Secretary calls you to her office to send you on a mission, you say Yes ma'am packing my bag right now! Normally, you don't get to say "You know what, Madame Secretary, we think we'll pass on this one. Sorry. Anyway we're Jewish, and Marty Peretz at the New Republic really won't like that."

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...I was talking to someone and I said, "I'm just an average Joe." He said to me, "You suffer from delusions of grandeur." No point: just causing a laff riot... Also, I argue, funnier than ..."The only reason you hear these "echoes" is that Obama, the subject of the statement, is black."...

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, Noga, there is. I believe in free speech." But are you telling me that free speech overrules your own outrage that someone should have such a respectable platform as TNR from which to make historically loaded, racist comments about your president? And isn't your persistent support of icarus's outlandishly ugly reading of Marty's statement a step towards the ritual of public shaming of Peretz?

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not outraged, Noga. I was taking the liberty of pointing out what the historical echoes conjured up by Marty's phraseology are. And to #2, no, because I'm reading the statement myself and making independently valid comments on it. It might help if you would stop conflating different individuals' takes on this. I, for example, think that both basman and Molly have made good points about this, which are not identical to icarus's perspective.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/africa/10migrants.html "...In Libya, “dogs are treated better than black Africans,” said Jean-Philippe Chauzy, a spokesman for the International Organization for Migration. Because many of them enter the country illegally, he said, they “have no official status, no visibility.” They have come to constitute a sort of abusable underclass. “This country [LIBYA] is racist, there’s no other word for it,” said Mansouria Mokhefi, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Paris-based French Institute of International Relations. “There is a hierarchy of races.” Blacks are widely referred to as “Abd,” or slaves. Bangladeshis are viewed as little better, and even Arab Egyptians and Tunisians are considered to have limited rights. ..." back to counting the number of angels dancing on the heads of Kerry and Gates in these photos :)

- K2K

March 10, 2011 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: Peretz already made that point in a long diatribe against the "boy geniuses" - respectable journalist, he - and he was taken to task by some and defended vigorously by others. I am certain that if, for example, Roid were to say "boy geniuses, Jewish besides", there are those on this board who would go for his anti-Semitic and homophobic throat. But try to criticise Peretz's use of rather bizarrely derogatory language about US diplomats - the same people, likely, would argue that he is "just" setting out the relevant background of the diplomats, that there was nothing wrong - "He's saying they are Jewish geniuses - Peretz is being, in fact, complimentary!" - and accuse the critics of sladerously, libelously, accusing Marty of being a vile, "outlandishly ugly", Nazi KKK supporter ... One might hazard a guess that this ridiculously overblown and violent defence of Peretz has roots deeper than merely pointing out inappropriate culturally-dependent phraseology (by someone who, incidentally, when it comes to Jews and anti-semitism, is forever pointing out culturally-depedent phraseology).

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"the ritual of public shaming of Peretz" As I set out in a note earlier, the "ritual" (raising Peretz into a sacrificial figure, are we?) began in 1991, with Shafer's exposé on the ugliness of Peretz's language. That's be twenty years ago. There is an entire website dedicated to this ugliness - I did not bother to cite to it, but you can look it up. But why dump it all on Irony? Didn't Peretz himself "atone", on a High Holy Day, for his, er, missteps? Was that not, in itself, a self-shaming? At least on that day, the man had a better sense of himself than his supporters give him credit.

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It might help if you would stop conflating different individuals' takes on this" How have I conflated "different individuals' takes on this"? I made sure to quote icarus's interpretation verbatim and then added that you supported his reading, based on your comments in this thread. I can't recall even one time when you qualified your view as different from his. I concluded that you two were in basic agreement about the way this statement ought to be received.

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The following is all in icarus's over fertile and hyper active imagination: "I am certain that if, for example, Roid were to say "boy geniuses, Jewish besides", there are those on this board who would go for his anti-Semitic and homophobic throat. But try to criticise Peretz's use of rather bizarrely derogatory language about US diplomats - the same people, likely, would argue that he is "just" setting out the relevant background of the diplomats, that there was nothing wrong - "He's saying they are Jewish geniuses - Peretz is being, in fact, complimentary!" - and accuse the critics of sladerously, libelously, accusing Marty of being a vile, "outlandishly ugly", Nazi KKK supporter ..." Having set up what would have happened if ..., he then goes on to describe the narrative that HE HAD JUST INVENTED, as: "... that this ridiculously overblown and violent defence of Peretz " And all this coming from someone who repeatedly accuses anyone who criticizes Obama's less than stellar presidential performance as a KKK-type racist fulminating about the "moosleem" and "nigger" prez. Or whatever. ironyroad, I think you need to apply a cold compress to icarus's feverish brow.

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...And all this coming from someone who repeatedly accuses anyone who criticizes Obama's less than stellar presidential performance as a KKK-type racist fulminating about the "moosleem" and "nigger" prez. Or whatever... What f...ng nonsense.

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "I can't recall even one time when you qualified your view as different from his." irony: "Finally, I want to emphasize that I have NOT indicted Marty for racism . . . I'm not exactly sure what Marty meant by the way he expressed that reference to the president, but I know what the historical implications of it are. I'm talking implications and not intentions here, even though it may be a small difference." irony: "Were Marty to say, for example, that he in no way intended to imply that Obama's race had anything to do with his purported cluelessness, I'd be inclined to accept that (whereas I would be disinclined to accept a similar get-out from, say, Mike Huckabee)." irony: "It may well not be intentionally racist -- hence I wouldn't sign the imaginary petition Noga sketched out -- but it does have clear echoes of a long tradition of contempt for black office-holders in America." irony: "I, for example, think that both basman and Molly have made good points about this, which are not identical to icarus's perspective."

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, there is a certain level of fun seeing Noga spin, and spin, and spin ... and then accuse me of being feverish. Every single line I have written, it has been in sheer amusement - this much, I have to admit. And the more Noga has raised the temperature, the more amused I have become. I talk about subtext; she raises the KKK. I provide examples of Peretz's "stellar" journalistic record; she goes silent - at least I am no longer accused of "slanderour lies" and libel. For some inexplicable reason, she is on a warpath against a professor of literature living in the South, about the impact of language on race relations - and then accuses the expert of "fallacy of authority" when the expert relies on his expertise to elucidate a point. And I am feverish? And to what end? To come to the strategic rescue of a man *she admits* has written bigoted stuff in the past - a man she has already called on for his bigoted statements. A man who publicly atoned and apologized and shamed himself for his overt bigotry. And I am feverish? Malahat: you are write there is much amusement in all of this. My objection is not to Noga, but to the fact that TNR appoints Peretz and LW, two people with scant knowledge of anything to do with foreign policy, to write on foreign policy. I could stare at a blank TV screen and I would get more out of the experience than reading this tripe.

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

l don't think anyone disputes the unpleasant American tradition behind the kind of phrasing Marty used in his remark about Obama. Even Noga is not claiming that it doesn't exist -- at least, I don't believe so. The only real disagreement we all have is over the question -- are these echoes or implications intentional on Marty's part? icarus says Yes, with knobs on Noga says No, and they are irrelevant anyway irony says I can't say as regards intentionality but I stand by my assertion that the echoes are undeniable Molly says Probably not but maybe solution is extreme contempt anyway basman says No even though whole post is weird and unbalanced

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

:) you do have a point.

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, I stand corrected! Stupidly, I omitted to include the following: ". . . and many other distinguished posters, each with their own individual and well-argued positions, supple and elegant as a jaguar on the prowl in the darkness of the Amazon."

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just to change the subject totally cyber gang, here, if I may, is a devastating, as I read it, Mommy Dearest piece on Susan Sontag http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/suddenly-susan/ Quite unbelievable how self absorbed Sontag was. Now I will partake of something I have been dreaming all year of watching Lakers vs. Heat! That is a unique load of brilliant athletic talent. Starting now!

- basman

March 10, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Molly says Probably not but maybe solution is extreme contempt anyway" Wait, supreme contempt for Peretz? Or for dishing out whatever you like, regardless of how the other person may take it. If it's the former, I don't have contempt for Peretz. I think he can be hateful in the way he makes his points, but some of his points bear truth. For instance, I agree that Muslim life is cheap. Not intrinsically cheap, but cheap to Americans and Europeans and to some muslims themselves. Can you imagine the furor, rage, people marching in the streets, if civilian families in France were being bombed by Americans on a weekly basis? But as I said earlier, Marty doesn't care to edify, but to provoke. Whether that's motivated by hate or anger, I suspect it may be so. But if you're talking contempt for others: I had some time to think this afternoon and I'd say that I certainly wouldn't opine aloud about Clarence Thomas in the words I wrote if I were in company that might find offence. Whatever my intentions, that language could very well be heard as: "Thomas is Scalia's niggah." Basman: I love any book that can be read in a night.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 10, 2011 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: But certainly you don't mean Nancy Wilson of Heart. You know, "Barracuda." And if I may be so bold, you didn't include me on your list of posters here, so now I'M offended. Icarus: Just stay. You have many friends, and some interesting foes, in these parts. Where else do you find this level of discussion--on top of which Basman links to an article about Susan Sontag that I'm about to sink my teeth into.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 10, 2011 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Postere like icarus and other Martin Peretz haters would make ideal readers of The Guardian: http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/guardian-admits-israel-%E2%80%98straightforward-target%E2%80%99/ "In his final comments he implies that The Guardian – in common with other publications – has an overwhelming tendency to simply tell its readers what they want to hear, rather than produce journalism which might challenge their ingrained prejudices and preconceptions: ‘And remember, dear reader, that we are also striving much of the time to tell you what you’d rather know rather than challenge your prejudices and make you cross."

- nr106646

March 10, 2011 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad; What I see is a lot of prevarications, but no qualification. I don't see where you admit that icarus's reading of Peretz's statement was doing violence to its meaning. You kept supporting his initial interpretation while trying to prop it up with you expertise of nineteen century racist literature in the America. Saying that Molly had good points doesn't translate into agreement or willingness to change your basic agreement with icarus. It just means that you think she made some good points and deserves an B+ for effort. But I do thank you for acknowledging that probably, maybe, at least you believe so, I do not dispute the unpleasant American tradition you spoke of.

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, this was the comment of yours I was referring to: "Is it possible that Peretz merely has complete contempt for Obama? That his writing is completely race neutral?" And also, I'm still really frustrated here wondering what you meant by "castration subtext" -- can you clue us in a little, please, as to what you're thinking about here? You can't raise something like that and then drop it cold. It's not fair.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty's phrasing conjures up that American tradition without a doubt. Was that intentional? I'm not certain. I wish I was, then I'd obviously fit in around here, where only blind certainty qualifies one as a full thinking person.

- ironyroad

March 10, 2011 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Marty's phrasing conjures up that American tradition without a doubt. " "I'd obviously fit in around here, where only blind certainty qualifies one as a full thinking person." Looks to me like you are a perfect fit, ironyroad.

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 10:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And. btw, the blind certainty that Marty's statement conjures up "Poor little nigger boy become prez; he needs to be saved by white generals" is a very different proposition, ethically, from certainty that it does not. The first is an attempt at character assassination. The latter is a defence against such egregious rhetorical practices.

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"character assassination n. A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure's reputation."

- noga1

March 10, 2011 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, can I do my castration theory over the weekend? I'm tired, and tomorrow will be on lots of drugs as I'm having major dentistry done--we're talking one new crown, drilling for two other crowns, etc. I've got lots of valium from a previous dentist who had no problem prescribing lots of drugs. She was also a lousy practitioner. Am aiming for 20 mg. It's the only way to go.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 10, 2011 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"the blind certainty" Up until this silly post of yours, Noga, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - barely - but still. Given the number of posts explaining not only the "why" but also Peretz's "execrable" background (Fallow's word), I should have thought that the one thing I could not be accused of was "blind certainty". You have carried on, screaming and shouting and attacking and accusing and spitting and frothing and pissing all over me and irony - I'd say like a shrew or a harridan, but that would be sexist - dismissing history and ignoring social context, and we have tried to patiently set out a very closely considered position, to no effect. You have the gull to talk about my blind certainty? You have the sheer audacity to continue to accuse me of bigotry because of how spoken languages appeal to my ears, and you declaim yourself outraged that the famously bigot Peretz is being called on for his idiotically phrased diatribes? Is it possible to be more moronically myopic? You really need to chill. Or get some of Molly's Valium.

- icarusr

March 10, 2011 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Honestly Noga, it looks as if the only words you were unable to cut and paste were: "Was that intentional? I'm not certain." Why would that be?

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: OK. Best of analgesic luck!

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 12:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Honestly Noga, it looks as if the only words you were unable to cut and paste were: "Was that intentional? I'm not certain." Why would that be?" Why ? Isn't it obvious? I wanted to highlight the absurdity of your claim of "blind certainty" for all others against the "without a doubt". It's strange that you focus on "was that intentional?" as if the case is made and all that is left is for you to magnanimously allow for some hesitation in the intention, but certainly not in the actual sentiment. There is no "without a doubt" about any of your and icarus's preferred interpretation of Marty's statement. You were unable to show where the implied "nigger' is, or the "white generals". So, what can exactly account for your superior confidence in your own understanding but blind certainty? It's like asking me to believe you when you tell me that it's just so, based on the fact that you are ironyroad and you investigated racist talk in American literature in the nineteenth century.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"d), I should have thought that the one thing I could not be accused of was "blind certainty"." Are you sure, icarus, that you were not included in ironyroad's collective indictment of all, except for him, suffering from "blind certainty"? I don't know but I don't recall him making any special mention of your contributions as the exception to his rule. Perhaps it was an oversight that he might wish to correct.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 7:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't know but I don't recall him making any special mention" Well, I understand context; you can too, but you choose to ignore it in anything that does not relate to criticism of Israel or potential anti-Semitism, in which which case context is controlling regardless of actual words or action. Why not "blind certainty" on my part? Because of the following: “As I said, I have no idea whence the animus - you and noga might well be right about the spurning thing. The point is, how does it come out? What are the weapons does one use in combatting the enemy? That tells you what your true colours are. … I am not going to speculate as to its source, but what is clear is that, as I noted above and as irony put it, it is of the same species as what one finds in the dark corners of American history.” *** “noga: read irony's comment, and Jtester, and my comments above context; the explanation is to be found there.” *** “But of course, you again miss the point - whether it is deliberate, I cannot judge. To say, "it's no good telling me about reconstruction and what not" when discussing the history of race relations in the United States is akin to saying "don't tell me about the Holocaust and what not" when discussing anti-Semitism in Europe. … Irony has set it out above, and you have yet to actually answer him.” *** “I entirely agree with you that the two issues are separate. And, in fact, I have no evidence at all to prove affirmatively, in a court of law, that Peretz is consciously driven by racial animus. I don't know the man; I don't know his mind, or at least such of it as is left. The real issue is precisely the first point: that the way he formulated his specific attack on Obama is well within the "tropes that have racialist resonance."” *** “In this same sense, I need not be persuaded that Marty is uniquely or viciously racist, to note that the use of certain language or imagery either plays into or confirms socially and historically significant, and problematic, stereotypes.” The only blindness I can see here is the one that dismisses almost 150 years of history, the race of the object of attacks, and the history of the subject writer, to demand 100% certainty as to the unknowable (what is in Marty's mind). The "blindness" does not arise out of mere disagreement - malahat, and Jacko and Molly and Basman also did not agree with my interpretation, and we have carried on a civil conversation nevertheless. We have not persuaded each other, but we have not resorted to ridicule or "Matlock"-like amateur cross-examination or name-calling or distortions. "Blind certainty" refers to a mindset that admits Peretz's previous bigoted statements (as you have done), but rejects all argument, evidence and context to aggresively dismiss a point that is, at best, open to question. "Blind certainty" exists where, in a laughably literalist approach, you deny that a text can be racist unless it specifically, and literally, has racist expressions embedded in it. Even where I admit - as I do above - that you might be right ("about the spurning thing"), instead of developing that point (as Molly and Basman did), you take the last sentence of a long paragraph, and despite your own injunctions, read "KKK racism" into my comment; you do that kind of thing quite often, so I was not surprised, but when I admit of doubt, I cannot be accused of blind certainty.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is nothing more pathetic than the anxiety of organizing a "we" around one's argument. If your argument is strong and fully-substantiated, you don't need to invoke any "we" to make it stand. Let me just remind you that this discussion is not about me or what I said, even though you are now trying to make it so. It is about your incontinent hatred of Peretz that never misses a chance to read anything he says about Obama as stinking of pretty base, primitive, and ugly racism. You got somewhat lucky here with ironyroad attempting to provide a layer of intellectual respectability to your reckless slanders. But I remain unimpressed.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You got somewhat lucky here with ironyroad attempting to provide a layer of intellectual respectability to your reckless slanders." Luck has nothing to do with it; knowledge and experience does. I had to suffer through several years of modern social theory studies in the context of three degrees, followed by several more years of "diversity" and "cross cultural communications" training, followed by years of living abroad and having to connect and work with people from all continents other than Antarctica, and the constant all along is "operate within the context". What is more, I remembered a bit of it all. It is not a coincidence, then, that others also noticed the ugly subtext of Peretz's writings on Obama. There is no anxiety about "oranizing a "we""; I wrote what I wrote based on my own interpretation of what Peretz wrote, and not based on others' views. Now, if you cannot understand that I have respect for the expertise and knowledge of some people on this board about specific things, that is your problem. I don't have a habit of simply dismissing people's demonstated expertise as "not relevant" or "fallacy of authority", and there is nothing wrong or "pathetic" about seeking, and finding, confirmation of one's own assessment in the opinion and views of those one admires. You are constantly referring to Peretz, for example, or to Hitchens, to confirm your own assessment of issues (or biases); I for one find irony far more credible an analyst than Hitchens. Your answer to my post stands as stark indictment of your own "incontinent hatred". As usual, you ignore the fact that I demonstrably, and definitively, destroyed your moronic attempt at getting me to pounce on irony, only to concentrate on the "we" and to repeat your insults. Whatever. In this 250-post thread, you have consistently resorted to distortion and name-calling, whereas almost everyone else has concentrated on addressing arguments. That, I think, is the best evidence of who is really the pathetic one here. Peace.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading my comments above, I am even more convinced that your criticism of the "we" is nothing more than an attempt at avoiding the simple fact that you have nothing of substance to say, that your arguments about me lay in ruins, that all your attacks above my "blind certainty" were and are nothing more than piffle. Far from invoking a "we" to make my arguments stand, I invoked the "we" to note that there was considerable disagreement with other posters, but "we" - I and the other posters who disagreed with me - managed to have a conversation about that disagreement that was civilised. "You" were outside the "we" because you have not engaged in, or even demonstrated an interested in, civilised discourse. I set out outside the circle, not to get confirmation by the "we" of my point of view, but to highlight your uncivil ways. You think that pathetic - that, clearly, is your problem. For, again, here is what I said - this is the context of the "we":

The "blindness" does not arise out of mere disagreement - malahat, and Jacko and Molly and Basman also did not agree with my interpretation, and we have carried on a civil conversation nevertheless. We have not persuaded each other, but we have not resorted to ridicule or "Matlock"-like amateur cross-examination or name-calling or distortions.
Now, run along and defend the latest LW piffle on Obama.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Reading my comments above, I am even more convinced" And there's icarus! "A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Disraeli, Benjamin

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I was drawing attention to the fact that you left out my key phrase "I'm not certain" in order to accuse me of claiming certainty. There's a basic ethic of citation: Don't delete language in order to make a quote say what the writer obviously did not mean. So once again, (a) and (b): a) The phrasing of Marty's comment conjures up (connotes) a way of speaking contemptuously of non-white office-holders that can be shown to have a long history in the United States going back to the Civil War. b) I am not certain if Marty was aware of this and/or expressed himself intentionally. To have done so, would make him a racist. To have unintentionally expressed himself this way would not. I cannot, for my part, establish which of those options is the correct one (if indeed one could ever be certain). What I can establish are the implications of the language (see [a]). Finally, once and for all, I am speaking for myself here, and not for any other poster. I have already pointed out many times how my opinion on this differs from what I assume icarus's to be. The same applies to basman and others. I really should not have say that again, but it appears to be required.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: it's funny how you dismissed contemptuously my citation of Burke and Plato for my scatological references, and now you cite Disraeli ... for what exactly? I could also paraphrase Churchill: "I am verbose, and you are ugly; in the morning, I can always get an editor ...". What have we achieved? You raise your insults, and start quoting Austen and this and that, usually at the point that you have been demonstrated to be unethical in your citations, or incoherent in your arguments. To wit, the fact that in your citation of Disraeli, you accuse me of inconsistency, while to demonstrate (as I have done, several times above) that I have been fairly consistnet, I have had to, er, read and review my comments above (to which, then, you object). If this is not the very definition of incoherence, or lack of ethics in argument, it's hard to see what would be. For you, anything goes. You lost this argument about 200 posts ago, when I conceded that you might well be right in your interpretation, and when irony noted precisely what he has reiterated twenty times by now. You have no grace; you attack, vilify, distort, accuse, insult ... and then, when all else fails, quote dead 19th century writers. Amusing, really ... :).

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus is one of the most obsessed posters here and like those obsessed he just has to triumph over anyone who disagrees with him. Like any two bit tyrant he is unable to accept a diferent opinion as having validity. He has to squash anyone who thinks differently. He is more like Martin Peretz than he thinks.

- nr106646

March 11, 2011 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR: Given that I readily admitted differences of views with malahat, jacko, Molly and basman, and that irony has pointed out differences between his and my views - and I have not argued the point at all, it is rather bizarre to argue that I am "unable to accept a diferent opinion as having validity" or that I just have "to triumph over anyone who disagrees with him". I do reply to, and correct, distortions, attacks, accusations and incoherence. I am not obsessive about it - I have, in fact, studiously avoided your drivel here - but I do reply to unfounded and hysterical arguments by people whom I, in general, respect. So, now you go back to your play pen and suck on your pacifier, and come back when you have, you know, something to say.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There's a basic ethic of citation: Don't delete language in order to make a quote say what the writer obviously did not mean." Did I delete language? Here is what you said: "Marty's phrasing conjures up that American tradition without a doubt. Was that intentional? I'm not certain. I wish I was, then I'd obviously fit in around here, where only blind certainty qualifies one as a full thinking person." Here is what I took from it: "Marty's phrasing conjures up that American tradition without a doubt. " "I'd obviously fit in around here, where only blind certainty qualifies one as a full thinking person." Where is the deletion? You will notice that both are selected and independent quotes and a smart guy like you should not have to be told twice that what I wanted to show is the inner contradiction between the principle YOU articulated of: "I'd obviously fit in around here, where only blind certainty qualifies one as a full thinking person." And the practice: "Marty's phrasing conjures up that American tradition without a doubt. " "blind certainty" and "without a doubt" are twins. ____________ You have done it before and you are doing it again, you are not merely disagreeing with my position but impeaching my integrity and ethics by making such accusations. I am still somewhat puzzled but not as puzzled as I would have been before we started this "discussion". It seems you have very little resistance to the deplorable tactics of discrediting someone's words by tainting their ethical commitments. For shame. As for "Finally, once and for all, I am speaking for myself here, and not for any other poster." I'm not the one who tried to draw you into a community of feeling. You had better direct your ire where it belongs. I stand by my view that you attempted to provide support icarus's interpretation by providing from your expertise on nineteenth century literary racism. I don't remember that you tried to argue with him about his reckless "translation" of Marty's statement.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, you left out the sentence where I said "I'm not certain" in order to then say that I was claiming certainty. In my opinion, that is trying to make my post say what it didn't say. Let me try again. I was -- and have been -- consistently making two (2) points that you keep conflating. One (1, the first point) concerns the resonances or implications of Marty's phrasing of his comment. Of those I am certain. The "without a doubt" refers to that first point. Two (2, the second point) concerns the intention behind those implications or or resonances. Of that I am not certain. The words "I'm not certain" come directly after the words "Was that intentional?" and clearly refer to that second point. I can't make it any simpler. I'm certain about the first point, not certain about the second.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "I don't remember that you tried to argue with him about his reckless "translation" of Marty's statement." Is that in the same genre as Gonzales saying he does not "recall" if he fired DAs for political reasons or hired morons from religious schools because of ideological affinity? Or like Reagan saying he does not "recall" trading arms for hostages? Given that it is quite easy to do a search - and that Noga, by her own admission, keeps a saved file of many comments - the "I don't remember" routine is hard to believe. On subtext, irony and I agree. Where we do not agree, and it has been clear from the first post, is on the second point. I don't believe Peretz is as stupid as you and Basman make him out to be - and so, while I have no proof, based on Peretz's record and his admitted intelligence, I cannot believe that his "slip" into loaded language was a slip. Irony has noted our disagreement on this point. The only real disagreement we all have is over the question -- are these echoes or implications intentional on Marty's part? icarus says Yes, with knobs on Noga says No, and they are irrelevant anyway irony says I can't say as regards intentionality but I stand by my assertion that the echoes are undeniable Molly says Probably not but maybe solution is extreme contempt anyway basman says No even though whole post is weird and unbalanced irony has not tried to "argue" with me because, I suspect, he knows I am willing to concede the point, as in fact I have done repeatedly, that I don't really know what is Peretz's heart. And also because he has been trying to respond to your inscreasingly bizarre posts. I should have added above that next, I expected you to engage in false martyrdom. I regert not having done so, because you have, in fact, done so. You are a parody of yourself.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WEll, ironyroad, if you read back to my earlier comments you will find, much to your wonder, that I perfectly understood that you were talking about intentionality. But my emphasis was on your understanding of Marty's statement about which you have no doubt. My point is that you made no case for any such interpretation to be taken "without any doubt". Your position here is not so sophisticated or complicated to figure out, ironyroad. I don't care about whether you are sure or unsure what Marty's intentions were. What I do care about is your certainty that it is a racist statement and that in this you are in agreement with icarus who could not have been any clearer about how he reads it. When A says to B: Your sister is a whore and B says to A: But I don't have a sister, what's important is to see A for what he is, not speculate about what was the intention of B's non-existent sister in being a whore. I don't think you can really excuse or justify your previous observation about my lack of ethics.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't care about whether you care that I am unsure or not, Noga. I care about whether I am unsure. You took a statement in which I said I was uncertain about one of two things and deleted three words in order to present my comment as one that was claiming certainty about both things. I don't like that. In a general sense, I made as good a case as you're ever going to hear from anyone on a discussion board where people have limited time and space, and I stand by it. I even pointed you toward where this history is documented and debated, exhaustively even. Check it out, or don't, whatever you like. If you don't understand that there's a difference between intention and non-intention, there's really nothing more I can do about it. Other than that, I'll leave it to anyone interested to read my various posts and make their judgments.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This isn't about Peretz, or my interpretation of his comments, at all, is it, Noga? You're enraged because 1) no matter how much you abuse and distort, irony will not bend to your will; and 2) irony has finally called you out on the central fact of our (you andme) long-standing disagreement: your propensity to misquote, or partially quote, so as to change the sense of what has been said, and to attack the writer personally on that basis. The one person who has been patient with your wilful distortions, has now lost patience - and you don't like that one bit. Wow :) ... Congreve, was it? He had it right, it would seem ...

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

about 24 hours ago, malahat asked "and all that ain't better than watching a blank TV screen? C'mon!" excuse me, but yet another re-run of "NCIS" beckons :)

- K2K

March 11, 2011 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you don't understand that there's a difference between intention and non-intention, there's really nothing more I can do about it." I think I understand that you want to emphasize that you expressed uncertainty about Marty's intentions. Somewhere along this thread you turned the question of whether Marty's statement was a racist slur into a question about whether it was intentional or not. And that gives you the cover you need to claim that you do not speak out of "blind certainty". And here is the proof: Haven't you repeatedly stated that you cannot be sure about Marty's motivations? But that's not the question, is it? The issue was and remains whether Marty's statement could be smoothly and rationally interpreted as the racial slur icarus mimicked. This issue was not settled. YOU could not make the case that this is a straightforward racial innuendo. Despite the historical background that keeps playing in your head, there is nothing in Marty's statement but complaint and contempt for Obama's cluelessness. You cannot inject into it meanings that you cannot prove are there, through words, or terms, or even allusions. For there to be intention, there has to be something done or said that is clearly and generally accepted as bad faith. You did not establish the necessary premise that Marty's statement is in actuality a racial slur. So whether you think it was intentional or not is irrelevant. It's you speaking to yourself. If you were to write an article about Obama and how he is rejected, consciously or unconsciously, by certain Americans because of his colour and background, you would bring examples from signs carried in rallies, from politicians' speeches, from underhanded innuendos on Fox, etc. Would you feel justified and comfortable in citing Marty's statement as one of the recent examples that illustrate your theme?

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is something zany and quite disturbing about icarus's last comment. This is after all just a message board, not a soap opera. And we are discussing Marty Peretz's criticism of Obama. Not some torrid love story. Is icarus being sexist? Would he have made a similar comment to a male poster?

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is icarus being sexist? Would he have made a similar comment to a male poster?" Subtexts ... funny things, aren't they? :) Thanks so much, Noga, for finally making my point. Congreve, in response to a male poster, would mean nothing - well, at least, in the context of that particular exchange you had with Molly and that particular line. Your being a woman specifically colours an otherwise neutral statement about a poet. Marty's line in reference to the generals coming to the rescue of a President - a black President - who can't understand Pakistan had exactly the same effect on me that the mention of Congreve, in this context, had on you. The same effect as a lawyer's asking me, out of the blue, "You're probably not following hockey?" It was visceral and immediate, unsavoury and cringe-making - and, yes, I found the statement zany enough to make fun of it in the strongest terms. I'm truly sorry it has exercised you so much - did not, evidently, mean to cause you any grief. But yes, as you with my mention of Congreve, I found Peretz's characterisation quite disturbing.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The issue was and remains whether Marty's statement could be smoothly and rationally interpreted as the racial slur icarus mimicked." Not so, Noga. That's your and icarus's issue. Let's keep this straight. My issue -- the one I'm concerned with -- is whether the, as I see it, unmistakeable provenance of Marty's formulation is an intentional use of a particular racist motif. The answer is, I don't know and to be honest I'm not even sure Marty would know. As I said, if Marty came out and claimed it was not, I'd believe him a long day before I'd believe, say, Sarah Palin.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But yes, as you with my mention of Congreve, I found Peretz's characterisation quite disturbing." There was nothing remotely subtextual about your comment, icarus. Your innuendos (shades of roi, there) were served on the table with much fanfare and cranberry sauce. The mention of Congreve just clinched the matter. You added it on purpose, just so as I wouldn't miss your point. Where are the racist dishes in Marty's statement? Where is the clincher? Your latest comment was a pretty pathetic attempt to save face. You know you have gone beyond a certain limit and tried to turn your embarrassment into gold.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You like the word "pathetic" a lot, don't you. I can see the judgemental sneer. Whatever makes you happy ;) . Gold it was, whatever you want to say about it. Have a good evening.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So you agree with me, ironyroad, that somewhere along this thread you turned the main issue (the first one you blame on me and icarus) into another issue, the one the you care about. But it was the first issue that gave birth to the second issue and my contention is that since the first issue was not pregnant, it could not have given birth to any other issue, including the one you are interested in. The suspicion never passed the first pregnancy test. In fact, whatever morning sickness was felt had to do with people sometimes feeling sick, after eating something or just suffering from a stomach flu. AS malahat wisely said sometime early on, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You were mad at Marty for his obvious contempt to Obama (morning sickness) and you mistook it for something else (pregnancy when it was in fact just a stomach flu). People who don't want to have babies are relieved when they find out that it was just a flu. People who do want babies, sometimes will continue to test themselves for pregnancy. Again and again.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a long thread, Noga. There are a number of issues in it. Mine included. My issue emerged from the discussion at a certain point, as did that of other posters. I didn't "turn" anything as I don't have that power. Another issue, incidentally, is Marty's peculiar obsession with the ethnic identity of two American diplomats.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty, in my estimation, is a pretty basic fellow. Loyalties matter to him. He cannot understand how a couple of Jews would be willing to help Obama's administration enact a policy that he deems as highly damaging and dangerous to Israel. For him, unlike some other Jews around here, Israel matters a great deal. Her survival matters. I think he cannot truly understand Jews who are indifferent to Israel's well being. Does that make sense to you? Ironically, based on my experience here, and elsewhere, I have actually come to expect Jews to be the first to declare their indifference to Israel.(Check out Anne Frank's thread to see what I mean.) It has become a sort of trial by fire for American Jews who wish to get ahead, either in Journalism or diplomacy, the degree of indifference they can display towards Israel.

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps they didn't see it his way. Perhaps they didn't think that what they were doing was damaging and dangerous to Israel. Perhaps they thought the opposite. Perhaps they were just patriotic junior American diplomats who took on the mission as assigned. What Marty deems to be the case isn't always what everyone else deems. But this is a different discussion. I've been reading the Anne Frank thread.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Perhaps they were just patriotic junior American diplomats " More likely they were just very ambitious, not that there is anything wrong with it. I can't see where the "patriotic" enters into it. How many job offers have you accepted out of patriotic fervor?

- noga1

March 12, 2011 at 7:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There's a basic ethic of citation: Don't delete language in order to make a quote say what the writer obviously did not mean." One cannot expect a dedicated propagandist to observe such niceties. For the propagandist, there is not truth, only useful lies and useless lies. One of the fun things we all get to do here is re-publishing at length conversations misquoted, with key bits or the context removed in order to distort or invert their meaning. We can observe above several such housekeeping efforts by both irony and icarus.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must admit that my schadenfreude has been aroused watching gentlemen such as irony and icarus being targeted for the malicious and pernicious mauling techniques I have so often observed. By my standards, they truly have the patience of Job to continue to respond as they have. __________________ "He cannot understand how a couple of Jews would be willing to help Obama's administration enact a policy that he deems as highly damaging and dangerous to Israel." I have often wondered this about the Likud and Netanyahu. Is this ability to "love to death" something we should attribute to Jews particularly, be they subalterns in the Obama administration or the leadership of the government of Israel?

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How many job offers have you accepted out of patriotic fervor?" Well, none. But I'm not really a good measure of things. I meant more that young people who enter government service are often idealistic, and diplomatic work definitely offers the chance to serve your country along with a mix of prestige and occasional excitement.

- ironyroad

March 12, 2011 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He cannot understand how a couple of Jews would be willing to help Obama's administration enact a policy that he deems as highly damaging and dangerous to Israel." Bahais in Iran are targetted, among other reasons, because the Universal House of Justice is in Israel. The argument goes that caught between two loyalties - the Church and Iran - Bahais would always choose the Church over Iran, and thus Israel over Iran. Even the most liberal alcohol-swilling pork-rind-comping non-practising Muslim in Iran wonders outloud about this question of "dual loyalty". I've never understood the concern - but then I am not practising. Of course, if I remember my history correctly, there was the concern about Kennedy and the extent to which, faced with a conflict between the Vatican and the United States, he would choose one over the other. I am trying to understand this comment against the background I have set out. Is, then, the proposition that in the case of potential conflict between Israel's interests and those of the United States, Jewish diplomats have a responsibility to act in such a way as to avoid harm to Israel first? If so, is there not a danger that the question of dual loyalty would come up each time a Jewish diplomat has to deal with an issue that might affect Israel?

- icarusr

March 12, 2011 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is, then, the proposition that in the case of potential conflict between Israel's interests and those of the United States, Jewish diplomats have a responsibility to act in such a way as to avoid harm to Israel first?" This is exactly what Peretz believes along with many if not most of his admirers. If one so much as suggests in these precincts that the US will and should pursue its own interests and not those of Israel, one can reliably expect to be accused here of anti-Semitism. It is a remarkable fact of the Alice-in-Wonderland quality of so much discussion of Israel that an American Jew can simultaneously be accused by the self-proclaimed lovers of Israel to be anti-Semitic for mentioning the possibility of dual loyalty while being excoriated for being insufficiently dually-loyal to Israel. And anything less than slavish devotion to the Likud party line is, at best, branded as indifference to Israel, if not outright anti-Semitism. In this manner, Israeli political thugs, with the willing aid of devotees of AIPAC, constantly attempt to bully American Jews into toeing the Likud line. The lovers of Israel here delude themselves that this is somehow protecting Israel. I think that is because Peretz attracts right-wing-nuts. Their malady is not so much their proclaimed devotion to Israel at all costs as it is the standard right-wing insanity and über-nationalist belligerence. Just in the Israeli flavor.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Part of what is so remarkable about this thread is that the disbelief in racist sub-text is combined with ultra-sensitivity to anything that could under the most extreme reading be considered anti-Semitic.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Perhaps they didn't think that what they were doing was damaging and dangerous to Israel. Perhaps they thought the opposite" Perhaps they just don't care, one way or another. Perhaps they feel as Jews that they must prove their worthiness of being called American by playing an active part in the undermining of Israel's power. This seems to be rapidly becoming the qualifying litmus test for legitimacy (set up by the mssrs. Measheimer and Walt, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/10418) Perhaps they are afraid that if they refuse to serve, someone will remember it and their future career will suffer.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

See post above: 03/12/2011 - 4:49pm EDT | roidubouloi Point made.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps they felt as members of the U. S. Dept of State that their oath to defend the Constitution, which they had taken freely and without duress when they joined the service, meant that they should carry out missions assigned to them by their superiors to the best of their ability? Just a thought.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it's entirely possible that they were ambitious and maybe a tad idealistic mixed with arrogant--for instance, thinking computer technology could convert Assad to the American way. And maybe Israel was and is not first and foremost among their priorities. Maybe, perhaps, they don't much like Israeli policy. Which, last time I checked, is not against the law. I think you're even still qualified to practice Judaism, being as we don't have any loyalty oaths.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 13, 2011 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... meant that they should carry out missions assigned to them by their superiors to the best of their ability?" So they should. Or else they might be suspected of not being loyal enough by the likes of you and your friends here. You are only reinforcing what I said earlier, ironyroad: Ironically, based on my experience here, and elsewhere, I have actually come to expect Jews to be the first to declare their indifference to Israel.(Check out Anne Frank's thread to see what I mean.) It has become a sort of trial by fire for American Jews who wish to get ahead, either in Journalism or diplomacy, the degree of indifference they can display towards Israel.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And it just occurred to me that no one here is giving their putative civil servants any credit for thinking for themselves, regardless of their ethnicity, that perhaps carrying out the mission to promote a Middle Eastern dictator might not be something they are in agreement with or believe it is necessarily in the interest of their country. If you Jewish and a diplomat, you are automatically suspect until you prove that you can carry out policies that damage Israel, regardless if you genuinely do not agree with such policies, on American grounds. Who is going to believe you, anyway? There are many ways to break a man's spirit and bring him to heel. Living under chronic suspicion, unless... is one method. I remember reading once that when Rabin was prime minister he always preferred working with the non-Jewish members of the American administration. THEY did not feel it was incumbent upon them to act extra tough with the Israelis.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not everyone sees things your way, Noga. Is there even a justified assumption of indifference? Look at this way -- if there was every reason to pursue a policy of trying to detach Syria from Iran --- and imo there was/is -- then why should that aim be seen as bad for Israel? If we benefitted, and Iran was pushed back somewhat, then Israel benefits too. I find the assumption that these guys were obligated by virtue of their Jewish identity to see things Marty Peretz's way to be a bit screwy -- or at least inflexible in an odd way. Quite apart from the simple matter of American diplomats carrying out their assigned duties as civil servants, that is, which is what we pay them for.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But I was not discussing the merits of Marty's fulmination, IRonyroad. I thought you were interested in my understanding of what he meant and I gave what I suspect was exactly what you thought about the matter. So why are you attacking me now as if *I* stated that they should not serve their country? Gee, I thought we were discussing a general principle, not my own Jewishness/Israeliness and how it affects my view of the world. You can't really talk to me without that suspicion always lurking there in the back of your mind, can you? It sure explains a multitude of things (such as having no problem impeaching my ethics). Why have I never realized this I cannot imagine. I genuinely believed you were a liberated thinker.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But I was not discussing the merits of Marty's fulmination" Now I'm confused, because you wrote this a few posts back: "Marty, in my estimation, is a pretty basic fellow. Loyalties matter to him. He cannot understand how a couple of Jews would be willing to help Obama's administration enact a policy that he deems as highly damaging and dangerous to Israel. For him, unlike some other Jews around here, Israel matters a great deal. Her survival matters. I think he cannot truly understand Jews who are indifferent to Israel's well being. Does that make sense to you?" I assumed on the basis of your recent three or four posts that you shared this position of his, to some degree at least. Am I wrong about that? If I am, I think I'd be forgiven as I can't see where you give any other impression than that you endorse the merits. In any case, I'm not impeaching anyone's ethics, believe me, but I am curious why you think (as far as I gather -- maybe I'm wrong here too) that the officials concerned could not believe that an attempt to detach Syria from Iran would not be ultimately of benefit to both the U.S. and Israel.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I assumed on the basis of your recent three or four posts that you shared this position of his, to some degree at least" Why would you assume that? You asked me about my understanding of Marty's offside and I hazarded an explanation. You continued to ask and I assumed the premise remained the same, until your last comment when I realized you were interpreting my speculations about Marty's position as mine. As I said, you would only assume that I shared Marty's feelings about these two officials because you have certain expectations about my feelings based on the fact that I'm Jewish and an Israeli. And maybe because I defended Marty against the gratuitous charge of racism. In that, sadly, you are of a piece with roi. As for your question, it is a completely different matter and a different discussion. I have no way of knowing what would work best for Israel at this point. Everything seems to go against expectation.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see that what I'm doing is trying to formulate a potential alternative reading of why the two diplomats undertood their mission. As you returned several times to the question of whether American Jews might do X or Y under a certain kind of pressure to be anti-israeli, it certainly sounded like your own opinion and not simply you representing Marty's opinion. Certainly Molly appears to have received that impression much as I did, going on the basis of her comment above. May I suggest that formulations such as "I don't fully agree myself" or "I share some but not all of his position" or "I'm not advocating for the merits here, but" are very effective in making clear where one stands in relation to another argument.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Certainly Molly appears to have received that impression much as I did, going on the basis of her comment above." Your point being ... ? "May I suggest that formulations such as "I don't fully agree myself" or "I share some but not all of his position" or "I'm not advocating for the merits here, but" are very effective in making clear where one stands in relation to another argument." Thanks for the advice. When I write my comments I do not feel I have to cover my proverbial butt by providing the obligatory throat clearing. And I would prefer to stick to my own style if you don't mind. I would suggest you looked a little into your own thinking and concluding practices for a change.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I simply meant that if two people make the same misreading of a series of comments, then perhaps it's not entirely their fault. Could it be, just possibly, the author's too? I wasn't really saying you should change your style -- it was just a slightly arch comment. malahat, haven't read BM, I have to confess. I know a lot of people who regard it very highly, as you do. Incidentally, I'm engaged in a long sporadic reading of Suttree, which impressed me.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, I simply meant that if two people make the same misreading of a series of comments, " I know what you meant. You obviously didn't understand what I meant. Or pretend that you didn't. Clearly you are incapable of owning up to a mistake or the possibility that you allowed other sentiments to overrule your better understanding. There is no more to be said.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not going to respond to a silly provocation, Noga. You know perfectly well what I was and wasn't saying in my posts. You won't admit your own comments on Marty's position looked to any normal intelligent reader as an endorsement of it (which you haven't actually denied they were, as far as I see). You are a student of literature and close-reading too, and I have never seen anything to suggest that you are unable to understand my comments in their totality even though you delete and break off fragments in order to attack me. I'm getting tired of being the nearest convenient punching bag for you.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I think this is the line that made it difficult for me to distinguish between you and Peretz: "For him, unlike some other Jews around here, Israel matters a great deal. Her survival matters. I think he cannot truly understand Jews who are indifferent to Israel's well being." You are saying that Peretz's view takes Israel's well-being into mind. And since you yourself are pro-Israeli, I assumed (perhaps others?) that you were identifying with his point. And so what if you did agree with the man? You often do. No harm in that. Also, I don't put myself in the category of "unlike some other Jews around here." I think there are many ways to care for Israel. Many opinions of what's best.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 13, 2011 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are a student of literature and close-reading too, and I have never seen anything to suggest that you are unable to understand my comments in their totality even though you delete and break off fragments in order to attack me. I'm getting tired of being the nearest convenient punching bag for you." You are not the only one, and "delete and break off" to attack is a fairly normal tactic. Add a dash of sneer, a dollop of sarcasm, and you have the perfect Noga commentary. Only amusing thing is that you are getting tired only now ... me, I reconcile myself to the situation by the sheer amusement of it.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And it just occurred to me that no one here is giving their putative civil servants any credit for thinking for themselves, regardless of their ethnicity, that perhaps carrying out the mission to promote a Middle Eastern dictator might not be something they are in agreement with or believe it is necessarily in the interest of their country." As fatuous and idiotic a comment as I should have expected under the circumstances. Civil servants argue and debate and analyse and disagree and agree - in private, and advise, and when policy is made, if it is not illegal, they carry it out to the best of their ability. It'll be a dark day in government if each issuer of drivers licenses and social security cheques and passports and consular officials and diplomats and lawyers and so on decided to decide, in respect of each policy they are asked to carry out, to balk and try to make a moral assessment of it.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And fwiw I'd also like to put myself clearly and unambiguously among the "non-Jews around here" (if I'm not committing some further offense by describing such a group that way) who care for Israel too.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm getting tired of being the nearest convenient punching bag for you." I'm sorry you feel this way. I thought we were having a conversation but no, apparently it is just an unfair boxing match with you as at the receiving hand. What do you know. You live in a glasshouse, ironyroad.

- noga1

March 14, 2011 at 6:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, Mollysimon, I can't wait to read your explanation for that castration theory you suggested sometime ago.

- noga1

March 14, 2011 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Plexiglass, though.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, that goes without saying.

- noga1

March 14, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga--why are you bringing me into this? You think that trying to understand Marty at anything but face value is a waste of time? But those two very long recent profiles, with which he and friends gave full cooperation, make for some interesting analysis.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 14, 2011 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, plexiglass is not necessarily cheaper than glass and can in fact be stronger. Museums use plexi.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 14, 2011 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point of irony's house being of plexiglass has nothing to do with its costliness or cheapness, mollysimon. The point is the it is that it cannot be shattered. So, you have no theory? I thought once the toothache had passed you would somehow manage to come up with something.

- noga1

March 14, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I tell the neighbors it's plexiglass, in any event. Molly, I too am still curious about the castration deal. I remember you said you had been thinking about it for several weeks.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, when I told Irony that plexi was stronger, it was meant as a joke. I in no way meant to undercut what you said. It was not meant to literalize your use of the old saying. It was a humorous aside. A sort of dorky, "Well, actually, Mr. Irony . . . . " Furthermore, your remark about my theory and my "toothache" (it wasn't a toothache, it was three crowns) etc. seems cutting and personal--designed to put me on the defensive. Why go that route? I've not been rude or uncivil to you once on this thread. No need to answer, though of course that's your choice. As Cookie once noted, it can be hard to engage you, so I'm simply going to bow out.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 14, 2011 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"seems cutting and personal--designed to put me on the defensive" I apologize for making you uncomfortable, mollysimon. I'll try to be more careful next time and address you more softly. Would "gargoyle" be less cutting and personal? Do tell me so that I can adjust my language to your delicacy of mind.

- noga1

March 14, 2011 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close