The New Republic

Beware of people who belong in organizations with the word "new" in its title.

- jdyer

July 8, 2010 at 7:37pm

Elegant and right on, Jackson! And I suspect it's not accidental, that "new" can represent high-horse airs.

- yerubal

July 8, 2010 at 10:07pm

On the other hand, the eruption of paranoid fury over building a (small) mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, might not be the best evidence that the guy is entirely wrong. Some of the comments -- which admittedly are fragmentary -- tend to make one stop in mid-breath. We're "at war with these people"? Sorry, but the *$(&!$ing spam filter won't let me post the link, but just google the key words and you'll find a bunch of links.

- ironyroad

July 8, 2010 at 10:46pm

ironyroad "On the other hand, the eruption of paranoid fury over building a (small) mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, might not be the best evidence that the guy is entirely wrong." I like the way you couched this in the negative, Irony. On the other hand, only Republican hillbillies hate Muslims, Democratic hillbillies love them, isn’t that right. And then there is David Duke, he is one Republican who just loves Israel and love Jews. He also hates Muslims which is why he supports the Palestinians and support Hamas. I’d say that the opposite of what the obsessed and witless Rosenberg said is the case.

- jdyer

July 8, 2010 at 11:53pm

irony: i answered your question about that RED TEAM memo from CENTCOM at the Obama-Netanyahu thread, now gone cold. I use dial-up, so can not watch this video, so I assume the Murfreesboro issue is in video. Before anyone makes judgment on Tennessee, I recommend (dvd available) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Clips_Project am soooo tired of the 'racist' card. fox alert -

- K2K

July 9, 2010 at 12:18am

JD, my Democratic hillbillies even love Obama. Mind you, that's only one hollow -- the folks in the 37 neighboring hollows think that Fred Thompson should have won.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 12:19am

what I meant by "fox alert" is that I heard the fox screech, turned on my front lights, and saw the neighbor's cat Jasper walking toward what could be a brutal event...and they are asleep so I left a voice mail. aagh. actually, it is getting embarrassing to be a secular American Jew with Rosenberg and Beinart and Greenwald spouting off.

- K2K

July 9, 2010 at 12:26am

irony's "Democratic hillbillies" must still have jobs :)

- K2K

July 9, 2010 at 12:29am

Rosenberg's intent is to delegitimize ANY support for Israel. The only support he considers true and correct is his kind of support, a far left support based on the premise that the world is doing Israel a big favour by just tolerating its existence and Israel should never be allowed to forget that. Any support that gets extended to Israel then is a-priori suspect. No decent rational human being can support Israel hence the answer to the mystery that Americans still support Israel must be solved by locating the motive in nefarious tendencies and bad intentions. It's a sort of a warning, too to any Democrat out there who still support Israel in a more substantial way that Rosenberg can tolerate: You go on to support Israel at your own peril, for you may find yourself tarred by the same suspicion, that secretly you are just a Muslim hater. It is worth considering that Rosenberg probably firmly believes that no criticism of Israel can ever be antisemitic and you may realize the depth and breadth of his ambitions, the complete and total isolation and demonization of Israel from anything honest, decent and worthy of hearing that can be said about it. You can see the knee jerk responses here and the inexorable inclination to agree with Rosenberg's calumnies.

- noga1

July 9, 2010 at 6:28am

I didn't invent the Murfreesboro stuff, you know. It happened to be an item on Jon Stewart the previous evening. Pointing it out was merely a way of saying that even (to translate a German idiom) a dog spraying inaccurately around the place can occasionally hit a tree. To put it bluntly, if a representative bunch of folks in Tennessee are convinced we are at war with Islam then bin Laden has scored a major victory.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 10:16am

Noga1, Not that I want to be carrying water for MJ Rosenberg, whose postings at TPM (which has sadly become a gathering place for Israel-haters) are relentless in their demonization of Israel. But I do think in this case there is strong evidence that he has at least the kernel of a legitimate point. One has to wonder what explains the support for Israel among members of the modern conservative movement. One can talk about the shared values and history, one can talk about the influence of Christian zealots, whose theories about the end-times drive them to support the ingathering of the Jews etc. But at least a portion of that support - which in some cases borders on the fanatic - derives from the fact that Israel kicks Muslim ass. Rosenberg's error is to see this as the main or even sole factor in why Americans support Israel. It isn't. But it is a major reason why conservatives support Israel.

- bpickar

July 9, 2010 at 10:33am

for heaven's sake, has anyone ever discussed Israel with a Jamaican-American? somehow all those Anglicans grew up admiring Jews and Israel without any thought of a broader war against Islam. I imagine it is the same for Baptists in Tennessee. this "Israel kicks Muslim ass" argument is as silly as what Obama said on Israel's Channel 2: "...During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion." " http://www haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israelis-suspicious-of-me-because-my-middle-name-is-hussein-1.300793

- K2K

July 9, 2010 at 10:46am

"Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion." He actually said it? I can't believe he would allow such a Freudian slip. It tells more about him than it does about Israelis. Many Israelis of Mizrahi origin have Arab names (Like Fouad Ben Eliezer) and that doesn't bother anyone one little bit. While some Americans with distinctly English names, like Jimmy Carter, arouse a great deal of anxiety. Obama seems to have confused reactions in the Arab street (where his middle name gives him a lot of credibility) with the Israeli street. OR, he has been watching some of Max Blumenthal's vituperative videos. Maybe it consoles him to think that it's not his hammy treatment of Israel that causes people to suspect his good intentions but his name. This way he can always attribute his failures to achieve anything e Middle East to Israeli Jews' paranoid fears of his middle name.

- noga1

July 9, 2010 at 11:03am

"I imagine it is the same for Baptists in Tennessee." K2K, if you'd back off from what you imagine for a second and take a look at the TV and newspaper reports of the Murfreesboro deal, you'll see that it's exactly the purported "broader war against Islam" that's firing those folks up. How about taking a look yourself before telling me I'm BS'ing or whatever? Nobody mentions Israel at all, it's not a topic. That's the reason I linked to the story -- it's a slight bit of evidence in favor of one aspect of Rosenberg's otherwise fairly wild diatribe. I didn't just think it up.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 12:21pm

Also, there is ample evidence that Obama's name does create suspicion in at least some Israelis, although it is hardly the case that that is the major factor.

- bpickar

July 9, 2010 at 1:13pm

When you said in your first comment to this thread that: "On the other hand, the eruption of paranoid fury over building a (small) mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, might not be the best evidence that the guy is entirely wrong." I assumed you were at least partly endorsing Rosenberg's view that support for Israel is rooted in anti-Muslim sentiment. Yet you now say that you were not at all relating to the Israel angle: "Nobody mentions Israel at all, it's not a topic. That's the reason I linked to the story -- it's a slight bit of evidence in favor of one aspect of Rosenberg's otherwise fairly wild diatribe. I didn't just think it up."

- noga1

July 9, 2010 at 2:04pm

"Also, there is ample evidence that Obama's name does create suspicion in at least some Israelis, although it is hardly the case that that is the major factor." George W. Bush's name was also a source of anxiety in Israel until they realized that his politics as regards Israel was very different from his dad's. In Obama's case, had he acted and spoken as a genuine friend to Israel, he could have been called even Barack Hussein al-Arafat Obama and it wouldn't have bothered Israelis one little bit. King Hussein, for all that his name was Hussein, was generally well-liked and trusted by Israelis. In his comment, Obama reflects a very American perception of his name. Clearly he doesn't understand Israelis and those who parley Israel to him do not do a good job explaining to him that Israelis are not like Americans. Unlike Americans who can afford to indulge in stereotypical thinking (like ironyroad's anti-Muslim crowds) because no one is threatening their existence Israelis have to be able to distinguish reliably between real and false threats. They go by facts and records, not names. I speak of course of the majority of Israelies who are pretty savvy. Can't account for Max Blumenthal's videos. He has a knack of turning over stones and finding snakes underneath, usually very young snakes who can hardly string together one coherent sentence in English.

- noga1

July 9, 2010 at 2:16pm

ironyroad “To put it bluntly, if a representative bunch of folks in Tennessee are convinced we are at war with Islam then bin Laden has scored a major victory.” How is that? Excuse me but people in NY have known for years that we are at war with Islamic radicals. Why is this victory for bin Laden?

- jdyer

July 9, 2010 at 3:04pm

Noga, yes, exactly -- my original point was limited: that Rosenberg might not be 100% wrong that a kind of generic hostility to Muslims per se is an observable phenomenon in areas of the U.S.. There was no mention of Israel in the reports on TN (as would have been obvious upon inspection), nor did I draw any conclusions on the second part of his claim myself. JD, a war with Islamic radicals, as you put it, is of course what we have. A war with Muslims per se -- which is exactly how the TNers put it as represented in several quotes -- is something else entirely, and unfortunately that is exactly what the Islamic radicals have been claiming. I wish people would check these damn links (there's plenty out there) before posting. I'm sorry I couldn't post them myself but the spam filter blocked me each time.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 4:05pm

Ironyroad “JD, a war with Islamic radicals, as you put it, is of course what we have. A war with Muslims per se -- which is exactly how the TNers put it as represented in several quotes -- is something else entirely, and unfortunately that is exactly what the Islamic radicals have been claiming.” The distinction is probably lost on most people. To them we are at war with “those Muslims who attacked us.” They probably also don’t trust Muslims in general for the same reason that they didn’t trust Germans or Japanese in general during WW2. This is normal for a country at war. None of this shows that bin Laden “has won” which is what you said before. That was an astonishing claim, Irony. Care to justify it?

- jdyer

July 9, 2010 at 4:19pm

I think Rosenberg is way, way off base. Interestingly, it was only recently that religion was even mentioned as an issue in the Arab/Israeli conflict. Obviously it's been a potent factor but other issues such as America vs Soviets, east/west, modern/pastoral - traditional cultures, and conflicting national narratives and aspirations were all more frequently discussed until very recently. Americans simply identify more with Israel and also there's a moral concern vis a vis Jews and our frequent abuse and recent brush with extermination; and this is true even among people I'd classify as somewhat antisemitic within the American Christian community. As for religion, it's important to note that indeed, PLO was avowedly secular; it predates the "occupation" and some of the most vicious anti-Israel polemicists and terrorists were and are Christian.

- Sophia

July 9, 2010 at 4:38pm

Sophia “I think Rosenberg is way, way off base.” Yes he is. “As for religion, it's important to note that indeed, PLO was avowedly secular; it predates the "occupation" and some of the most vicious anti-Israel polemicists and terrorists were and are Christian.” I agree with much of what you wrote here, however, the PLO was “secular” in as much as it presented itself as secular to their Moscow sponsors from the early 60’s through the 80’s. However, there was always an Islamic subtext to their struggle which is more in evidence when they talked to their Arab sponsors than to the West. All of this has been documented by Prof. Herf and others. Also Arafat was a relative of the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem who made common cause with Hitler.

- jdyer

July 9, 2010 at 5:40pm

But there was some justification for that JD, as we were indeed at war with the nations of Germany and Japan (although curiously I don't think that applied to Italy and Italians as much). The situation is rather different now. Would I care to justify my claim. I guess. (Parenthetically: have we been living on two different planets the last few years?) In any case, this is us: http://muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=164 This is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/world/middleeast/24binladen.html See the difference? Now check out the comments from TN and tell me whose vision seems to have come out on top, President Bush's or Bin Laden's.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 5:42pm

For some reason, the last part of my post (after the NYT link) vanished. I just concluded by asking whether you thought the TN anti-mosque statements reflect the spirit of Pres. Bush's various comments or that of Bin Laden's statements.

- ironyroad

July 9, 2010 at 5:53pm

Here is someone who had a similar thought like mine: "There are Americans who have wondered about that middle name, less because it is “Hussein” than because it has lived a strange life of its own, fading in and out depending on the audience – disappearing during Obama’s 2008 election campaign, reappearing during his outreach to the “Muslim world,” coming and going as if it mattered in some malleable way to Obama himself. Has he ever considered that public worry about his middle name might have more to do with the slippery nature of its use, and the too often disturbing policies of its owner, than with the name itself?" http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/no-the-problem-is-not-obamas-middle-name/

- noga1

July 9, 2010 at 8:34pm

Irony, you need to come up links that a little more up to date. In any case, so bib Laden accuses the "Zionist-Crusaders" of waging war against Islam. But his claim is merely a justification for his attacks on the US. In reality is he who has declared war on the "Zionist Crusaders" and Hindus and animists and all other non Muslims. And what are the "Muslim Repiblican" comments on their web site supposed to prove?

- jdyer

July 9, 2010 at 9:07pm

irony: what noga wrote at 2:04 pm explains my confusion as well. My apologies for not caring enough about Murfreesboro and the mosque to dig deeper. tough enough to keep track of the US Navy :) moving on to getting past TNR' spam filter, erase the . after the www. example: http://www jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=180887 which is Caroline Glick's essay today that actually deals with the next Spine thread (I am catching up after my intermission) - a good evisceration of the NYT 'investigative' report on tax deductions and settlements from July 5.

- K2K

July 9, 2010 at 10:24pm

JD: are you being deliberately dense, or what? Of course bin Laden's claim is merely a justification for his attacks on the U.S. My point was that if people in the U.S. echo that justification -- as you would notice them doing if you actually read the news items I was referring to -- then that, to some degree at least, disables us in our position that it's merely OBL's spurious justification. Let me put it this way. If someone in a capacity like mine was accused of failing, say, Hispanic students deliberately, I can always say in response, this is not an ethnic or racial thing, it's just that they score less well on the tests I administer, then many people (but not all) would say, ok, that's a fair point. If I were to be overheard, however, talking about how I really dislike Hispanic students and want to fail them, people would be quite entitled to wonder how truthful my original statement was. The statements on the Muslim Republican site are meant to prove -- is it that obscure? -- that President Bush (note: NOT President Obama) made it clear many times over several years that the U.S. is not engaged in a war against Islam, has no hostility to or contempt for the Islamic faith, and is entirely engaged in a war with violent extremists who use Islam as a cover for their objectionable goals. Therefore, my question was simply which side of this issue you saw the Murfreesboro folks as echoing, OBL's or Bush's. I'm not going to go any further with this unless people do a five minute web search and read the various (short) pieces on the mosque controversy.

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 1:31am

"If I were to be overheard, however, talking about how I really dislike Hispanic students and want to fail them, " This reminds me of something I read in Martin Amis's memoir "Experience". He once asked his father what soft antisemitism was like. And Kingsley gave him an example he himself had heard from one of his fellow dons at the university: When I read a paper written by one of those Heebs (or something like that I'm quoting from memory) and it is an A-grade paper I really don't feel like giving it the A it deserves.

- noga1

July 10, 2010 at 8:06am

ironyroad “JD: are you being deliberately dense, or what? Of course bin Laden's claim is merely a justification for his attacks on the U.S. My point was that if people in the U.S. echo that justification -- as you would notice them doing if you actually read the news items I was referring to -- then that, to some degree at least, disables us in our position that it's merely OBL's spurious justification.” I am either too dense to understand your point, or else you completely wrong. You think that because some private citizens in a relatively impoverished State say that they are at war with Islam means that America in general is a Muslim hating country and that it justifies Obama’s war on us? Is that what you think? In the meantime you tell me that President Bush kept reiterating that we are not at war with Islam. So on the one hand we a small number of people in some backwater talking war and on the other we have the official US government saying the opposite. How in the hell do you draw the conclusion that Obama has won or that the anti Republican fanatic Rosenberg is right? Btw: Have these people in TE organized anti Muslim groups to go out and attack Muslims world wide? Have they launched suicide attacks on them or on the US government for not supporting them? This is what an al Qaeda affiliate group would do, Irony. The comparison escapes me. I guess I am being thick. I’d rather think that you are trying to justify your incredible silly comment.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 10:33am

ironyroad “JD: are you being deliberately dense, or what? Of course bin Laden's claim is merely a justification for his attacks on the U.S. My point was that if people in the U.S. echo that justification -- as you would notice them doing if you actually read the news items I was referring to -- then that, to some degree at least, disables us in our position that it's merely OBL's spurious justification.” I am either too dense to understand your point, or else you completely wrong. You think that because some private citizens in a relatively impoverished State say that they are at war with Islam means that America in general is a Muslim hating country and that it justifies Obama’s war on us? Is that what you think? In the meantime you tell me that President Bush kept reiterating that we are not at war with Islam. So on the one hand we a small number of people in some backwater talking war and on the other we have the official US government saying the opposite. How in the hell do you draw the conclusion that Obama has won or that the anti Republican fanatic Rosenberg is right? Btw: Have these people in TE organized anti Muslim groups to go out and attack Muslims world wide? Have they launched suicide attacks on them or on the US government for not supporting them? This is what an al Qaeda affiliate group would do, Irony. The comparison escapes me. I guess I am being thick. I’d rather think that you are trying to justify your incredible silly comment.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 10:33am

Something wrong with this unwieldy website. I only clicked once and it posted my comments twice.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 10:37am

If we are dealing with an assertion by someone to the effect that there is a noticeable presence of a particular social/political phenomenon in some parts of the U.S., and if in the ensuing discussion on the merits thereof [and those of the individual who made it] I point to some recent evidence that supports -- even in a minor anecdotal way -- that assertion (or part of it), then I have fulfilled one of the basic requirements of debate. I did not intend to provoke such confusion, indignation, or flights of illogic, for which I apologize, but I note that nobody has as yet taken the leap and answered the question I asked.

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 1:15pm

ironyroad: "If we are dealing with an assertion by someone to the effect that there is a noticeable presence of a particular social/political phenomenon in some parts of the U.S., and if in the ensuing discussion on the merits thereof [and those of the individual who made it] I point to some recent evidence that supports -- even in a minor anecdotal way -- that assertion (or part of it), then I have fulfilled one of the basic requirements of debate." This is bullshit, Irony, Rosenberg asserted more than that “there is a noticeable presence of a particular social/political phenomenon in some parts of the U.S.” This is what he said: “and now you have the modern Republican Party that has to cater to these racists and that gets me to my fundamental point, it is not that they are pro-Israel. They are anti-Muslim. They do not like Muslims. They are on the side of Israel because Israel is — they don’t like Jews that much to start out with, either — but compared to Muslims, they like Jews fine.” It was an insane assertion about Republicans in general. Your example doesn’t even come close to proving that the Rosenberg’s is anything other than a bigoted lunatic. I am surprised that you would go to such length to try and prove Rosenberg right. You surprise me.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 1:43pm

As the coverage of the Murfreesboro mosque controversy suggests no more than that Rosenberg, who may well be a bigoted lunatic, may also not be entirely wrong about the nature of anti-muslim feeling in the South (at least), I wonder what the stormy indignation is all about. I would also note that the material on M'boro not only says nothing about Israel, it also says absolutely nothing about the people quoted being identifiably Republican or Democrat or Independent. They are very likely a mix, in whatever proportion. At this point, I think I'll leave it up to anyone reading the thread to make their own mind up whether the story had a bearing upon that particular aspect of Rosenberg's comments, or not.

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 4:14pm

OK, you are still justifying yourself rather than reading Rosenberg's comments.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 4:40pm

"I wonder what the stormy indignation is all about. " Originally and in the context of this post, the indignation stemmed from the linkage proposed by Rosenberg that those Americans who support Israel do so not for positive reasons but because they see Israel only from the perspective of their anti-Muslim bigotry. In other words there is nothing in Israel to merit support except that it is perceived as the enemy of their enemy. That was the source of Marty's indignation and mine and others'. Very early in the thread ironyroad you came in and introduced a story that according to you proved that Rosenberg's theories were not necessarily wrong. When people demurred you kept at it not understanding I believe that you were being perceived as re-affirming to a certain extent Rosenberg's linkage. Let me repeat that that linkage was and remains the main issue in this thread.

- noga1

July 10, 2010 at 4:41pm

I take your point Noga, but I thought I had made it clear (twice) that I wasn't endorsing Rosenberg's linkage, but merely his point that anti-muslim as opposed to anti-terrorist prejudice is quite easy to find in parts of the U.S. Persistently telling me that Rosenberg is a "bigoted lunatic" doesn't quite wish the other evidence out the window that a bunch of presumably fairly normal people (600 turned up for the meeting in Murfreesboro) think we're "at war with those folks" (ie all Muslims). I don't dispute that that the "linkage" was the main issue, but challenging such linkage doesn't make the discrete components of the linkage go away.

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 11:09pm

Look how easily come the obscene analogies: "'Bloody Jews,' he said. 'Bloody Jews, bugger the Jews, I've no sympathy for them.' I gazed at him, aghast. Where had this suddenly come from? The encounter I'm here describing took place very recently, in the course of a large academic dinner at a University in another city, not my own one. It was a pleasant occasion, and the people at my table were innocuously and comfortably talking about sociological issues connected with the economic crisis, all completely harmless and (relatively) uncontentious. And then I heard the academic on my right hand side say to the person opposite him, 'Bloody Jews.' When he saw my appalled stare, he said impatiently, 'Oh well, I'm sorry, but really...!' 'I'm glad you're sorry,' I replied politely, collecting myself together for a fight. But then he asked, 'Are you Jewish?' When I nodded, this academic - whom I'd met for the first time that day - put his arm around me and said, 'I'm sorry, but really Israel is terrible, the massacres, Plan Dalet, the ethnic cleansing, they're like the Nazis, they're the same as the Nazis...'" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/07/table-talk-by-eve-garrard.html

- noga1

July 13, 2010 at 2:04pm