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 Nixon Disallowed Jewish Advisors From Discussing Israel...

JONATHAN CHAIT DECEMBER 10, 2010

Nixon Disallowed Jewish Advisors From Discussing Israel Policy

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

New documents released today about Nixon and the Jews:

Documents released today by the Richard Nixon presidential library contain fresh details on the former president’s antipathy toward Jews, his interest in exposing more details of John F. Kennedy’s policy on Cuba and Vietnam, and his approach to the office that he was eventually forced to resign.

Mr. Nixon ordered his aides to exclude all Jewish-Americans from policy-making on Israel, according to formerly classified notes taken by then-chief of staff H. R. “Bob” Haldeman on a meeting with the president in July 1971. “No Jew can handle the Israeli thing,” the notes read. Later in the one-page excerpt, Mr. Haldeman writes, “Forget the Jews — they’re against” the administration.

That stipulation explicitly includes then-national security adviser Henry Kissinger, with accompanying plans to keep him out of the loop: “get K. out of the play — Haig handle it,” says one note, referring to then-aide Alexander Haig.

You do see a fainter echo of this view today on the fringes of the debate among the likes of ultra-Nixonian realists like Stephen Walt, but even Walt believes that Americans Jews can prove their loyalty by adopting a sufficiently left-wing line on Israel. It's hard to imagine any president today refusing to allow his own national security adviser to participate in Israel-related debates on account of being Jewish.

Meanwhile, Kissinger has pathetically defended Nixon against charges of anti-Semitism despite being excluded by Nixon from formulating Israel policy on the basis of his ethnicity.

Update: And here is Kissinger trying to prove to Nixon he's not that kind of Jew, or perhaps just displaying his cold-eyed realism:

“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

Maybe.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 57 comments

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

57 comments

Don't make much of this. Nixon's anti-semitism was the old-fashioned variety. On the 25th aniversary of the modern Jewish state, when Nixon was President, nobody, left, right , or middle, with the exception of anti-semitics, questioned the reciprocal loyalty and friendship of the US and Israel. But back then Jews weren't accepted in certain (most) circles. Not in the college fraternities and sororities, not in the downtown lunch and athletic clubs, not in the country clubs. Ironic that those who lead the exclusion as members of those exclusive provinces are, today, Israel's "best" friends.

- rayward

December 10, 2010 at 6:14pm

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

Was there ever a more craven person high up in the US government than Henry Kissinger? Wait, yes, there was - Richard Nixon, as this very post demonstrates (along with a huge amount of supporting evidence). It is good to know that the old-fashioned strains of anti-Semitism were okay. Me to Jewish friend: Stop whining about your experiences of anti-Semitism; what you are talking about occurred before 1974, so it was just the harmless, old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

- liberal reformer

December 10, 2010 at 7:19pm

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

This is pathetic. Excuse me rayward but I find it shocking.

- Sophia

December 10, 2010 at 7:20pm

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

For those too young to remember, anti-semitism was pervasive, and obvious, in 1972; the difference today is that anti-semitism is obscured by unrelated (to anti-semitism) motives.

- rayward

December 10, 2010 at 7:39pm

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

That's no excuse. Further, the history of the Yom Kippur war + Nixon is sobering.

- Sophia

December 10, 2010 at 8:18pm

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

That's no excuse. Further, the history of the Yom Kippur war + Nixon is sobering. Also - "old fashioned" antisemitism isn't dead, in fact it's raising its ugly head again in the mainstream social, religious and political sphere - not just in the Middle East either. Consider this: http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/njdccallsongopleaders120810 Shamefully, there appears to be an attack on a prominent Texas politician based solely on his religion (Jewish.)

- Sophia

December 10, 2010 at 8:21pm

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

Ooops sorry about the partial double post.

- Sophia

December 10, 2010 at 8:21pm

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

Nixon had a view that Jews made perfect spies: (Listen to him for 2 minutes here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8DjpOo4Y Apparently Alger Hiss was the only Jewish spy!

- MikeB.

December 10, 2010 at 9:44pm

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

Dick Nixon is long gone and decayed. Mel Gibson is a clown. Liberals yell about mostly sporadic anti-semitism from conservatives, but conveniently ignore today's Muslim and leftist anti-semitism, which are much more vicious and systemic.

- amidut

December 11, 2010 at 7:56am

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

OOps should have said: "Alger Hiss was the only non-Jewish spy!" Amidut, Yes you are right if there is one thing that Marty Peretz ignores here at the "New Republic" it is Islamic anti-semitisim!

- MikeB.

December 11, 2010 at 8:16am

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

"Liberals yell about mostly sporadic anti-semitism from conservatives, but conveniently ignore today's Muslim and leftist anti-semitism, which are much more vicious and systemic." True. Mearsheimer and Walt's theories about the "Israel Lobby" appeal to Leftists much more than they do to people on the Right. They complain that the Evangelicals who support Israel do so based on ultimate antisemitic fantasies but are always ready to volunteer explanations in which they wave away Reverend Wright's antisemitism (for example). I mentioned on some other thread that Jews cannot really find any political group where they can be comfortable. As always I find Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice instructive on this matter. When Shylock refuses to have dinner with Antonio and his cohort, based on Jewish dietary laws, in order to seal that deal, he is jeered at. When he later reconsiders and agrees to do so, his host's friends conspire to rob him and take his daughter away from him, as he is at dinner.

- noga1

December 11, 2010 at 11:40am

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

Noga, being a Jewish liberal among sometimes anti-semitic lefties is an edgy situation. Even my celebration of Chanukah has sparked angry snarks. They'll have to put up with me a while longer. But there is a bright side to our alienation. We're up for grabs. The Democrats in the US can no longer take us for granted. I will either sit on my hands when Obama runs for reelection or support a more attractive candidate. In the meantime, a politically active person has many other options and opportunities to influence decisions.

- amidut

December 11, 2010 at 1:56pm

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

Wait a second Noga. With respect M/W are not leftists.

- Sophia

December 11, 2010 at 2:59pm

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

Amidut, with respect being among antisemites of ANY political stripe is uncomfortable. I have experience with all types. Right wing Christian or fascist antisemitism isn't any better than Muslim or Eastern Orthodox antisemitism and neither is less offensive than leftist antisemitism. Picking out the left per se is shortsighted. It also misses the point: anti-Jewishness is part of two gigantic religious sects, Christianity and Islam, which span the globe and affect the cultures where they are dominant. This included even the Soviet Union - after all Russia wasn't on Mars. As for the Democrats, right now I'm of the party of Bernie Sanders.

- Sophia

December 11, 2010 at 3:03pm

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

I respect Sophia's opinion here. I tend to pick out the Left in this forum because, on this issue, I often feel betrayed by them. Some of them are my relatives, personal friends, and political associates.

- amidut

December 11, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

considering the impact of the Arab oil embargo on the American (and other) economy, I am glad Nixon made a Judenfrei decision to re-supply Israel in 1973. That "old-fashioned" antisemitism was rough enough in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and certainly worse since the 9/15/2008 "Lehman Brothers" financial meltdown. An interesting moral quandary posed my Kissinger - how would the U.S. have reacted during his tenure in the Nixon WH if the Soviet Union had started gassing their Jews instead of slowly bending to international pressure to allow the Soviet Jews to emigrate? Chait should have put some thought into his update. I recently suggested to my congressman that he should try to change the Obama-view of Israel as that of 1) a stable, reliable ally in close proximity to the Suez Canal, and 2) preferred ally in cyber-warfare. A dose of reality geo-politics. Perhaps the reality of cyber-warfare exposed by Assange had a tiny influence on the Obami backing off their public fury over Jewish apartments in Jerusalem... or maybe the idea that Mossad has killer sharks trained to disrupt tourism everywhere :)

- K2K

December 11, 2010 at 5:47pm

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

Nixon and Kissinger deserved each other.

- jdyer

December 11, 2010 at 6:00pm

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

"Wait a second Noga. With respect M/W are not leftists." Well, I didn't say they were. What I wrote was: "Mearsheimer and Walt's theories about the "Israel Lobby" appeal to Leftists much more than they do to people on the Right. " Look at who their most ardent admirers are.

- noga1

December 11, 2010 at 6:15pm

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

In my earlier comment, I did not mean to imply that Nixon admin did anything to pressure the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate - I remember that being a strong human rights campaign from the mid-60's forward. [from Adam Nagourney's report on the newly released Nixon tapes]: "...While previous recordings have detailed Nixon’s animosity toward Jews, including those who served in his administration like Henry A. Kissinger, his national security adviser, these tapes suggest an added layer of complexity to Nixon’s feeling. He and his aides seem to make a distinction between Israeli Jews, whom Nixon admired, and American Jews. ... An indication of Nixon’s complex relationship with Jews came the afternoon Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, came to visit on March 1, 1973. The tapes capture Meir offering warm and effusive thanks to Nixon for the way he had treated her and Israel. But moments after she left, Nixon and Mr. Kissinger were brutally dismissive in response to requests that the United States press the Soviet Union to permit Jews to emigrate and escape persecution there. “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.” “I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.” ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB [nuclear weapons really do make for unsolveable situations...]

- K2K

December 11, 2010 at 7:03pm

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

“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.” “I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.” ..." ___________ I can't see how anyone can suggest that antisemitism is a Right wing malady. We know for a fact that all Leftists would endorse this sentiment and type of thought. Isn't history repeating itself these very days with Israel 's six million Jews being the target for annihilation in the Iranian fantasy?

- noga1

December 11, 2010 at 8:45pm

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

They were both meatball minds.

- mgorvine

December 11, 2010 at 9:20pm

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

Someone here once defined anti-Zionists as anti-Semites whose hatred only becomes manifest with regard to Jews elsewhere. From these recordings, Nixon would appear to be the opposite: someone who admires Jews only from afar. It's not unlike the schism between xenophobes and oikophobes.

- drheingold

December 12, 2010 at 1:23am

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

Robert Dallek wrote about this in his book Nixon and Kissinger. Apparently, when Kissinger delivered an opinion about Israel that Nixon didn't like, he looked around the room and said, "Can I get an American opinion?" All class from that guy.

- propjoe

December 12, 2010 at 11:02am

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

Noga, Nixon only resupplied Israel after it was nearly overrun. The Brits never did even though the Chieftain tank was running out of ammo. Apparently the Brits were prepared to see another Shoah. What else could have been the result had the defense failed?

- Sophia

December 12, 2010 at 1:14pm

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

Sophia: I don't see what in my comment provoked your answer. It is a well known history that it was Kissinger who advised strongly against delivering supplies to Israel, because he thought the Israelis needed to be not defeated but bloodied in order to get Arabs to regain their self-esteem. It is also known that by the time the supplies began to stream in, the tide had already been turned. During that period and for a few years after the war, Rabin treated Kissinger with the utmost suspicion. As for Nixon's observation that “What it is, is it’s the insecurity,” he said. “It’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things.” Can anyone claim that Nixon was wrong in his assessment about "the latent insecurity" that causes Jews to overcompensate by being particularly and more than necessarily tough on Israel? From presidential advisors to the most influential journalists to the lesser known ones, isn't there a perceptible tinge of being overly shrill in denunciations of Israel at the right moments? It's funny how everyone rushes in with the antisemitism outrage when it is a Republican president on the line. I didn't see such eagerness to recognize the disease when it was Jimmy Carter's reputation on the line, he who scolded Golda Meir for not leading a more religious Jewish state and who wrote specific books with the sole attempt of sullying Israel's integrity and those American Jews who support her.

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 4:08pm

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

"We know for a fact that all Leftists would endorse this sentiment and type of thought." And the proof of that hyperbolic assertion is an exchange between a Jewish national security advisor and his Republican president? In any case, the question of what the threshold for threatening or deploying nuclear weapons would be is not a left-right issue, or shouldn't be at least.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2010 at 4:36pm

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

"And the proof of that hyperbolic assertion is an exchange between a Jewish national security advisor and his Republican president?" No. And it's not a hyperbolic assertion. The most vicious language has been employed here by people sharing your politics, which I presume are more on the Left side, against the idea that Iran's nuclear sites ought to be destroyed, bombed. "the question of what the threshold for threatening or deploying nuclear weapons would be is not a left-right issue, or shouldn't be at least." Certainly, and ideally, the question of what the response should be to a direct threat of nuclear annihilation of an entire nation, is not a left-right issue, or shouldn't be at least.

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 4:57pm

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

I have never employed vicious language. At most I have suggested that an attack on Iran's sites could (a) fail to destroy them and simultaneously (b) provoke a nationalist surge of support for the Mullahs on the grounds that Iran and not the regime had been attacked.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

"The most vicious language has been employed here by people sharing your politics, which I presume are more on the Left side, against the idea that Iran's nuclear sites ought to be destroyed, bombed." Has anyone here actually suggested, for example, that Iran's nuclear facilities should not be destroyed or bombed because, 1) it is none of anyone's business whether Iran has nuclear weapons; 2) it's a good thing that Iran might/will have nuclear weapons; and 3) Iran should used its future nuclear weapons against Israel? Was there some other vicious language? I mean, surely it is a matter of debate whether bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would actually make Israel safer? Or have we now arrived at a point that even discussing tactical or strategic responses to Iran's development of its nuclear capacity is taken to be the same thing as agreeing with Kissinger's cynical assessment? And why is it, as Irony has noted as well, that a discussion between an anti-Semitic Republican criminal and his hawkish war-criminal advisor is suddenly turned into a discussion of the perfidious Left?

- icarusr

December 12, 2010 at 7:21pm

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

"(a) fail to destroy them " How do you know that? "(b) provoke a nationalist surge of support for the Mullahs on the grounds that Iran and not the regime had been attacked." How do you know that? And why would fear of "a nationalist surge" be more important than fear of a nuclear attack on Israel?

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 7:24pm

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

"an anti-Semitic Republican criminal ..." Oh look, icarus can actually recognize an antisemite, as long as that antisemite comes from a Republican corner. I guess, like beauty, an antisemite is in the eye of the beholder.

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 7:27pm

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

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=198996&R=R1 "Six months later, during the Yom Kippur War, Nixon rejected Kissinger’s advice to delay an arms airlift to Israel as a means of setting the stage for an Egypt confident enough to pursue peace; Nixon, among other reasons, cited Israel’s urgent need."

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 7:45pm

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

[Seth Lipsky's conclusion, although his citations included to get here are worth reading] http://www.nysun.com/editorials/nixons-prejudices/87165/ "...The question is what to draw from all this. Harry Truman, despite his private views, emerged as one of our greatest civil rights presidents, integrating the Army and recognizing the Jewish state. ... Nixon included a number of high profile Jewish Americans in his administration, elevating them to some of the most important offices. It is true that Nixon opposed the Jackson-Vanik amendment [to the 1974 Trade Act] aimed at liberating Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel, a policy that stemmed, we suspect, not from hostility to Jews than but from enthusiasm for détente. It was, in any event, an error that would not really be rectified until the rise of Reagan. After Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur in 1973, though, Nixon did scramble the American military to resupply — and save — the Jewish state. He had been practically endorsed by a celebrated Israel envoy in Washington, Yitzhak Rabin. Is one supposed to like Nixon more or less because to do all this he overcame his private prejudices? Is it better to have a president who loves African Americans and Jews and disappoints them strategically? Or one who privately voices prejudice but defends their rights and supports them strategically?" [I personally believe Harry S. Truman overcame his youthful prejudices, but it should be noted that no Jew, not even Truman's friend and business partner, Eddie Jacobson, was ever invited to Bess Truman's dinner table in Missouri. This post is just a skirmish in the fight for the Jewish vote, as if we are all about to vote GOP because of Obama and the settlements, or Obama about to impose borders, or whatever]

- K2K

December 12, 2010 at 8:13pm

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

I don't know (a) or (b), Noga. I suggested that (a) or (b) are possible outcomes. Normally the consideration of possible outcomes is a sign of intelligence, but I guess that if I'm the one doing the considering, it's a sign of innate viciousness.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2010 at 8:43pm

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

TNR needs a weather blog! Cairo engulfed by sandstorm. Damascus has snow. And, "... Off the Israeli coast, a Moldovan cargo ship sunk in stormy weather 11 kilometres off the port city of Ashdod, and a Turkish ship was safely towed three kilometres to shore after sending out distress calls." Ok, could not resist the bit about Israel responding to distress calls from a Turkish ship so close to the Gaza coast...no word about Moldovan survivors. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/905971--bad-weather-pummels-u-s-middle-east

- K2K

December 12, 2010 at 8:55pm

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

You are evading my most important question, ironyroad: And why would fear of "a nationalist surge" be more important than fear of a nuclear attack on Israel? And please, don't carry on as if I claimed you were the one with the vicious innateness. What I said was: "The most vicious language has been employed here by people sharing your politics, which I presume are more on the Left side, " Why do you take upon yourself the burden of the malfeasance of your political companions or allies or however you wish to see them?

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 9:17pm

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

noga, the conventional wisdom is that "a nationalist surge" would stop Iran's Green Revolution stone cold, e.g., Iranians would rally to the Ayotallohs if the U.S. or Israel attacked targeted sites. I have zero opinion on that. Although I do believe Shi'a millenialism is a true wild card, the Shi'a of Lebanon are so closely linked to Iran that I do consider the possibility of Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent/umbrella a la MAD. Not that I would want to bet one bit of fairy dust on that...because all it would take is one suitcase nuke. Reference Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" and the 1997 film "The Peacemaker". Everyone have a good week...

- K2K

December 12, 2010 at 9:29pm

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

K2K, it still doesn't answer my question: why is the threat of Iran's nationalist surge more weightier, more worthy of worry, deserving more consideration than the threat of Israel's evaporating in a mushroom cloud? http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/14/christopher-hitchens-cancer-interview "And second, he [Hitchens] says, "because it has potential access to weapons of mass destruction." In the end, he argues, there are no pain-free options. You have to choose which future regret you're going to have. "I was at a Hezbollah rally in Beirut about two and a half years ago," he says. "Very striking. Everyone should go. But of the many things that impressed me about it, having the mushroom cloud as the party flag in an election campaign was the main one. You wouldn't want to look back and think, I wish I'd noticed that being run up. Now I can give you all the reasons that it's bombast on their part. Still, I know which regret I'd rather have."

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 9:39pm

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

Noga, people end up having opinions or positions in common because there aren't enough purely individual positions to go around. Nobody can have a set of positions that are theirs alone. The argument that an overlap of a particular position involves total mutual embrace is simply nonsense. I didn't say -- and you know perfectly well I didn't -- that a nationalist surge is worse than the fear of a nuclear attack on Israel. I have no idea how one would compare the two things. What I said was that a potential result of the attempt to destroy the nuclear capacity by military means would be recruiting of a lot of the Iranian population behind the regime on nationalist grounds, hence giving the mullahs a stronger political base as they reinvigorate their program, aimed at Israel. K2K put it differently above, but it's the same consideration. Again, you avoid my question, which is why you think it's wrong to take potential outcomes into consideration. I mean, maybe you simply don't agree with my speculation as to outcomes, but it shouldn't be so difficult to just say that.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2010 at 9:46pm

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

"Again, you avoid my question" I didn't avoid your question. I answered by asking you on what basis you make those "potential outcomes". If you give so much weight to the consideration that a 'nationalist surge' will boost the Iranian regime, then you must be working on the assumption that the regime is teetering on the edge of collapse. Have you got any reason to suppose this? I see a regime that is being courted by South Americans regimes, by Turkey, by China, by Syria. I see a regime that not only is not about to collapse but is actually about to achieve hegemony over the entire Middle East. So what makes you think that a little boost by some nationalist surge is going to matter so much? What makes you fear that boost more than you fear Israel's fate in case of a nuclear Iran?

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 10:14pm

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

BTW, this entire introduction "Noga, people end up having opinions or positions in common because there aren't enough purely individual positions to go around. Nobody can have a set of positions that are theirs alone. The argument that an overlap of a particular position involves total mutual embrace is simply nonsense." seems irrelevant to anything we talked about until now. What exactly do you wish to say in it?

- noga1

December 12, 2010 at 10:16pm

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

Again Noga I don't MAKE those potential outcomes and I don't know why you keep saying "make" and "know" when I do neither and have never claimed to -- I suggest them for consideration. And the suggestion emerges from my years of reading and looking at material about Iran, beginning in 1979 or so when I first became aware of the country, and my knowledge/experience of politics of various kinds and just some sense of human nature (and I've never claimed to be an expert on Iran or anything like it but I try to use my head). Nor do I fear "that boost more than [I] fear Israel's fate in case of a nuclear Iran" because as I've said the two things are not really open for comparison." All my involvement in this discussion is premised on the need to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran under the present regime. But interventions and outcomes are not locked down in advance, as we've found to our cost. And a weakened but not destroyed plant rebuilt with fired-up public opinon behind the regime could be more dangerous both to Israel and to others than the current situation.

- ironyroad

December 13, 2010 at 12:40am

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

Respectfully, I think there's some revisionist history going on here concerning the resupply of arms during the Yom Kippur War. Wasn't it Nixon - not Kissinger - who said he wanted Israel to bleed? Also you know, NIXON was the president, not Kissinger. Regardless, the man was obviously an antisemite and both he and the Brits were playing with the lives of millions of people, also playing chicken with the Soviets. Finally, I don't think "vicious language" is more obvious on the Left at all. Reading comment threads on open discussion boards is rather frightening lately. Hostility toward Israel may be more of a left thing but naked hatred of Jews? I don't think so. Religious hatred certainly isn't coming from the Left either in Christendom or Islam. I admit though that it seeing medieval conspiracy theories on supposedly leftist blogs freaks me out, it has led me to consider how "left" they really are - example - Counterpunch - As far as the Right's true opinion of Israel, well that depends. If it's convenient to support Israel, fine. If not, then Israel is A Grave Impediment To Our Interests. Just ask M,W, or Chaz Freeman.

- Sophia

December 13, 2010 at 3:20am

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

"Just ask M,W, or Chaz Freeman." Who are the greatest and most enthusiastic supporters of these people, Sophia? http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/on_tony_judt_a_memoir Would you consider Rashid Khalidi and Tony Judt as the "Right"?

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 7:17am

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

"Respectfully, I think there's some revisionist history going on here concerning the resupply of arms during the Yom Kippur War." Sophia: Israelis are not afraid of facing facts for what they are. And the writers of history are pretty much in agreement about Kissinger's delaying tactics during the war. "Israeli arms had been destroyed in the attacks, and the country requested an arms supply by the Americans. Instead of delivering immediately, Kissinger managed to hold the supply for a few days, blaming Defense Secretary James Schlesinger. As the Soviet Union, in the eyes of Nixon and Kissinger, had not proven a dependable partner in the Middle East, the USA attempted to decrease Soviet influence in the region. In order to do so, the USA had to be accepted by all parties. In delaying the arms supply to Israel, Kissinger wanted to signal to Egypt and Syria that the U.S. was not interested in humiliating the Arabs. He wrote in “Years of Upheaval”, he had thought Israel would get out a little bloodied, but still win the war. Finally, Israel did even run out of munitions – but still it won. " http://www.lars-klein.com/start/usa/nixon/nixonyomkippur.html http://www.haaretz.com/news/book-says-kissinger-delayed-telling-nixon-about-yom-kippur-war-1.217323

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 7:31am

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

"Oh look, icarus can actually recognize an antisemite, as long as that antisemite comes from a Republican corner." Hmmm - talk about vicious attacks. Can't answer my post so you resort to snark and personal attack. Again. "I guess, like beauty, an antisemite is in the eye of the beholder." Actually, from an evolutionary psychology and an anthropological perspective, "beauty" has objective standards; from a sociological and political perspective, so does antisemitism. The challenge is agreeing on the standards and definitions and their application in specific circumstances. Your snarky comment does little in either direction, and is meant to end discussion rather than encourage search for any objective conclusion. Then again, given that you and some others here see antisemitism in every nook and cranny - especially in "the Left" - and that any sign of the least wavering of total support for any Israeli misadventure no matter how misguided is seen as a deeper sign of antisemitism, the simple answer to your snarky quip might well be "yes". Different perspectives may lead to different conclusions, othewise intelligent discourse on the scope and effects of antisemitism in the contemporary world becomes impossible. Now, you appear to consider yourself an expert on antisemitism; you seem to suggest, implicitly your snarky comment, that no disagreement on this subject is possible. It is a rather startling admission on your part that no other definition of the term and no other recognition of its manifestations than yours is legitimate. How different are you, in at least that respect, from the Mullahs in Iran?

- icarusr

December 13, 2010 at 9:38am

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

So this is what a Jewish circle jerk looks like -- about as dull and silly as any other circle jerk, I reckon.

- DC Spence

December 13, 2010 at 11:30am

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

"Then again, given that you... see antisemitism in every nook and cranny " Examples, please?

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 12:00pm

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

Hmmm - how about "see above", esp. your constant and usual condemnation of "the Left"?

- icarusr

December 13, 2010 at 12:03pm

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

"How different are you, in at least that respect, from the Mullahs in Iran?" Shades of your mentor roi, I see. Why stop with the Mullahs? Goebbels and Hitler will be disappointed.

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 12:10pm

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

And, I note, yet again, that instead of responding to the post, you went on the attack, this time demanding proof of the obvious ("nook and cranny" not to be read literally, of course). It really is amusing, your style of "debate": you make a ridiculous accusation about a whole host of people and a whole political side, "The most vicious language has been employed here by people sharing your politics", without a shred of evidence. And then, you demand that I give you examples of your own repeated and quite open accusations of antisemitism in every political discussion that touches Israel. Any way, just passing through. I'm done with this thread.

- icarusr

December 13, 2010 at 12:12pm

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

"Hmmm - how about "see above", esp. your constant and usual condemnation of "the Left"?" See above what? You said: "given that you... see antisemitism in every nook and cranny" I ask: Can you provide real specific examples that can actually support this allegation?

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 12:13pm

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

"Shades of your mentor roi, I see. Why stop with the Mullahs? Goebbels and Hitler will be disappointed." Well, I had to respond to this one. You keep attacking - and keep snarking. He is not my "mentor", even if he and I agree on some issues. He makes an assertion, I asked a question; if you can't see the difference, it is a failure of judgement on your part, not a problem of perspective on mine.

- icarusr

December 13, 2010 at 12:14pm

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

Noga, what I meant by that remark on shared opinions was that I have a particular sensitivity to a "guilt by association" move where someone says that "X shares your politics, therefore you obviously embrace X's vicious and hostile attitude to Y." I don't think this is true, because there are many cases where two people with divergent politics can share a point of view on a particular issue or cluster of issues. The fact that three people, let's say, on these boards have raised the question of the potential downside of an attack on Iranian nuclear sites does not in and of itself prove either (a) a shared motive for raising the question or (b) a deeper shared political ideology or worldview. Indeed with regard to Iran, involving a decision with wide ranging consequences in all areas (I assume we're talking about open U.S. involvement here), I see a demand for a wide ranging discussion among people who don't necessarily agree on all principles. Otherwise the discussion isn't one in fact, but rather an uncritical functional exchange within a pre-determined consensus. Which in fact seems to be what the Iraq planning discussions became within the Bush administration.

- ironyroad

December 13, 2010 at 12:18pm

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

Ironyroad: If it comforts you and serves some purpose for you, to believe that I applied a ""guilt by association" charge at you then please don't allow my actual words to stand between you and whatever makes you happy. But here they are again: "And please, don't carry on as if I claimed you were the one with the vicious innateness. What I said was: "The most vicious language has been employed here by people sharing your politics, which I presume are more on the Left side, " Why do you take upon yourself the burden of the malfeasance of your political companions or allies or however you wish to see them?"

- noga1

December 13, 2010 at 1:03pm

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

They don't share my politics, Noga, or at least neither you nor -- in most cases -- even I can be sure of that. That's the relatively clear point I was making: you make an unfounded assumption of a shared politics or political companionship, when I don't see it that way. I see a shared position on an issue at a given moment and no more.

- ironyroad

December 13, 2010 at 1:33pm

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

oh good, Peretz gives us an opportunity to repeat this thread. just when I was wondering about the National Archives report, “Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War” from Sunday NYT: "...In chilling detail, the report also elaborates on the close working relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later claimed that he sought refuge in wartime Germany only to avoid arrest by the British. In fact, the report says, the Muslim leader was paid “an absolute fortune” of 50,000 marks a month (when a German field marshal was making 25,000 marks a year). It also said he energetically recruited Muslims for the SS, the Nazi Party’s elite military command, and was promised that he would be installed as the leader of Palestine after German troops drove out the British and exterminated more than 350,000 Jews there. On Nov. 28, 1941, the authors say, Hitler told Mr. Husseini that the Afrika Corps and German troops deployed from the Caucasus region would liberate Arabs in the Middle East and that “Germany’s only objective there would be the destruction of the Jews.” The report details how Mr. Husseini himself was allowed to flee after the war to Syria — he was in the custody of the French, who did not want to alienate Middle East regimes — and how high-ranking Nazis escaped from Germany to become advisers to anti-Israeli Arab leaders and “were able to carry on and transmit to others Nazi racial-ideological anti-Semitism.” “You have an actual contract between officials of the Nazi Foreign Ministry with Arab leaders, including Husseini, extending after the war because they saw a cause they believed in,” Dr. Breitman said. “And after the war, you have real Nazi war criminals — Wilhelm Beisner, Franz Rademacher and Alois Brunner — who were quite influential in Arab countries.” In October 1945, the report says, the British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told the assistant American military attaché in Cairo that the mufti might be the only force able to unite the Palestine Arabs and “cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can’t do it, but it might not be such a damn bad idea at that.” “We have more detailed scholarly accounts today of Husseini’s wartime activities, but Husseini’s C.I.A. file indicates that wartime Allied intelligence organizations gathered a healthy portion of this incriminating evidence,” the report says. “This evidence is significant in light of Husseini’s lenient postwar treatment.” He died in Beirut in 1974. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/12holocaust.html?hp

- K2K

December 13, 2010 at 6:19pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close