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 Desmond Tutu: Above Reproach?

THE PLANK OCTOBER 31, 2007

Desmond Tutu: Above Reproach?

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Marty's post on Desmond Tutu's speech in Boston last week, in which the former Archbishop of Cape Town collectively blamed Jews (ironic, considering how often Israel's critics -- including Tutu -- bash the Jewish state for its supposed "collective punishment" of the Palestinians) for all the miseries of the Arab-Israeli conflict is raising some cackles from Matthew Duss and Ezra Klein of The American Propsect. 

Not surpising for a man of the cloth, Tutu's speech is predicated on his theological expertise. It
consists entirely of an explanation of the Hebrew Bible, replete with chapter and verse, and attempts to show why not
just the State of Israel, but "the Jews" are violating its covenants,
lecturing us all on how "the people of this God were expected to
behave." Tutu makes the point, never expressly but hardly subtle, that "the Jews" are defying their own religion. He also unwittingly slanders the history of the anti-apartheid movement (of which he was himself a crucial part) by comparing it to Palestinian nationalism. The former, while certainly characterized at times by terrorist activity as well as brutality against its own cadres, was never subsumed by the sort of jihadist culture of the PLO and Hamas, nor did it ever call for a South Africa devoid of whites, as opposed to the leading Palestinian nationalist movements which are, and have always been, violently anti-Semitic in philosophy and practice. 

Joel Pollak, a Jewish South African, writes: 

Tutu’s entire sermon is addressed to Jews. Not Israelis, but Jews. The
Jews who would not, could not have come to the church to attend a
meeting on the Jewish Sabbath. The Jews who had been vilified from the
pulpit throughout the conference. It is “the Jews” who must change
their ways. Not once—not once!—during his speech does Tutu call on
Palestinians or “the Muslims” or “the Arabs” or whatever...

Again and again, he exhorts Jews to remember the lessons of the Hebrew
Bible. He uses the second person plural—“you” and “your”—despite the
fact that his audience is almost entirely Christian and Muslims and the
few Jews in the church would not have counted themselves among those he
blames for Israel’s sins. And he accuses Jews of fighting against
God—“your God, our God.” He concludes:“The
world needs the Jews, Jews who are faithful to their vocation that has
meant so much for the world’s morality, of its sense of what is right
and wrong, what is good and bad, what is just and unjust, what is
oppressive and what sets people free. Jews are indispensable for a good
compassionate, just and caring world.“And so are Palestinians.”That’s it—nothing exhorting Palestinians or Arabs in particular
to change their ways, aside from the catch-all “We condemn acts of
terrorism by whoever they are committed.” Jews—not Israelis—are blamed
for the conflict. And only the Jews,
who are described as fighting against God and humanity. There can be no
question of “anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism.” Tutu’s words and intent
are unmistakable.

Duss's and Klein's criticism consists mostly of ad hominem
attacks and a defense of Tutu based primarily, if not entirely, on the
fact that he's...well...Desmond Tutu. Duss promises us more in an "upcoming article related to the event," so all he offers is "the idea that Desmond Tutu, one of the great moral
tutors of our age, a man who has dedicated himself to non-violence and
reconciliation, at real and repeated risk to his own life, would
"threaten" Israel with violence (From the pulpit of a church! With a
characteristic sneer!) simply beggars the imagination."

Desmond Tutu is indeed a man of great stature; his criticism of the African National Congress for its unforgivable policies in support of Robert Mugabe and its AIDS denialism, as well as his calls for African Christians to be more accepting of homosexuality, have been exemplary and courageous. But he's not perfect, and happens to have rather odious views about the Middle East. I feel no amount of intellectual inconsistency embracing him for his honesty on Zimbabwe, AIDS and gays, while simultaneoulsy finding his words about Israel and Jews outrageous. And guess what guys: neither is Nelson Mandela above reproach.

--James Kirchick 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 55 comments

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

55 comments

James, I have news for you.

You work for a batshit crazy bigot who happens to "have rather odious views about the Middle East."  And, quite frankly, I have no particular interest in taking moral lessons from a person such as yourself who is willing to put any moral scruple aside in favor of working for a well-connected bigot like Martin Peretz.

It is notable that although you inserted various links in his blog entry you never, unlike Matthew Duss, linked to Desmond Tutu's speech  (www.fosna.org/.../FullTextOfArchTutuSpeechBostonOct27-2007.pdf). Instead, you would rather scare us with link texts like "terrorist activity" and "brutality." Ooh it must be Halloween.

- ndmackenzie

October 31, 2007 at 7:45pm

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

I find Tutu's statements about "Jews" rather ironic given how much support people of the Hebrew persuasion gave to the anti-apartheid movement.  Most of them voted against the laws when they were first initiated.   Jewish students were highly active in the movement in the seventies and eighties--I personally know one who was banned, and basically had to leave the country.  Jewish involvement goes on and on.

Jews--along with Gays--are the most opportune punching bags.  Nobody gets too riled when they're slandered.  

Oh, and ND?  All that "I'm of Hebrew descent crap"?  Sounds a lot like, "Some of my best friends are Jewish."   Why don't you argue with James on his actual points, instead of attacking Marty-the-biggot-?  Because the point James is making is simple:  Tutu--not even bothering to cloak his anti-semitism in "I'm not attacking Jews, just Israel" garbage.  He's openly admitting he's a Jew-hater.  

- MOLLYSIMON

October 31, 2007 at 9:33pm

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

Wait a minute:  Mandela is odious because he dared criticize the criticism of Kofi Annan in the march up to the Iraq War?  Because he happens to remain friends with the other leaders who, while unelected, reached out to the ANC while the Reagan Administration pursued "Constructive Engagement" over Economic Sanctions?

- Crock1701

October 31, 2007 at 10:39pm

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

Caveat: this post has nothing to do with the Tutu speech, but rather the redesign of the website. I still have no idea why the online editor does not classify certain articles as "web only." As a subscriber, I do not read the articles online that will apper in print form (Otherwise, I would just have an online subcription.) I understand that I'm not the first to raise this complaint, but I hope it it taken seriously. Without the clarification, I now tend not to read the daily posted articles, waiting for them to appear in print. This decision on the part of the editors is having a real effect on online readership.

- kalin24

October 31, 2007 at 10:41pm

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

I just read Desmond Tutu's speech and didn't find anything anti-semitic.  Yes, he is highly critical of Israel's policies vis a vis the Palestinians, yes he compares the Israeli-Palestinian situation to apartheid casting Israelis as the whites and Palestinians as the blacks.  And yes, he calls upon Jewish people to unite to change Israel's policies.  But none of that adds up to anti-semitism.  You can disagree with some of his conclusions but, frankly, I think its slanderous to call him an anti-semite on the basis of this speech.  

- seanwright

October 31, 2007 at 11:05pm

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

Crock: "while unelected"

That's a great way to gloss over the atrocities committed by Fidel Castro, Muammar Quadaffi and Yasser Arafat (all "comrades" of Mandela)!

But I'm glad you inserted that caveat.

- James Kirchick

November 1, 2007 at 2:17am

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

James - I noticed neither you or Marty linked to the actual speech and instead we have to rely on one of your posters to provide same.

That's really shoddy. If you are going to accuse someone of being a Jew hater then at least have the decency to link to the speech.

Maybe I'm expecting too much from TNR on this or anything to do with Israel.

- The Ignorant Populist

November 1, 2007 at 7:49am

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

Populist,

The first mistake you made was assuming that James and Marty are journalist. They are not. They use this magazine to grind axes and attack enemies, real or imagined. Their continued presence here is an embarrassment to TNR. It needs to be rectified by the editors or they should concede that this magazine is a vanity project for Marty and abandon any pretense of journalism.

- mpatrickhendri

November 1, 2007 at 8:22am

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

That Tutu's views of Jews appeals to antisemites like mackenzie is all we need to know about their real meaning.

mpatrickhendri on the other hand spends all his time here defending a clown like Tutu without ever addressing his views about Jews.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 9:17am

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

mpatrickhendri said:  "The first mistake you made was assuming that James and Marty are journalist. They are not. "

Really?  Is being "a journalist" a prerequisite for addressing socio political issues? If so, what are your qualifications, patrick? What are Tutu's qualifications, or do you think that being a "divine" gives one omniscient insight into world politics?

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 9:25am

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

The Ignorant Populist said: "James - I noticed neither you or Marty linked to the actual speech and instead we have to rely on one of your posters to provide same."

"Ignorant" is really an appropriate ID for this idiiot. It also telling that the Jew hating mackenzie made the same point.

There is a link to the Tutu's speech in Joel Pollak's comments about them.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 9:31am

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

Just wondering: Did the Plank really need Kirchick to add a post here telling us just how awesome and right his boss happens to be over in the Spine? I mean, when Labash or Continetti write articles about how smart and brave Bill Kristol is, we have a name for that practice: brown-nosing.

If Marty's post is so keen and important, then nothing any of his employees writes will add anything to it. Better just to link to Marty's post and say, "Read this, it's good." Otherwise, this post is nothing more than suck-up me-tooism of the worst kind. It should have no place behind the scenes in a non-dysfunctional office full of grown-ups, and it certainly ought not find its way into print. If we want to read juvenile sycophantery of this sort, we can read <i>The Weekly Standard</i>'s website.

(Also, in this day and age, commenting on a speech in a blog entry without linking to the speech's text, if available, is not merely bad form. It's dishonest. A quality publication like TNR ought to have some minimal editorial standards for its online presentation, such as linking to primary sources or not linking at all. Again, this is the kind of thing one expects to see at <i>The Weekly Standard</i>, or in a Kirchick post, but not otherwise at TNR.)

- rhubarbs

November 1, 2007 at 9:46am

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

Rhubarbs said: "Also, in this day and age, commenting on a speech in a blog entry without linking to the speech's text, if available, is not merely bad form. It's dishonest."

Here is another idiot.

There is a link to the speech in the post.  Your comments are another expression of a lazy poster who can't be bothered to read the material offered before they start condemning the commenter.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 9:59am

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

The linked to transcript of the speech does not appear to contain the passage quoted in the Boston Globe regarding remembering Egypt and Germany.  The linked to speech is not objectionable from a Christian theological perspective.  And it's pretty clearly intended to written in the old prophetic style, which is the whole context, and that style consistently reminded the Hebrews of the great things Yahweh had done for them and to recall that.   I think his points are sound from a clergyman.  They may be incomplete from a Niebuhrian Christian realism perspective, but that does not appear to be what he was striving for  

- gator27

November 1, 2007 at 10:08am

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

Tutu's speech uses traditional Christian supercessionists views of Jews which in themselves are antisemitic:

www.boston.com/.../102907speechtext.pdf

For example, and this is just for starters, in the preamble Tutu calls himself a "spiritual Hebrew." This phrase has been used by Christian supercessionists since the beginning of Christianity in order to justify their view that they and not the Jews are the true Israel.

Then there is the tone of the speech in which the “great Tutu” is out to tell the Jews about the true meaning of their religion.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 10:16am

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

Jackson,

I never defended Tutu, though it seems that the criticism was basically unfounded. Surprise, surprise. And yes, I believe that being a journalist should be a basic requirement for writing on TNR. This is not dailykos.

Putting that aside, I would like point out that you are the nastiest little person to regularly post on talkback. Such a tough guy, too. Here's a suggestion: try carrying a point without calling someone an idiot or anti-semite. It would be a nice change of pace.

- mpatrickhendri

November 1, 2007 at 10:17am

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

I wouldn't hold my breath Pat. Best ignoring obnoxious Jack. He lives off reasonnalble responses. They just give him another excuse to start ranting and throwing around insults. New site Pat, let's not ruin it by feeding Jack.

- The Ignorant Populist

November 1, 2007 at 10:30am

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

Per Marty's Post: "With his characteristic sneer he actually threatened Israel -- and not just the State but the whole People. 'Remembering what happened to you in Egypt and much more recently in Germany -- remember and act accordingly.'"

My reading of the speech text and multiple reading of the paragraph with this quote lead me to believe that this is not a threat.  Rather, Tutu is calling on Jews to remember their history of being oppressed and not in turn become oppressors.

That said, Tutu's speech was entirely one-sided.  It lacked any calls for Palestinians to stop suicide bombings and other terrorist acts, recognize Israel's right to exist, and make the most of existing and on-going opportunities for self-government.

- davidsmith192

November 1, 2007 at 10:46am

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

I just emailed a fellow talkbacker, wondering - wishing perhaps - that tnr and Kirchick had parted company.  He hasn't been on the boards for a few weeks.  False hope..

Actually, I thought that given Kirchick's hysterical oeuvre, this piece - an obvious sop to his mentor btw - was an attempt to be somewhat even handed.  No one is beyond reproach and Kirchick, irrespective of his fealty to his North Star, handled this well in that last paragraph. The wording of Tutu's admonitions towards the failings of "Jews" is, in my view, open to criticism and critique.

The real concern is Kirchick's - and Marty's for that matter - frequent capacity to misread or misrepresent the words of others. Is this purposeful?  One must wonder, especially if it happens frequently.  I just do not trust Kirchick to objectively represent the words of anyone, especially someone who is on his Dark Lord's long list of bete noires.  This is a very bad habit for any journalist but since Kirchick is obviously learning bad habits from bad mentors, I am not surprised.

- MrCookie1

November 1, 2007 at 11:01am

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

mpatrickhendri said: "I never defended Tutu, though it seems that the criticism was basically unfounded."

Excuse me, but you have defended Tutu in the past. Besides the criticism leveled at him far "from being unfounded" is right on target. The man is an antisemite and if you can't see that it's because you are ignorant about the nature of antisemitism.

"Surprise, surprise. And yes, I believe that being a journalist should be a basic requirement for writing on TNR. This is not dailykos."

Why only at TNR? Why not apply the same standard to anyone writing on socio political issues?

In nay case Peretz and KIrchik are much better informed on Middle East issues than is that clown Tutu.

Finally, I couldn't care less what you think of me Patrick.  I find your defense of antisemites like Desmond Tutu as nasty as anyting confirmed antisemites like mackenzie post here.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 11:16am

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

I agree David Smith that Tutu's speech was one sided, however you comment that:

"My reading of the speech text and multiple reading of the paragraph with this quote lead me to believe that this is not a threat.  Rather, Tutu is calling on Jews to remember their history of being oppressed and not in turn become oppressors."

is wrong headed in as much as Tutu is speaking in a tradition of Christian condescension towards Jews.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 11:20am

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

mrcookie1 said: "I just emailed a fellow talkbacker, wondering - wishing perhaps - that tnr and Kirchick had parted company.  He hasn't been on the boards for a few weeks.  False hope.."

I was hoping the same about you, Cookie.

Haven't seen you here in a while and was hoping that you finally abandoned this place and went over to web sites more to your taste like The Nation.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 11:22am

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

Let's not turn this into the Spine, boys...

Overall, I think James made an interesting point about famous heroic people.  What is that Orwell trope (in his essay about Ghandi, I believe)?  Always judge a saint guilty until proven otherwise.  Something like that.   Everyone has their flaws, their grinded axes, their blind spots (except me, a paragon of Justice and truth).   I think overall the point is interesting.

It is just frustrating because it seems like James himself has the biggest axe.   I think we need to do him- and us- a favor, and read his posts and pretend they are by someone else.  We all have an idea of the fellow, and it would be better to kind of drop some Rawlsian veil here and see how we would read it were it not James.

Rawls!  Where is TD to attack the very name?

- boneill

November 1, 2007 at 11:34am

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

boneill said: "It is just frustrating because it seems like James himself has the biggest axe."

What exactly is his axe, Neill?  Is that he goes after antisemites like Tutu who justify themselves by posing as defenders of the Palestinian Arabs?

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 11:42am

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

Nice to ignore the substance of my point, Jaimie.  Are these countries guilty of heinous human rights violations?  You bet!  Was the apartheid regime, tacitly supported by Ronald Reagan's policies of "Constructive Engagement?"  You bet!  Faced with a choice between human rights abusers who helped the ANC and human rights abusers who didn't, who do you think Mandela and the ANC will show sympathy towards?  Honestly, it's nice to get lectured on Human Rights by someone who likely, had he been more than a toddler in the 1980s, would be too busy crusading against the Boland Amendment's hindrance of US Communist fighting to care much about Apartheid.  Rather, as usual, Human Rights are only a convenient crutch to Kirchick and Peretz, useful when criticizing their personal international dislikes and inconvenient trifles when absolving their friends.  

- Crock1701

November 1, 2007 at 11:43am

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

I didn't read his speech as supercessionist, replacement theology etc.  That's Ann Coulter, terrotory.  I think he just tried to speak in the prophetic voice.  I think a more valid criticism of his address is that it is somewhat at odds with Christian realism, in that it Israel faces a struggle to jsut survive.  But I thought his speech was fairly directed to the specific immoral parctices like group punishments, etc.  

- gator27

November 1, 2007 at 12:00pm

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

Jackson- pretty mcuh his axe is to prove that his is smarter than all the other wooly-headed liberals who ignore things that he sees.   Nothing wrong with this- I did the same thing when I was a younger man.   And I think it is often important.  It is a good thing to attack false idols.  I honestly just grow tired of his hobby-horses- Tutu, Carter, Annan.    You can justify them as targets, and I would agree with you to varying degrees, but it grows tiresome.   I thought his last paragraph was excellent.  He should learn to do more of that, and not be so damn strident all the time.  

- boneill

November 1, 2007 at 12:06pm

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

Crock1701 said:  " Honestly, it's nice to get lectured on Human Rights by someone who likely, had he been more than a toddler in the 1980s, would be too busy crusading against the Boland Amendment's hindrance of US Communist fighting to care much about Apartheid."

Crock is a prophet who not only predicts the future but can read the future into the past.

Please, share with us your inverted clairvoyance abilities, Crock.

While you are at it you can also tell us how you would have behaved during the time when Lenin instituted the dictatorship of the proletariat?

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 12:07pm

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

gator27 said: "I didn't read his speech as supercessionist, replacement theology etc.  That's Ann Coulter, terrotory. "

Well it's all there if you care to see it. The only difference between Tutu and Coulter is that the former is sophisticated enough to hide his supercessionist views behind a mirage of "good advice to my Jewish friends."

Both them, though, pretend to know more about how Jews should behave than do the Jews themselves. The other major difference is that Coulter goes after  Jews who "veer left," while Tutu goes after  Jews who "veer right."

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 12:12pm

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

boneill said: "Jackson- pretty mcuh his axe is to prove that his is smarter than all the other wooly-headed liberals who ignore things that he sees.   Nothing wrong with this- I did the same thing when I was a younger man."

I see it's personal. Nothing wrong with that, Neill.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 12:29pm

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

jacksondyer,

The world is not as you see it.  I think you are opining about matters you don't understand

- gator27

November 1, 2007 at 12:44pm

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

Amusingly, if you follow the link from his comment upthread to James Kirchick's profile (blogs.tnr.com/.../Profile.aspx) and then look at his recent posts you will see him credited with three Martin Peretz posts on The Spine. This should be gravy to the "Kirchick is really Peretz" conspirators among us.

However, anyone interested in what this callow, or is it callous, youth looks like can see him in a blogging heads thriller at:

bloggingheads.tv/video.php. Or, just maybe it is not a callow youth at all but Martin Peretz in a wig.

- ndmackenzie

November 1, 2007 at 12:48pm

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

gator27 said:  "jacksondyer, The world is not as you see it.  I think you are opining about matters you don't understand."

I can say the same about you, gator.

Try spelling out what it is that only an upstanding Christian like you  can understands and  which is beyond the ken of a Jew like me.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 12:51pm

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

another nasty post by nazi ndmackenzie.

I prefer a callow your to and old bigoted bitch like you.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 12:52pm

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

My post should have read:

another nasty post by nazi ndmackenzie.

I prefer a callow youth to and old bigoted bitch like you.

Interesting that mackenzie was crowing  her lips over "callow Jewish youths" like Ezra Klein and Yglesias whom she took to represent the future.

Stumbling over Kirchik and the callow youths at Jewcy.com made her eat crow.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 1:11pm

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

Jackson,

Do me a favor, don't respond to my posts. Just let the urge pass. You're mentally ill, I'm fairly certain, and I don't want to contribute in any way to your deteriorating state of mind

- mpatrickhendri

November 1, 2007 at 1:13pm

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

jackson,

Glad you missed me.  I have been very very busy with lots of things and posting on talkback has become, in the words of a wiser talk backer, a bit of a luxury I can ill afford right now.

Also, to be honest, since they nixed the avatars - the only really interesting part of the new new - this new format is too small and diffuse for me.  I don't want to claim the mantle of good luispc but this may be a case where form does trump function...

The real problem with Kirchick - other than his predilection to echo Marty - is that he is untrustworthy. If I were in the middle of a blizzard, and Kirchick said it was snowing, I would still go outside to make sure of it myself....he does not inspire trust.  I can take the bizarre alchemy of liberal sexual politics mixed with neo neo conservatism, and, given his youth, I can understand the fealty to mentors, but he needs to be honest and trustworthy, especially when representing the words of those he criticizes.  He needs some work with that.

- MrCookie1

November 1, 2007 at 1:52pm

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

mrcookie1 said:  "The real problem with Kirchick - other than his predilection to echo Marty - is that he is untrustworthy. If I were in the middle of a blizzard, and Kirchick said it was snowing, I would still go outside to make sure of it myself....he does not inspire trust. "

I don't know Kirchick well enough to know if he is or is not trustworthy.  I also don't know if he is a neocon. I would guess that he is more of a neo liberal than a neo conservative, but I haven't read enough of his output to be able to say one way or another.

I do know, though, that many people here hate him because he is a dyed in the wool anti-communist.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 2:25pm

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

mpatrickhendri said:  "Jackson, Do me a favor, don't respond to my posts. Just let the urge pass. You're mentally ill, I'm fairly certain, and I don't want to contribute in any way to your deteriorating state of mind."

Do me a favor and don't post in a public forum if you don't want to be responded to. Only a nut case like you would mount a soap box and not expect to be answered.  You speak about an issue I care about and I will answer you, clown!

Here is a clue, mpatrickhendri ,you may be a clown but you are not a privileged clown like Tutu who makes speeches to the choir and hates it when anyone questions his pretensions to sainthood.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 2:30pm

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

mpatrickhendri said:  "Jackson, Do me a favor, don't respond to my posts. Just let the urge pass. You're mentally ill, I'm fairly certain, and I don't want to contribute in any way to your deteriorating state of mind."

Do me a favor and don't post in a public forum if you don't want to be responded to. Only a nut case like you would mount a soap box and not expect to be answered.  You speak about an issue I care about and I will answer you, clown!

Here is a clue, mpatrickhendri ,you may be a clown but you are not a privileged clown like Tutu who makes speeches to the choir and hates it when anyone questions his pretensions to sainthood.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 2:31pm

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

Jack, I don't hate that he's a died in the wool anti-communist.  I'm utterly disappointed in his ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.  I find him and Marty utterly shameful in their selective use of basic human principles only as it fits their assault on various fetishes of distaste they have. I further find him to be an entirely two note contributor whose work does not find itself anywhere near the level of his compatriots on this blog.

His anti-Communism would be a real controversial point if communism was, you know, relevant to any conversation after 1989.  I find it amusing that the same one who cites Kirchick's strident anti-Communism is skeptical that, in the 1980s, Jamie would be more interested in attacking the Boland Amendment (ie strident anti-Communism)  than human rights.  Perhaps interacting and observing Mr. Kirchick for two years up close and in person at the Campus' largest collection of hot air in one room might give me some indication as to his priorities, hmm?  All things being equal, I would rather not be lectured on fighting for Human Rights in Cuba from a dilitante pundit 24 hours after  gathering some 200+ signatures urging the release of dissidents in Cuba, such as journalist Pablo Pacheco Avila.

- Crock1701

November 1, 2007 at 2:56pm

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

Crock1701 said: "Jack, I don't hate that he's a died in the wool anti-communist.  I'm utterly disappointed in his ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.  I find him and Marty utterly shameful in their selective use of basic human principles only as it fits their assault on various fetishes of distaste they have. I further find him to be an entirely two note contributor whose work does not find itself anywhere near the level of his compatriots on this blog."

Your attack is so general, it's hard to answer. You have every right not to like Kirchik or Peretz, but why then do you waste your time on their blogs?

As for his anticommunism not being relevant after 1989, I strongly disagree.

We should at some point have an honest and open discussion about this somewhere, though I am not sure this is the place for it.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 3:12pm

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

In a comment on this blog posting Eric Alterman writes of James Kirchick:

" I feel like God, in his infinite wisdom, has given the world a controlled experiment in who Marty Peretz would be if he hadn't divorced his first wealthy wife, married a second, and far wealthier wife, whose family funds allowed him to buy America's most important liberal magazine and proceed to destroy much (but not all) of its values with the myriad manifestations of his own personal neuroses."

(mediamatters.org/altercation)

- ndmackenzie

November 1, 2007 at 3:17pm

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

Eric Alterman own blog drips with resentment towards Marty Peretz.  

the bigot mackenzie spends her time searches the internet for anti Peretz posts.  What a loser she is.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 3:40pm

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

I just read Alerman's little temper tantrum of a post and his endorsement of Tutu is laughable. Alterman knows about as much about the history of anti-Jewish polemics within Christianity as I about Communist  Chinese anti-Buddhist polemics; probably less.

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 3:46pm

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

The label antisemite is used too often as an all-purpose smear in place of a reasoned defense. But when Tutu implies that "it's all the Jews' fault," as he does here, the label applies.  It's a simple matter of definition.  If Peretz the liberal doesn't counter the prevailing liberal line that Israel can and should fix all the Palestinian's problems (and redress all their grievances), who will?  Who should?  It doesn't make him a bigot, a racist, an antihamite, to point out that the Palestinians have either created their own problems or ill-advisedly refused help.

- bondf

November 1, 2007 at 4:55pm

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

"But when Tutu implies that "it's all the Jews' fault," as he does here, the label applies.  It's a simple matter of definition.  If Peretz the liberal doesn't counter the prevailing liberal line that Israel can and should fix all the Palestinian's problems (and redress all their grievances), who will?"

Exaclty, bondf.

I wouldn’t mind so much if the so called liberal bloggers (those who set themselves up as the defenders of liberalism) like Alterman were making a real argument in defense of Tutu or countering Kirchick’s view with a detailed analysis.

All we get from Alterman and company is series of ad hominem attacks on Peretz and Kirchick. Alterman, for one is obsessed with Peretz’ marriages as if that were an argument against his views. Besides, his attacks on Peretz’ marriages are condescending to women. He writes as if women were just there, passive objects waiting to be taken. Alterman brings this up every time he mentions Peretz.  

Alterman’s other argument was that “he was there.” He heard Tutu speak and ergo Tutu could not be an antisemite. The very words that he says Tutu uttered shows that the opposite is the case. However, for him to know that Alterman would have to something about Judaism and especially about Christian supercessionism which he obviously doesn’t.

Alterman is an empty suit.  

- jacksondyer

November 1, 2007 at 5:43pm

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

bondf: "antihamite"?  WTF? Last time I checked, Africans weren't all that fond of being called "hamitic" people!

- seanwright

November 1, 2007 at 6:39pm

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

For those defending Tutu for speaking in the prophetic voice: Tutu misses a critical part of the "Old" Testament who claims to speak from.  In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Torah exhorts judges, <i>lo tehdar p'nei dal</i> do not show favoratism to the weak.  As other passages in the Torah, and particularly the prophets show, this does not mean that justice should be denied to the poor.  However, it does mean that the judge should not side with the weaker side just because he could use the court's help if the facts of the case do not warrant it.  That is exactly what Tutu is finding fault with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians without any consideration for the reasons for those actions or concern about finding alternative actions that would achieve Israel's objectives with less harm to the Palestinians.

- sighthnd

November 1, 2007 at 9:08pm

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

So I see that, in their infinite wisdom, the TNR editors have chosen to feature this piece prominently on the main page, with the helpful link asking the question "Is Desmond Tutu anti-Semitic"?

Charming.  Classy.  Keep up the good work, boys.

- drdannyu

November 2, 2007 at 1:46pm

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

"Is Desmond Tutu anti-Semitic"?

There are only two possible forms of a sentence in TNR containing a name, say "Winston Smith", and the word "anti-Semitic."

1) Is Winston Smith anti-Semitic?

2) Winston Smith is anti-Semitic.

The rest of us know that there is, in fact, another formulation of these words, namely:

3) Winston Smith is not anti-Semitic.

We can look to the genius of George Orwell for an explanation of why the third, truthfull, formulation can never appear in TNR.

"It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink."

- ndmackenzie

November 2, 2007 at 2:05pm

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

Dan - I agree, incomprehensible. As for the title? I'm lost for words.

Anybody who even mentions the "O" word is branded an AS.

Marty and James are doing real damage to this magazine.

Talk about a blind spot.

- The Ignorant Populist

November 2, 2007 at 4:22pm

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

Drdannyu -- just curious. Have you read Tutu's full speech? It's well beyond offensive -- and it's blatantly antisemitic in its use of the Torah against Israel's self-defense measures -- measures the so-called "palestinians" and their Arab brethren in the 22 or so Arab countries surrounding Israel have forced it to take.

ndmackenzie -- let's continue the exercise in logic: what 2 words don't belong i-on the same planet? Easy -- nedmackenzie and truthful.

- LISAH

November 2, 2007 at 4:39pm

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

LISAH --- so-called "palestinians"

So-called?? You have a fair distance to travel to get past your overt bigotry, LISAH.

- ndmackenzie

November 2, 2007 at 5:20pm

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

No, bigot ndmackenzie -- it's a statement of fact...Learn some accurate history and demography, bigot ndmackenzie, and stop falunting your deliberate ignorance.  

- LISAH

November 2, 2007 at 6:14pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close