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 “Waiting On A Sun King”

THE SPINE APRIL 1, 2010

“Waiting On A Sun King”

BY MARTIN PERETZ

This is not my characterization of Barack Obama. It is the FT’s. And it is not exactly meant to evoke admiration. Now, the truth is that the Financial Times as an institution is quite sympathetic to most of Obama’s foreign policy tropes and positively dizzy about his views on Israel and the Palestinians. But Edward Luce and Daniel Dombey, who wrote their assessment on the highly respected daily “analysis” page, fully grasp that the president has nothing very much to show for all his own diligence and attention to detail. The real point of the appraisal--more gently expressed, to be sure--is that his judgments are not really wise.

Yes, of course, he has advisers. And, no, Hillary Clinton is not one of them. But that’s for our own information. It’s not her wisdom that’s lacking. There is the Chicago crowd, to which outsiders try to get themselves attached. There is a usual in-group which socializes together and maybe discusses what to say to the president. Though probably he asks first and then either does or does not listen.

Luce and Dombey cite an authoritative official: “If you were to ask me who the real national security adviser is, I would say there were three or four, of whom Rahm is one and of which Gen. Jones is probably the least important.” None of them is a Kissinger. But, thank God, none of them is an Albright either.

Still, there is, the reporters tell us, only 45 minutes a day for foreign policy. This is not much time. Since Obama dithers (take the 90 days-long decision on troops to Afghanistan), he’d better have good advice over which to dither.

But the problem may be that he doesn’t like advice at all. This is the meaning of the “sun king” metaphor. Indeed, he has strong instincts. Yet he does not know much about the countries and regions about which he offers obiter dicta,which he turns into orders.

Leslie Gelb, one of our wise senior diplomats and senior diplomatic commentators, poses this query: “The question is which bright spark advised the president to demand a settlement freeze without working out what the next step should be when Netanyahu inevitably said ‘No’?” Well, it was no bright spark but Barack Obama. And he is now stuck.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 108 comments

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

108 comments

I thought Luce and Dombey used "Sun King" because of the apparent centralization of foreign policy decision-making, 'all roads lead to the Oval Office', and their struggle with finding themselves writing a critique of the 'rigorous process' that may not match the fawnings of other publications. As to Gelb's question, it would appear that someone probably did ask it, but, for reasons we still do not comprehend, the Sun King wanted a "Netanyahu no"??? Today as if to confuse everyone who read Luce and Dombey?), Hillary writes in The TimesUK "...Advancing women’s equality is at the heart of the foreign policy of the United States. ..." ROTFL.

- K2K

April 1, 2010 at 4:43pm

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

The Sun King: "Louis XIV of France ranks as one of the most remarkable monarchs in history. He reigned for 72 years, 54 of them he personally controlled French government. The 17th century is labeled as the age of Louis XIV. Since then his rule has been hailed as the supreme example of a type of government - absolutism. He epitomized the ideal of kingship. During his reign France stabilized and became one of the strongest powers in Europe. During his reign France became the ideal culture since he put great care into its enhancement so he could boast it to the world. The country changed drastically from savage mediaeval ways to a more refined, exquisite living - evident from his palace in Versailles. Within 54 years he did what several kings worked on for centuries. French culture became one of the most appealing in the world, and the name Louis XIV has been associated with greatness and glory. Louis XIV was a great monarch, and he was capable of maintaining strong kingdom because he never, in his entire life, doubted his right to be king. " http://www.louis-xiv.de/

- noga1

April 1, 2010 at 6:31pm

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

Versailles was just Camp David with mirrors. Get some perspective, people!

- ironyroad

April 1, 2010 at 7:38pm

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

Update on PBS NewsHour: Citing Luce/Dombey article, the big question was put to General Jim Jones whether his departure from the WH is true. Jones was fumbled a bit about "serving at the pleasure...". So, what DOES the NSAdvisor actually read these days? Maybe Jones is trying to explain to the Sun King* (will that stick?) how to understand the morphing of the 1947 Truman Doctrine into the 1980 Carter Doctrine, from Andrew Bacevich's blog at worldaffairsjournal.org: "...In 1947, President Truman announced that it was “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” ...Carter’s immediate aim in January 1980 was also limited. When he declared that "an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” to be “repelled by any means necessary,” " Brings back my question as to what exactly ARE those American interests that Israel is deemed to be thwarting? *interesting URL, a legacy maybe not so desirable today?: absolute monarchy, aggressive wars to expand territory, religious intolerance (losing the Huguenots was a big blow to the French economy and a boon to England, Flanders, and the American colonies); but, of course, really fine architecture and food. Happy Good Friday everyone!

- K2K

April 1, 2010 at 7:57pm

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

ironyroad: why not read the FT article, and comment on that? They used Sun King in the title, not noga or me.

- K2K

April 1, 2010 at 8:45pm

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

"Brings back my question as to what exactly ARE those American interests that Israel is deemed to be thwarting?" If there is a strategic decision in this administration to cut Israel lose, then they should just come out and say so, explicitly. Instead what we get is a campaign of whispers, humiliations and feigned outrages at imaginary grievous insults to American honour. If American interests lie with Arabs against Israel, then Obama should have the guts of his convictions to declare a sea change. What are they afraid of? Looking around I don't see too many American Jews too much exercised over this. They are die-hard Democrats and affiliation with and support for Israel no longer carry the glamorous dividends of the 6-day war. Too much of their own interests to invest and too low returns on those investments. Jews, when they are a minority, can be morally exhausted by an on-going campaign of attrition: Mearsheimer&Walt, former presidents writing slanderous books, skewed UN reports, apartheid weeks in campuses, presidential omissions and commissions, and the list goes on. What minority of no more than 2% of the population can withstand the daily onslaught? The constant need to explain, to justify, to defend against slander, to fight for what is granted freely to others? History shows us that it is possible to wear down the collective Jewish consciousness and will to identity into self-efacement and hunkering down. There is a effort to wear down Jewish will to support Israel. It will succeed.

- noga1

April 1, 2010 at 9:18pm

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

K2K: "why not read the FT article, and comment on that? They used Sun King in the title, not noga or me." Time -- I had to get something in as an online proposal tonight. And I know you didn't. It was just a joke, which I thought was obvious.

- ironyroad

April 1, 2010 at 10:53pm

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

As usual, another disingenuous post from Marty. Nothing here but pure babble, as roi might put it.

- scrubby

April 2, 2010 at 12:02am

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

"Louis XIV .... never, in his entire life, doubted his right to be king. " As I clear away the cobwebs surrounding my memories of high school world history, I seem to remember that this was known as "The Divine right of kings". I guess Chris Mathews & Co. knew of what they spoke when they deified Obama a year ago. A happy & kosher Passover to all for whom it is relevant. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

April 2, 2010 at 5:19am

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

irony, so quick to assume. FWIW, my browser history can prove that I read this FT article on Monday, and again before commenting on this post. noga, Obama has not yet decided to "cut Israel loose", but he is playing to the anti-Iraq war base who seem to blame the "Zionist-AIPAC-Israel conspiracy" for Iraq (based on what they blahg about). Plus, Obama bullies Netanyahu, because he thinks he can. Congressional support (FWIW) is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. Must be that Truman Doctrine. The myth that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama is based solely on some polling, not actual voter data. He did not get even 50% of New York's Jewish voters, who are 13% of NY voters.

- K2K

April 2, 2010 at 7:24am

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

The following summary was published on Normblog by one of Norm Geras' readers. I think it succinctly and clearly brings together all the elements that we have noted about Obama's policies towards Israel" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/04/obama-israel-and-the-settlements.html "Now, a real concern exists that the White House has freed the Palestinians from any requirement that they participate in the direct, unconditional talks which the Israelis support and which appear to be the President's aim. The Palestinians know that, given the current White House tilt, they will be absolved from making meaningful compromises. The President, as he prepares for Indonesia, will not want to look like he is being tough on the Palestinians. As a sports fan, you know that after the referee makes an incorrect call, the following call is deemed a 'make-up' by many fans. Obama's main goal in the Mideast has been to be the non-Bush, and rather than be a neutral arbiter, he thinks it is in America's interest to make up for Bush's blunders in the Israel-Palestine arena."

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 9:10am

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

it's possible, just possible, that it's in America's interest, not to choose "Arabs against Israel" but for Israel to make at least nominal efforts toward a resolution with the Palestinians. I know that such efforts have been made in the past, and I know that a great deal of fault lies with the Palestinian side, but that doesn't change America's interest at all. I suspect America would prefer to support Israel materially and politically, but the current approach of Bibi makes this harder to do.

- miceelf

April 2, 2010 at 10:11am

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

"FWIW, my browser history can prove that I read this FT article on Monday" Good for you, K2K! Only, why are you telling me this? I never said you didn't. Neither did I say anything about Obama, Israel, Truman, Congressional support, Jewish voters in NY, or Good Fridays. Indeed the one and only contribution I made to this post was a not very memorable joke about Versailles and Camp David and mirrors. Are you sure you're not getting confused and responding to yourself?

- ironyroad

April 2, 2010 at 10:22am

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

ironyroad 10:53pmEDT: K2K: "why not read the FT article, and comment on that? They used Sun King in the title, not noga or me." Time -- I had to get something in as an online proposal tonight. And I know you didn't. It was just a joke, which I thought was obvious.

- K2K

April 2, 2010 at 10:31am

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

I'm bemused how these two ideas can co-exist in the same declaration: 1."but for Israel to make at least nominal efforts toward a resolution with the Palestinians." 2. " I know that such efforts have been made in the past, and I know that a great deal of fault lies with the Palestinian side," About those past efforts: Ben Dror Yemini, (in Hebrew): "During the former Israeli administration, negotiations with the Palestinians took place on two levels: Between Olmert and Abu-Mazen, and on a more in-depth level, between Tzipi Livni and Abu-Ala, with sad results. Abu Mazen rejected Olmert’s far-reaching proposal, which included the partitioning of Jerusalem and a symbolic Right of Return. Abu Mazen insisted on mass return of the refugees. That was the reason why Abu Mazen discarded the proposal and not, as trumpeted, due to Olmert’s waning days as Prime Minister. Abu Mazen said so himself, in his own voice. No need for punditry here. In the parallel level there was some progress. The Palestinian side understood that there would be no withdrawal from Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, or Givat Zeev. There were other points of dispute. But there were also interim agreements that should not be underestimated. Those agreements, though unfinished, were supposed to mean something. In every future negotiation, the negotiating parties are well aware of what has already been accomplished. This is the reason why the Palestinians, Europe, and the American administration demanded a building freeze in the West Bank and in the Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, but they never fixed on Jewish neighbourhoods such as Gilo or Ramat Shlomo. There was a silent consensus about it." http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/088/064.html

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 10:55am

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

So . . . you can cut and paste a smartly as anyone, K2K. However, as what you copied doesn't say anything about you except agree that you didn't use the "Sun King" motif, I'm still at sea as to what's at issue here.

- ironyroad

April 2, 2010 at 11:08am

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

Noga. not sure what the discrepancy is. 1 is about the current situation. 2 is about the past, as regards any putative discrepancy with 1.

- miceelf

April 2, 2010 at 11:12am

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

Ginzy, it appears that the primary difference between divine rule for Louis XIV and for Obama is that, in the former case he thought his rights came directly from God and in the latter case those rights are apparently coming from Chris Matthews. I'm not sure where Chris Matthews is deified (perhaps the CNBC studios), but I would safely presume he has fewer adherents than God. In fact, he didn't think he even had enough adherents among the registered voters of Pennsylvania to run for Senate against Arlen Specter. A happy and kosher Passover to you too (and, presumably, one that would allow you to go back to eating chometz on Monday night).

- wildboy

April 2, 2010 at 11:40am

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

If you don't see the discrepancy between: For Israel "to make at least nominal efforts toward a resolution with the Palestinians." And "such efforts have been made in the past, and I know that a great deal of fault lies with the Palestinian side," then I cannot help you.

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 11:43am

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

Noga, if you don't understand the distinction between the present and the past, then you're right- we're at an impasse.. Would it help if I had said "to be making current nominal efforts"? I realize that clunks up the language, for precious little gain in precision. but I didn't think it would be necessary. (sigh)

- miceelf

April 2, 2010 at 12:00pm

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

OK. tell me then what "nominal efforts" can Israel make that it has not already made in reality? Let me repeat from my quote above: "Abu Mazen rejected Olmert’s far-reaching proposal, which included the partitioning of Jerusalem and a symbolic Right of Return.... In the parallel level there was some progress. The Palestinian side understood that there would be no withdrawal from Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, or Givat Zeev." Do you think that Israel should "nominally" agree to Obama's decree that Jews will not be allowed to live in Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, or Givat Zeev?

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 12:41pm

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

Decree? come on, be serious. In any case, my understanding was that the issue was new building.

- miceelf

April 2, 2010 at 12:46pm

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

I was using the term sarcastically. That is, I looked at the underlying premise to the "insult to American honour" and tried to imagine what it meant in pragmatic terms. And in pragmatic terms, that's what it was, a "decree". Of course you can say that Obama cannot really dictate to Israel where Jews will live in its own capital. But there seems to be an attempt at coercive persuasion, which is not at all seemly among friendly nations. I don't know what your understanding is but the "new building" is of 1600 apartments in a Jewish neighbourhood in Jerusalem that has been there for the last twenty years, within a cluster of other Jewish neigbourhoods which have been there for the last 40+ years. As one Israeli journalists put it: "Whoever insists on withdrawal from the Jewish neighbourhoods is not pleading for peace. Even the greatest devotees of the peace process understand that such a demand from Israel is like demanding that Americans withdraw from Washington in favour, let’s say, of the native Pistacaway Nacotchtank who lived in the Potomac valley, where now Washington D.C. is located."

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 1:15pm

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

Here is a comment on Obama's policies that is pretty close to my own views: "Obama, Israel and the settlements" "While the settlement 'project' has caused great problems for the Palestinians and Israelis, the criticism of President Obama is well-founded for several reasons. The problem is that many observers of the Mideast, including the President, appear to date history from Israel's latest error. Hence, there is no criticism from the White House - and criticism from few others for that matter - of the failure of the Palestinians to accept the Barak offer at Taba, or the Olmert offer in 2008, offers which contradict in large part the claim that Israel is expansionist. Nor is there any sympathy from Israel's critics about the murderous response to Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza. The sad fact is that unlike the vast majority of Israelis, and even parts of the current government (who have reiterated their acceptance of a Palestinian State alongside a majority Jewish Israel), not a single Palestinian leader has stated that he or she accepts Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; every Palestinian 'acceptance' of a two-state solution includes the demand for a full right of return. The West says, of course the Palestinians know that is silly; yet nonetheless, no Western leader has the courage to state publicly to the Palestinians that they must accept the existence of a Jewish state. The President's approach has made absolutely no demands on the Palestinians. Abbas just promoted the leader of a terrorist cell, who is now in an Israeli prison, to the rank of Major General. More significantly, Fatah honored the terrorist who led the 1979 raid which killed 37 Israelis, including 13 children, and an American nature photographer - the 'Coastal Road' massacre. In her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton stated that the naming of the square was a Hamas event, too unwilling to blame the weak Abbas government for anything. Yet Israelis know that they have offered wide concessions and gotten no positive response from an entity which refuses to recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish state...." read the rest here: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/04/obama-israel-and-the-settlements.html It comes via normblog and is definitely worth reading.

- jdyer

April 2, 2010 at 3:04pm

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

I just realized that Noga had already linked to that article above.

- jdyer

April 2, 2010 at 3:07pm

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

Noga, I understand your general point, but the Nacotchtank may not be the best example (I realize not yours, but commenting on it). 40 years is significant, but it's not the same as 440 years.

- miceelf

April 2, 2010 at 3:28pm

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

Then I guess what you are saying is that it is reasonable and just to uproot Jews from their neigbourhoods in Jerusalem, Jewish Jerusalem, but not Arabs from Arab Jerusalem? That the first is international law in action for peace but the latter would be.. what? the crime of ethnic cleansing?

- noga1

April 2, 2010 at 4:55pm

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

"The problem is that many observers of the Mideast, including the President, appear to date history from Israel's latest error." so hard to keep track of Israel's latest error, guess everyone in DC still too busy with Karzai's 'troubling' smackdown of foreigners so soon after Obama's surprise visit.

- K2K

April 2, 2010 at 9:10pm

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

I've been enjoying ignoring this one based on Peretz's preposterous headline. I figured it was so self-evidently stupid that it didn't even require disagreement. Interesting then to arrive late and see all the usual suspects saying all the usual things. Here is Ginsburg with his standard smear against Americans that Obama is deified, or imagines he is defied, or that anyone who supports him thinks he should be defied. This obliges me to make my standard response that Netanyahu is not the deity but a demonstrated clod who will happily lead Israel over a cliff, cheered on by Ginsburg and his obsession with Obama's divinity. Then some Israeli or super-Jew or other can declare that Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel who must be respected as such lest the people of Israel feel insulted, before proceeding to heap abuse on Obama without any thought as to what this says about the American people and the respect they are due and without so much as noticing the contradiction. What contradiction? After that, we can enjoy the standard litany of complaints about the perfidious Palestinians and how it is all their fault, as if the assigning of blame has anything to do with the working through of the consequences of the actions or inaction of Israel given the perfidious nature of the Palestinians. Withal, we get repeated demonstrations of a strange view of the behavior of leaders, both good and bad, of nations: That rather than assuming in the first instance that they do understand the obvious and predictable consequences of their actions, we assume that they don't. Netanyahu does not intend with the Ramat Shlomo announcement to demonstrate to his right wing-nut constituency and the Arabs that he doesn't give a shit what the United States thinks about anything and has every intention of doing just what he has been doing for decades, frustrating peace by whatever means necessary so that Likud can continue with its policy of settlement of the West Bank. Nope. He just forgot that Vice President Biden was visiting that day. Abbas doesn't insist on the right of return en masse for Palestinians because he knows that this will prevent the conclusion of an agreement that he doesn't want to conclude because it is not in his strategic interest to do so. Nope. He just doesn't understand that Israel will never agree to this. Obama publicly pressures Netanyahu because it has not occurred to him to consider the possibility that Netanyahu will not initially yield. He has no other reason for opening daylight between the United States and Israel -- such a not nice thing among "friends" as if states were just pals who go to the movies together and then for a pizza -- and, based on past behavior, he certainly has no reason to believe that he can ultimately get Netanyahu to do what he wants. "Can't anybody here play this game?" Casey Stengel, fabled ex-manager of the Yankees and manager of the hapless Mets. Try this "war game" scenario on for size: The Palestinians have no reason to settle because they see that world opinion is grinding along in their direction and believe it will ultimately secure for them more than they can get out of Israel, or at the very least make Israel more vulnerable and hence willing to give more later. That is, the Palestinians think time is on their side, not on Israel's side. Right or wrong? In this, the Palestinians are aided by the Likud which conspires with them to make any agreement impossible, conveniently engaging in provocative behavior at all the wrong times and persisting in a settlement policy that the entire world regards as illegitimate -- making the worldwide "assigning of blame" a losing battle for Israel. Right or wrong? Considering that this looks like very bad strategy for Israel, why does the Likud do this? Does it believe that time is on Israel's side? Is that right or wrong? If wrong what might cause Israel to behave so? If right, provide some persuasive explanation as to how time is on Israel's side and how this ultimately plays out to Israel's advantage. Might the Palestinians be bidding for a settlement that does not require the evacuation of anything or any place but gives them sovereignty over every square inch east of the Green Line and has Israel accept a Palestinian right of return for the exact number of Israelis who remain east of the Green Line? What would be the likely world reaction to such a proposal if it came? Might Obama be bidding for the same thing and using Ramat Shlomo, not in the expectation that Netanyahu would immediately bend, but in order to signal to both sides the position of the United States regarding "unified Jerusalem?" Now, go ahead everybody. Think up scenarios of your own, but certain are not allowed. The disallowed include scenarios that assume that any leader does not intend the predictable consequences of his actions. They also do not allow the assigning of blame (as it is a distraction from the exercise) or any scenario that begins with the words, "Peace will only come when . . . " Here's a hint: Assume that neither Abbas nor Netanyahu has the slightest interest in concluding any peace at this time on terms the other could possibly accept, because that is exactly what the behavior of each telegraphs perfectly clearly. What then would be Israel's best move?

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2010 at 4:18am

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

PS I realize that Bush was an exceptional case who understood none of the foreseeable consequences of his actions and that this calls into question the assumption that most leaders do. But I do think he was unbelievably stupid and should not be assumed to be typical in this regard, at least for the sake of argument.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2010 at 4:24am

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

Jackson, posted over on Obama and the Seder in response to that piece on Marx you brought to my attention.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2010 at 4:28am

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

'roid rage shrinks the brain too.

- K2K

April 3, 2010 at 10:23am

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

The mouse peeps to demonstrate his courage.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2010 at 12:04pm

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

This is an interesting perspective. One does not get to read too often what Palestinians tell themselves in Arabic: "Obama: More Arab than Some Arabs" http://watchingamerica.com/News/50910/obama-more-arab-than-some-arabs/

- noga1

April 3, 2010 at 7:05pm

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

Men who are not free . . . always idealize their bondage. So it was in the Middle Ages, and later the Jesuits always exploited this human trait. Zhivago could not bear the political mysticism of the Soviet intelligentsia, though it was the very thing they regarded as their highest achievement. The above quote is from Boris Pasternak, and I lifted it from Irving Howe's 1958 review of Doctor Zhivago elsewhere on the TNR site. I find it's been haunting me since I read it; I don't know why.

- ironyroad

April 3, 2010 at 8:42pm

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

The piece linked by Noga says very little about Obama. It is not intended as praise of him, but as criticism of Arab states. Thus the claim that he, in pursuit of American interests, is "more Arab" than they. Interesting indeed.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2010 at 2:24am

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

What I got from this piece is not an understanding of what Obama, presumably, intends to achieve by his manufactured outrage at Israel (jump starting the peace process), but rather, that Obama's latest moves have not encouraged Palestinians towards compromise or peace. Quite the contrary. The complaint against the Arab countries is not that they are not doing enough to help Palestinians achieve peace. The complaint is that the Arab nations are not willing to go to war with Israel. "The Palestinians didn’t have a standing army in 1948 and yet, at the time, all the other Arabian armies withdrew, leaving behind a powerful Israeli victor rather than Palestine as an independent Arabian state. In 1967, there wasn’t a standing Palestinian army and yet the Arabian armies withdrew from what was left of Palestine..." "The blockade is just as much being perpetuated by the Israelis as it is by the Arabs and Islam, a reality that has drained us as Arabs of any sense of brotherhood, solidarity or honor, and has betrayed everything we’ve been taught about how Arabs and Muslims are supposed to act." " When Obama places among his main demands of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin that he desist from building new settlements in Jerusalem, discuss the issue of Jewish settlements in general and put an end to the blockade of Gaza, then he is, without a doubt, far ahead of the ineffective Arab regimes. It is here that we remember Qatari Amir’s condemnation of the farce of the ongoing blockade of Gaza and when he asked in bewilderment, “Are we as Arabs truly incapable of ending the blockade of Gaza?” Key are the following statements: "..has drained us as Arabs of any sense of brotherhood, solidarity or honor, and has betrayed everything we’ve been taught about how Arabs and Muslims are supposed to act." “Are we as Arabs truly incapable of ending the blockade of Gaza?” What is that betrayed sense of Arab brotherhood, solidarity and honour? How are Arabs supposed to act? And what is the meaning of the Emir's exhortation? Does anyone get the feeling that the author of this piece fully understands, or even begins to understand, Obama's intent? The word "Peace" is not mentioned even once in the article. But war is. So what does the "hope" in the concluding sentence aim at?

- noga1

April 4, 2010 at 8:04am

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

ironyroad: Your quote reminded me of the most unlikely connotation. In Mansfield Park, when Fanny is banished to her parents' home, she recalls the big house she left behind and which was a place of actual bondage for her, though dressed up as kindness and charity. "Yet she thought it would not have been so at Mansfield. No, in her uncle's house there would have been a consideration of times and seasons, a regulation of subject, a propriety, an attention towards everybody which there was not here." Anyone who read the novel knows well that Fanny occupied the space of an unpaid servant in that household, subject to sadistic treatment by her aunt, bordering on child abuse, ignored and marginalized at every point by the rest of the family. Yet here she is, this least attractive of Austen's heroines, musing as though it was her culture's highest achievement. But why would you be haunted by this quote? Hannah Arendt understood something about this hankering for righteous powerlessness, as she elaborated in her 1964 interview for German TV: "..one pays dearly for freedom. The specifically Jewish humanity signified by [Jewish] worldlessness was something very beautiful... it was something very beautiful , this sundering aside of all social connections, the complete open-mindedness and absence of prejudice that I experienced... Of course a great deal was lost with the passing of all that. One pays for liberation. I once said in myLessing speech. . . Gaus : Hamburg in 1959 . . . Arendt: Yes, there I said that "this humanity... has never yet survived the hour of liberation, of freedom, by so much as minute" You see, that has also happened to us. Gaus: You wouldn't like to undo it? Arendt: No. I know that one has to pay a price for freedom. But I cannot say that I like to pay."

- noga1

April 4, 2010 at 10:40am

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

Either the right that laments that Obama has not wrought concessions for the Arabs or the Iranians is simply dishonest, seeking merely to find a basis for criticism that it does not really believe, or it is astonishingly obtuse. I think it is both. The assumption behind the criticism, typical of the dangerous childishness of the right in its approach to international affairs, is that Obama's purpose is to secure such immediate concessions and that, if that does not occur, the policy is a failure. That the right has for years been unable to secure the same concessions with its bellicosity seems never to occur to it. If Obama cannot achieve in an afternoon what the right has not achieved in years or even decades, then it is Obama who is a failure? How stupid AND dishonest would one have to be to assert such an absurdity? Here's looking at you Martin Peretz. Of course, Obama would be delighted to achieve such immediate results. Who wouldn't be? But, obvious to anyone who is willing to think and observe, his deeper purposes is to de-legitimize opponents and drain their international support so that the US will be able to bring to bear pressure in the future. This is smart, it is insightful, it recognizes clearly why the right has been unsuccessful and seeks to change the larger political context that has made the right a failure. It is not Obama's failure that the right finds unbearable. It is the implicit rejection of the right's fecklessness and stupidity, and the possibility that it will in fact be demonstrated with time that the right is just that feckless and stupid, that drives it into the paroxysms of rage we witness here and elsewhere. We can see that slowly Obama's policy with Iran is gaining traction. With his openhandedness, other powers are coming to see that it is Iran itself that is the obstacle to progress and not US bellicosity. Similarly, even thought the Israeli right is too greedy or stupid to act in a manner that drains Palestinian refusal of international legitimacy, Obama is doing it anyway. As he holds out the prospect that, despite Israeli refusal, Palestinians can substantially achieve their political goals through negotiations, world opinion can shift toward frustration, not with Israel, but with the Palestinians. And without international support, the pressure on the Palestinians to come to terms will mount. It is blindingly simply. The right cannot see because it is blinded by its own stupidity and malice. Thus has it always been. * * * The price of freedom is precisely the responsibility to act on one's own behalf. With powerlessness, one can be other-worldly, exploring endlessly the nuances of Talmud and of perfect justice. In a state of powelessness, there are no actions that, even if distasteful, can affect the outcome. With freedom comes the necessity of considering the effects of action and inaction, including the imperfection of the results of deeds. There are no perfect options, only better or worse options, and only better or worse options at a point in time. It was the essence of the Zionist project to escape physical, social and psychological ghettoization and for the Jews to assume the inevitably messy responsibility for their own fate. It was never thought that the assumption of power and the exercise of will would allow the Jews to continue an other-worldly indifference to cause and effect.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2010 at 11:51am

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

If one is able to step aside from the concept that Obama pushes all levers of global power (which Frank Rich actually doubts today: "...That doesn’t mean his presidency will be successful. Being consistent is not the same as being a forceful leader. If there’s been an overarching, nonideological failing so far in Obama, it’s been his execution of the levers of power..."), it becomes possible to see that Israeli efforts with Russia and China on Iran have been far more successful than any pressures from the U.S., although "...With his openhandedness, other powers are coming to see that it is Iran itself that is the obstacle to progress and not US bellicosity" has certainly been helpful.

- K2K

April 4, 2010 at 1:03pm

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

Noga: I haven't read Mansfield Park, I have to confess, but one could find similar moments in other works, as literature seems to be one place that a rather complicated dance of freedom and order (and a love of the one and/or the other) can be revealed. Camus, for example, was fascinated by the idea that one might use one's freedom to commit an act for which one would be hunted down and subject to an absolute order, as if one had been essentially wishing the burden of one's freedom away all the time (perhaps even without knowing it). As to why I'm haunted by the Pasternak quote -- I'm not sure. Perhaps . . . because I started thinking about how I might identify when such a process had begun in myself, and I reached the disturbing conclusion that I might never be able to.

- ironyroad

April 4, 2010 at 3:58pm

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

What a lovely exegesis of Arendt's words, roi. You and she have much more in common that you imagine, much more, including contempt for Israelis. (Read the first pages to Eichmann in Jerusalem and her letters to Karl Jaspers during the trial, and rejoice).

- noga1

April 4, 2010 at 4:36pm

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

???????????????????????????

- ironyroad

April 4, 2010 at 5:07pm

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

roi, ironyroad, roi. not you! (assuming ??????????????????????????? was in response to mine)

- noga1

April 4, 2010 at 5:11pm

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

Oh. Sorry. Maybe I'm getting paranoid.

- ironyroad

April 4, 2010 at 5:19pm

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

"It was never thought that the assumption of power and the exercise of will would allow the Jews to continue an other-worldly indifference to cause and effect." Is it really necessary to state explicitly that among the effects that responsible agents must consider are the reactions of other actors in the world or that the defiance of settled international law has an impact on the responses of other states? "contempt for Israelis' No, not contempt for Israelis, contempt for the Israeli right (and particularly Netanyahu), the same contempt I have for the American right, and for largely the same reasons: Wrapped in the hyper-patriotism of the right-wing is a profound danger to the safety and security of everyone, the direct result of the ideological blindness that mistakes one's own self-righteousness for efficacy in the world. Or to put it another way, the belief that, if you have justice on your side, as you yourself determine justice, you can do absolutely any stupid thing you want and still expect the desired outcome. The right, everywhere, is a menace deserving of everyone's contempt and disgust.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2010 at 7:31pm

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

Contempt is a very corrosive agent, roi. And like all acid, can become quite uncontainable if handled carelessly. ironyroad mentioned Dr. Zhivago. Does the character Pasha Antipov ring a bell? You might want to take a look.

- noga1

April 4, 2010 at 9:11pm

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

Wikipedia: Pasha Antipov and Komarovsky continue to play important roles in the story. Pasha is assumed killed in World War I, but is actually captured by the Germans and escapes. Pasha Antipov joins the Bolsheviks and becomes Strelnikov (the shooter), a fearsome Red Army general who becomes infamous for executing White prisoners (hence his nickname). However, he is never a true Bolshevik and yearns for the fighting to be over so he can return to Lara. (The film version would change his character significantly, making him a hard-line Bolshevik.) He's the Cheka guy with the HQ in the railcar, I think. Played by Tom Courtney?

- ironyroad

April 4, 2010 at 11:24pm

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

malahat: "ideologues are intellectual captives of their ideology." seems so true; must be very painful for either the hard-core left or right to ease their pain from only being able to see the world through that division in a Hobbesian world. Deng was a pragmatist, which might be the most important quality in a transformational leader. ironyroad: you should try a Jane Austen reading club, maybe meet a new redhead looking for her John Willoughby - "Sense and Sensibility" :)

- K2K

April 5, 2010 at 12:50am

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

malahat -- the redhead of fond memory kept two cats in her apartment, one called Emily (for Dickinson) and the other called Jane (for Austen)! My brain tells me it's too late for thinking, so I'll come back to see if I can formulate a reply on the substance tomorrow. But before I forget, it's not Hans Brand, I mixed him up with someone else, it's H.W. Brands (the H is for Harry or something similar) What America Owes the World: The Struggle for the Soul of American Foreign Policy, Cambridge UP (1998) ISBN 0521639689

- ironyroad

April 5, 2010 at 1:24am

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

Oh -- I see now it was you with the Austen club, K2K, not malahat -- sorry, I'll plead late night and fading attention! Anyhow, same thought.

- ironyroad

April 5, 2010 at 1:26am

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

".... that ideologues are intellectual captives of their ideology. " "Capitulation to dogma over the spirit of open inquiry leads to the very catastrophes of totalitarianism that the unconscious proponents of dogmatism most fear--thus we have the book-burners of both left and right joined in common cause." (Anonymous) Btw, K2K, Wiloughby was a cad.

- noga1

April 5, 2010 at 10:55am

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

noga: add your anonymous quote on "Capitulation to dogma over the spirit of open inquiry ..." to the "Why Polarization is so Dangerous" thread. good quote. Willoughby was indeed a wastrel, liar, opportunist, and cad, but he retained a conscience, struggling with his true romantic streak. I was trying a bit of irony. When Maureen Dowd wrote her 2008 op-ed comparing Obama to Darcy and McCain to Wickham, several of us protested in comments that Obama was Willoughby and McCain a Colonel Brandon. Austen's male characters are marvelous archetypes.

- K2K

April 5, 2010 at 11:45am

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

During Obama's presidential campaign I had great fun trying to figure him out through literary characters. I thought he was Prince Hal when he disposed of Rev. Wright. After a debate with Hillary, he reminded me of Desdemona while she was Othello (I'd just seen "Stage Beauty" and was terribly impressed with the insight into trans-gendering in Restoration drama). When he was accused of using another man's words, I thought about Christian wooing Roxanne with Cyrano de Bergerac's words. I don't think I ever thought of him as an Austenian character. Darcy? Well, he IS tall, dark and handsome. And he lives in a very imposing historical house. He is a good husband. Can get into a huff easily. Doesn't have a great sense of humour. Likes to have talkative and lively friends (Rahm). But I think Darcy was incapacitated by social anxiety which is definitely not one of Obama's drawbacks.

- noga1

April 5, 2010 at 1:06pm

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

Noga -- what was it about the Pasha Antipov character that was particularly interesting?

- ironyroad

April 5, 2010 at 1:56pm

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

Pasha was an exclusive pitier. An idealistic young student who turned mass murderer because his pity for the suffering masses overwhelms his moral values: Pasha: The private life is dead - for a man with any manhood. Zhivago: I saw some of your 'manhood' on the way at a place called Mink. Pasha: They were selling horses to the Whites. Zhivago: It seems you've burnt the wrong village. Pasha: They always say that, and what does it matter? The village is burned, the point made. Zhivago: Your point - their village. Pity, Pasha's kind of pity, has proved to possess "a greater capacity for cruelty than cruelty itself”. This exclusive ownership over this particular suffering gives rise to a superseding feeling of beyond-moral indignation and pain, that fancies itself outside accountability to the basic norms of humanity. Pity and rage defeat universal responsibility. He is like Robespierre. And roi reminds me of him because of the principle he purports to follow: it is always about the point made, about getting people into cowed silence and obedience, it is a dirty ugly job, but someone has got to do it. “Par pitié, par amour pour l’humanité, soyez inhumains! ”

- noga1

April 5, 2010 at 4:18pm

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

No, noga. It is never about the point made. It is only about preventing the execrable such as yourself from succeeding with intimidation. That is the ugly job that someone has to do. When you are cowed out of your bullying attacks visited upon anyone who dares to question Israeli policy, then there will be no further job to do. Everyone can get on with some sort of civilized discussion. And if, as seems likely, that is impossible, well then, let's party on. I would much prefer your arguments, if you had any, to your vile sputum. Then the arguments, such as they are, could be discredited. In your case, that is very easy to do and much more fun than picking you apart. But, that is of course what you seek to avoid by confining yourself to epithets and literary allusions -- actually making an argument that risks making obvious to all what an empty head you have. Thus, we get your constant gnawing at dung. You are enough by yourself to make an anti-Semite of everyone here. A disgrace to yourself and Israel. But then, you are a "suicide Jew" who craves a noble death and longs to take the rest of the Jews with you. So, we should expect nothing more from you than foul excrescence. Have I mentioned that you remind me of Josef Goebbels? You do. Had you been German in the 30s, there is no question in my mind that you would have been a willing Nazi party member. Something that would delight your fascination with victimhood and your crazy inversions of every truth you happen to stumble into. For you see, those who consider victimhood the highest state of being are all too happy to create more. You are far and away the most awful person I have ever encountered. I have read about worse. But in my entire life, I have never before had any direct or indirect contact with someone as thoroughly awful as you. And that is not an exaggeration. Just the fact.

- roidubouloi

April 5, 2010 at 5:53pm

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

Noga, in the film of Doctor Zhivago, at least, the thing about Antipov seems to be that his initial traumatic shock at seeing the mounted cossacks cut down and trample to death the peaceful marchers (in 1905?) is what turns him into a Bolshevik cadre. He recognizes that the system is not open to negotiation. Somewhat in the same way, the British paratroop regiment in Derry in January 1971, who murdered a dozen entirely innocent civilians, created a generation of IRA recruits who went on themselves to kill and injure innocent civilians. In Antipov's case, what enables the final turn from being a revolutionary to being a sort of bureaucratic mass murderer is less clear. It could be exactly as you say, that his pity and humane feelings became transformed into a kind of millennialist conviction that no price is to high to ensure the Soviet victory, because humanity will benefit from that in the long run. His love for humanity in the abstract now permits any kind of savagery toward humanity in the particular. But another reading is also possible: It seems to me sometimes that the move from empathy for the downtrodden to wading through a sea of blood can only be made by someone who ditches the feelings of pity they never really had in the first place. Antipov' s comments are also those of someone who always despised the lower classes anyway, even when he purported to share their misery. I've been struck by that phenomenon now and again, where a kind of activist-narcissism intervenes to tear the mask away from the concerned social worker (the "exterminate the brutes" moment in Conrad's Heart of Darkness). I see elements of it in Bill Ayers and other some '60s ex-militants who came from well-off backgrounds. But it's very important to remember that historical and other circumstances have a huge role to play in whether the fanatic actually becomes the mass murderer. None of us know how we would react to extreme political upheaval, or what kind of people we might become, even if we are convinced of the resiliance of our virtue.

- ironyroad

April 5, 2010 at 6:28pm

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

Antipov is fictional. Goebbels was real. His propaganda technique of turning absolutely everything into a lie, no matter how irrelevant or trivial, in order to wipe the slate clean of truth and allow him to paint whatever he wanted there, was real too. Noga is an earnest disciple. And she is also an admirer of Arendt who didn't think much, from a position of safety, of the efforts of Jews "merely to survive" and was as fascinated as noga by the suicidal impulse, the willingness to kill and the willingness to die, not as a necessity for survival, but as a political statement. Arendt and Goebbels sprang from the same intellectual soil. There is there, among other things, a philosophical tradition of glorifying death in the service of some great cause, rather than seeing it is an awful tragedy, tragic because unavoidable. Most un-Jewish. It is not surprising that in noga we find an affinity for both Arendt and Goebbels at the same time.

- roidubouloi

April 5, 2010 at 9:18pm

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

I rather admire Arendt. I don't like Goebbels. What does that make me? I should also note that the phrase "same intellectual soil" is somewhat ominous. Because they were both German? Are we already at national essentialism? One notices in Hannah Arendt a lack of a desire to lead millions of people into catastrophe.

- ironyroad

April 5, 2010 at 10:04pm

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

I don't know what that makes you, irony. Depends on why you admire Arendt and why you don't like Goebbels. What would you be if you admired Arendt and behaved like Goebbels? No, it is not a matter of national essentialism. There is a common intellectual tradition that extends from Arendt to Heidegger and thence back to such as Nietzche and Kierkegaard. Nazism was in part a twisted interpretation of some of their ideas, but not so twisted in that Heidegger himself could be both Heideggerian and a Nazi sympathizer at the same time. While Arendt was no Nazi, she remained an apologist for Heidegger. There are indeed common intellectual threads. Whether there is anything "German" about their collective thought would be way above my pay-grade. I am sure that someone, creditable or not, has tried to locate their ideas in German culture. That, however, is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that there are common themes in particular about the glory of death in the service of ideals. I don't myself care much for idealism in any of its forms. It leads mostly nowhere, but too often to very dark places. To the extent that there is some intellectual disagreement between me and noga discernible under the dung she heaps, it is about the importance of pragmatism and a clear-eyed understanding of what actions and inactions are likely to produce what outcomes. I think that is pretty much what matters in human life, although one must then also make decisions about which outcomes, and which costs to obtain them, are morally acceptable. Other than reacting with fury at the very idea that survival requires such pragmatic accommodation to the world as it is, I have no idea what noga thinks because she is inarticulate or incoherent or sputtering abuse or all three at any given time. But it seems to be some version of idealist thought. Hence the admiration for Arendt and the indifference to the tactics used in the service of her ideals.

- roidubouloi

April 5, 2010 at 10:55pm

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

roid, I think a key difference is that Arendt is an individual thinker and Goebbels was the long-serving propagandist of a large fascist party that came to power in a major European nation with a set of objectives tending toward genocide and world war. I think there's a slight difference there, although maybe I'm nitpicking. Arendt's relationship with Heidegger is at least complicated -- given a romantic/sexual involvement too -- if not baffling, but I think it's pointless to retrospectively demand some kind of ideological purity from a woman who didn't believe that there was an automatic duty to have your personal life line up neatly with your political feelings and loyalties, so nobody else is offended. The truth is, what she wrote will mean something to you, or it won't. Either way -- whether you think pragmatically or idealistically -- reality will appear one day over the horizon to remind you of your inability to determine the future history of the world.

- ironyroad

April 6, 2010 at 12:18am

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

malahat: Thanks so much for Godwin's Law! bookmark-worthy! "...Others argue that the [Godwin's] law is entirely self-serving bludgeon and that those who invoke Godwin's law would more plainly state their position as "The longer it takes for you to submit and conform to my line of reasoning, the more incessantly I will imply to the rest of the audience that your continued resistance is a crime against humanity that is worse than Hitler."

- K2K

April 6, 2010 at 1:02am

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

Arendt held some not too pretty opinions of Jews herself, irony. With or without her romantic attachment to Heidegger. Had it just been the sex, no one would care, or no one much. So then, tell us of Robespierre, another idealist gone rotten, and the difference between him and Goebbels. Idealism is put to many bad uses, large and small. Sometimes it is only a question of opportunity. When Bush the idealist goes to war, for example, much death and tragic loss ensues. When noga channels Goebbels and manages to mangle the truth to a pulp, not so much. But we can still recognize that idealism lies at the bottom of both the great atrocious behavior and the petty atrocious behavior. And then we can suspect that there is something dangerous and corrupting about idealism and something frightening and dangerous about idealists. Or, we can wait until the end of the world and then all will be revealed and it won't matter. What do you suggest?

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 1:25am

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

Or perhaps K2K, historian at large, can tell us the difference between Robespierre and Goebbels.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 1:25am

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

Do you admire Heidegger, irony? He too was an individual thinker. Is being an individual thinker a sufficient condition for admiration, or can we take note of the thinker's thought and behavior?

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 1:30am

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

Serial carpet comment: In a bit of irony, irony, it was Hannah Arendt who took the position that there was nothing particularly noteworthy about Eichmann as a person, implying that if you give such a person the right opportunity you can easily get a mass murder or "a long-serving propagandist of a large fascist party that came to power in a major European nation with a set of objectives tending toward genocide and world war." Do you agree with Arendt that we are all just like Eichmann or Eichmann just like the rest of us? Is there even a slight difference there, or would that be nitpicking too?

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 1:34am

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

sorry roid, mostly study South and Central Asia, Britain, and American economic history (ask me about cotton, or Pashtuns). Unable to box (in the ring with gloves) anymore, so I settle for a hard pruning of old lilacs instead of going postal in a cold, hands-on manner when a bully won't stop. miss my guns :)

- K2K

April 6, 2010 at 2:06am

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

I agree with you malahat. With K2K pleading ignorance, who is going to explain to us the difference between Robespierre and Goebbels? I guess I have to. Goebbels was a propagandist. It would be, and is, possible to employ his propaganda techniques without being a mass murderer and without serving the cause of mass murder. The essence of his technique is the exaltation of lying. There are various aspects to this. One of them is lying about everything, even the seemingly trivial, until people come to feel that their own impressions of everything are completely unreliable. Another is telling absolutely preposterous lies that no one can really believe in order to convey that there exists some deeper truth, always, that renders our ordinary notions of truth and falsehood irrelevant. Another is pre-emptively accusing others, particularly your enemies, of engaging in precisely the execrable conduct in which one is engaged, and, of course, of telling the lie that you are engaged in the conduct that you are in fact engaged in. Another is the persistent accusation that political enemies are treasonous, that the loathe to body politic, the good people, the true patriots. After a while in this "hall of mirrors," truth becomes only that which emanates from the mouth of the propagandist. Thus, it is possible to emulate Goebbels without being a murderer. It should not be difficult to discern that all of these techniques of Goebbels are regularly employed in our day by the political right. Why, you can see them in operation here in these blogs. Robespierre, on the other hand, was a murderer, a mass murder in the service of political terror. It would be very difficult to emulate Robespierre without being a murderer. How would one do it? Now, the very fact of Goebbels use of his techniques in the service of Nazism inclines everyone to assume that any analogy to Goebbels is the same as an analogy to Hitler. But it isn't. Because Goebbels had a well-defined set of techniques that many have emulated since. Analogies to Robespierre are what exactly? At the very best, deeply confused. But Robespierre and Goebbels did have in common that they were both idealists, willing to do anything in the service of their ideal, and both held out their ideal as more important than life itself although we do not know that either had the courage of their convictions. And where in this is noga, she of the confused analogy, who disparages prudent consideration of the ways of the world as it exists in the service of one's own survival in favor of some ideal or other that licenses conduct condemned in law and by the entire world? Goebbels? Arendt? Robespierre? No, not Robespierre.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 2:57am

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

Ergo, malahat and K2K, I see your Godwin and raise you one.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 3:05am

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

"a woman who didn't believe that there was an automatic duty to have your personal life line up neatly with your political feelings and loyalties," I went to see a play about Arendt when I was in Israel in August. I may have mentioned it before. It was called "The banality of love" and was about her relationship with Heidegger, who was played by Oded Kotler. It is a play that actually tries to make sense of that relationship and there is one imaginary scene in it where Arendt meets Heidegger in the late 1960's and they talk about Heidegger's ideological betrayal. At one point he gets upset with her criticism and says something disparaging about "Frau Blucher"'. She then launches into a monologue which can be summed up as "Frau Blucher would not give you the time of day because of your cowardice" which she then goes on to explain in detail. When she finishes, she pauses and then her voice changes and she says "But Hannah, your Hannah, still remembers how she loved you". The banality of love. It is true, as roi says, that Arendt may have internalized some of the antisemitic tropes about Jews. (Every persecuted minority is vulnerable to developing this "double consciousness", btw and none understood it better than Arendt when she described the way German Jews regarded "Ostenjuden" in the nineteenth century). Her letters to Jaspers and the first pages in her "Banality" book are plenty proof. And she under.stood next to nothing about Judaism, thus she repeats the argument that because Jews consider themselves "chosen" they are no different in principle from the Nazis. She brings an incorrect example about the meaning of "bastard" to illustrate her point. When I read it I fully understood why Gershom Sholem was so furious with her. It was irresponsible bordering on downright slander. Never mind the garishly ironic tone in which she writes that book especially in her descriptions of the Judenrat. (Though I do have a theory that she chose that tone because it was the only way she could write about the subject, retain her sanity and cold-minded analysis without sinking into the bathos of sentimental language). But nowhere have I encountered in her anything about "glorifying death in the service of some ideal". If roi could provide an actual reference? When she escaped from Germany she was doing so because she refused to live as a second class citizen in her own country and it was during those years that she came to recognize the profound importance of Zionism: when you are attacked as a Jew you respond as a Jew, not as a German or an internationalist. Hardly a position that can be even remotely seen as ghettoish or suicidal. She never cringed and never tried to ingratiate herself with antisemites. (If we compare Arendt with another contemporary, Irene Nemirovsky, we can maybe understand how greatly roi misjudges her). But for roi there is no such thing as an abiding, free-standing principle. Every thing is subjugated, chained, to one overall will to win, at all costs and by any means. There is no truth but roi's truth, and roi is the only Messenger... Note the total absence of irony d doubt, and the supreme sense of self-confidence in the way he rages on. A man without doubts. Now where have we met such persons?

- noga1

April 6, 2010 at 8:42am

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

Gee, noga, how did you infer that I lack of doubt about anything? Other than your demand that we take "note" and the rhetorical service that does for your effort to "win at all costs and by any means," where does one find support for that? Could this be another case of projection on your part? It would seem so. Just a conjecture of course. You crack me up, noga. Your complete inability to observe yourself is quite extraordinary. I am sure there are all sorts of amusing tricks you can do as a result. In any case, thank you for educating irony about the reasons why one might not find Arendt quite so admirable.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 9:14am

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

Rwanda in 1994 went a long way to proving that anyone can be part of a genocidal project. That aside, I find a lot of the "what DID she mean?" discourse about "the banality of evil" to be so much humbug. I'm reminded of Roland Barthes's takedown of the "I don't really understand" school of criticism and reviewing, which pretends to not grasp the core of a novel or play or movie in order to avoid dealing with the issue it presents. As Barthes said, reviewer X may not understand the play, but the play sure as heck understands reviewer X. It's quite clear to any reasonably intelligent individual can grasp that what Arendt meant was that Eichmann had none of the characteristics of a millennialist Nazi ideologue who could move millions (no Goebbels he) but rather every quality one associates with a German bureaucrat, including a self-sacrificing conscientiousness about detail. Hence one doesn't need committed fanatics to carry out mass murder, but rather modest, competent, and not particularly bright civil servants. I find it intriguing how many difficulties otherwise intelligent people have in grasping this not very complicated thought. It makes one wonder why.

- ironyroad

April 6, 2010 at 9:55am

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

To be honest, it doesn't. I know why.

- ironyroad

April 6, 2010 at 9:56am

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

I have very little doubt that this is the first time you heard about them yourself, roi. ironyroad is not the one who needs educating. He knows all this and much more, I daresay. You on the other hand, pretend you speak from knowledge about Arendt when you are almost completely ignorant about her, except for what is generally and conventionally known about her. I take it you cannot provide a reference to your allegation that she was "glorifying death in the service of some ideal".

- noga1

April 6, 2010 at 9:57am

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

. “They slaughter people, slaughter children, often face-to-face, by shooting them at point-blank range, or by hacking or beating them to death, bespattering themselves with their victims’ blood, bone and brain matter.” Arendt makes a point of the fact that Eichmann never killed himself anyone. He could not therefore understand why he was even put on trial, let alone figure out what his guilt was. Her theory does not exonerate him. Quite the contrary. It takes systems to produce that kind of obedience and lack of proper curiosity and sympathy for fellow humans. Perhaps her book should have been entitled: The evil of banality. Since what she wants to show is that evil is not easily recognizable as a monstrous being. That is why genocides can happen again and again.

- noga1

April 6, 2010 at 10:29am

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

There are those really awful rants of Arendt's against Jews who were "merely trying to survive" the Holocaust. I don't recall where they are and I have no interest in looking them up for you, noga. Look them up yourself. As I said to you a while ago, the martyrs of Masada left us nothing. We are here at all because of the centuries of Jews who took a look at the realities of their situation and did what they needed to survive. I regard that as estimable. You seem to regard even a clear-eyed understanding of the world as something to be avoided lest it seem "hopeless." The hope comes from understanding the possibilities that exist even in a bleak landscape. * * * It would appear that malahat and Goldhagen (me too) are among those too simple to grasp Arendt's "not very complicated thought." Maybe I'll have a nap and it will uncomplicate itself for me.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 10:31am

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

I'll take that as a definite "no", roi. No, you can't provide any support for your allegation that she was "glorifying death in the service of some ideal". No one takes Masada as the qualifying myth for Israel. You are stuck in a fifties' kind of thinking and perceptions about Israel.

- noga1

April 6, 2010 at 10:54am

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

malahat, I haven't read that particular book by Goldhagen, although I was generally impressed by "Hitler's Willing Executioners" around 12 years ago. I think however that the review comment that "Goldhagen makes short work of Arendt's claim . . . " is something like "ironyroad makes short work of Kant's third Critique . . ." -- that is, tending to hyperbole at the least. One can argue that Goldhagen has produced and analyzed a range of evidence to suggest a wide implicitly genocidal readiness in German society and elsewhere, without turning him into something he's not: a political philosopher. But without the organizational push of the key civil servants such as Eichmann, the larger numbers of the Holocaust could not have been reached. The evidence suggests that Eichmann would have seen himself as not at all implicated in the 1,500 mile swathe of savagery and mayhem that formed a belt from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as the SS, the Police Battallions, and local antisemitic gangs merrily went to work. In contrast to those brutal methods, he was involved in a more responsible task that required intellectual objectivity, sensitivity to circumstances, sociological data, and admin skills. Which is exactly the problem she was trying to identify in "Eichmann in Jerusalem," and, as I noted above, there's something odd about people claiming they don't understand it.

- ironyroad

April 6, 2010 at 8:59pm

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

I don't like the way this conversation is going, and I want to make very clear right now that I am not disputing Eichmann's guilt in any way.

- ironyroad

April 6, 2010 at 10:36pm

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

Take what you want, noga. You are still a death-wish Jew, a diseased mind. Remember your little story about the two Jews on line for the gas chamber? That is the single most revealing thing that you have written here. Like Arendt, you are unwilling to credit the will to survive as decent let alone of surpassing importance, unable to distinguish a situation when one's own efforts to survive may be availing, unable to consider rationally what is to be done, and, when the situation is hopeless and a victim must face the end with whatever inner resources can be brought to bear, you are without pity. Like Arendt, you are both pitiless and pitiful. You have no pity for the true victim because you are obsessed with claiming the mantle of the victim when you are not. To insist on victimhood when one is possessed of agency and opportunity is a disgrace; to demean someone who really is trapped without recourse, as Arendt did, is even more of a disgrace.

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 10:43pm

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

Then what is your point, irony? Just that you admire Arendt and anyone who does not must be unable to understand her?

- roidubouloi

April 6, 2010 at 10:45pm

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

"I'm just no fan of Arendt or the 'banality of evil'." No need to be, malahat -- but I just wanted to establish that it wasn't so superficial or ignorant on Arendt's part to realize, and portray that realization, that you didn't need a passionate fanatic to organize the Holocaust -- what you needed was a competent bureaucrat who (a) would never challenge state policy and (b) could juggle several balls and handle budget, logistics, and interagency cooperation. I believe that many people who dislike Arendt (on this issue) are made uneasy by the fact that evil purposes can be carried out by pen-pushers (as we used to say) who would give something to the panhandler at the station and play with their kids and the dog when they get home.

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 12:24am

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

I see no reason at all to be made uneasy by the fact that evil purposes can be carried out by people who kiss their children goodnight. I would expect that to be more often the case than not as people who are so deranged as to have lost contact with humanity are less likely to be technically capable of producing vast harm. My reading of history is that idealists of one stripe or another are the source of the greatest death and destruction, and they are often intelligent, charismatic, passionate -- and kiss their children goodnight. Idealists are constantly at risk for megalomania; pragmatists are not precisely because of the very modesty of their truth claims. The charismatic idealists inevitably draw to them the "banal" who are happy to play subordinate roles merely to be near or to be of service to the powerful and charismatic. So what? I am made uneasy by the potential for evil. Period. I don't see that ascribing it to the banal or the not banal has much of anything to do with anything. It is a trivial, intellectual/romantic observation that does not assist us in any way either in recognizing the potential for evil or in combating it -- and it is too easily (mis)understood as trivializing evil, that is to say rendering it banal. I dislike Arendt because, amidst the hyper-intellectualizing in the philosophical tradition from which she springs, she herself seems too able at times to lose track of good and evil, the distinction between the perpetrator and the victim, and this has the potential for great harm.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 1:01am

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

"and, when the situation is hopeless and a victim must face the end with whatever inner resources can be brought to bear" Is this your idea of pragmatism for Israel? That "hopelessness" leaves you no other possibility of action except die in dignity? What a romantic, counter humanistic impulse you reveal here. "It is hope that makes people walk apathetically into the gas chamber, makes them shrink back from uprising ... Hope that tears apart family bonds, makes mothers reject their children, makes women sell themselves for a piece of bread and turns men into killers. Hope makes them fight for each day of life, for maybe the next day will bring liberation ... We did not learn to renounce hope, and that is why we died in the gas." And "Borowski clearly also knew nothing of the secret "Kampfgruppe Auschwitz" resistance group, whose leaders included not only Cyrankiewicz and Langbein, but also Mink and Kirschenbaum, Jewish officers of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War." http://www.signandsight.com/features/1178.html Neither do you know much. One gets the impression that roi tries to apply Ghandi's ideas about the Jews with his own preferred solution for Israel: national suicide. Just lie down pretend you are dead. Maybe you'll be spared. If not, too bad. _____________ " you are without pity. Like Arendt, you are both pitiless and pitifu" Pity, because of its traditional perception as the “spring of virtue”, possesses "a greater capacity for cruelty than cruelty itself”. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/01/12/090112crat_atlarge_kirsch roi for all his grandiose language and invective, emerges as a mediocre thinker who cannot see beyond the conventions upon which he was brought up. He would rather Jews went to their death quietly as long as their dignity was preserved, rather than work up the will to object. roi is in love with the idea of the Jew as the long-suffering, noble victim. He reminds me of that sad sad broken human being, Norman Filnkelstein: ""I once asked my late mother, who survived Maidanek concentration camp, about Dawidowicz's depiction of all the Jews in the ghettos and camps furtively staying faithful to their religion until their final steps into the gas chambers. "When I first entered my block at Maidanek, all the women inmates had dyed-blond hair," my mother laughed. "They had been trying to pass as Gentiles." The shocking accounts of Jewish corruption that could be found in conveniently forgotten memoirs like Bernard Goldstein's The Stars Bear Witness were deleted in Dawidowicz's fantasy." http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=102 Can you even begin to explain, to understand, the perverseness of such an observation? That the naive attempt of these women -- to mislead by dying their hair blond and maybe, just maybe, manage to pass for someone who is actually not slated for the gas chambers -- should be mocked in such a brutal manner? roi would agree. ______________ BTW, malahat, Arendt never doubted Eichmann's guilt either, and justified his execution. Her book was not about Eichmann, actually. It was an indictment of the system that created such obedient bureaucrats, in which absence of thoughtfulness was a virtue.

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 7:53am

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

Ever seen the film "Conspiracy"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYyLUtIVX8&feature=related http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 10:04am

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

Noga, you really cannot be that stupid. You are surely that malevolent and dishonest, but I didn't think you were that dumb. It is both you and Arendt who seem to have no regard for those who truly are at the end of their tether, truly victims with nowhere left to turn. I have been the one here who insists that people in such extremes must not be mocked or demeaned but held with all of the pity for their desperate situation that the human heart can muster. The incapacity to do so is what makes Arendt such an appalling human being, no matter how many smart ideas she may have had in her life. You and Arendt, both cruel and pitiless. I have also been the one pointing out endlessly that Israel's situation is far from hopeless and contains many possibilities. The Israeli right-wing, locked in some combination of relentless greed for the land in the West Bank and a convenient ideological belief that the world will deal with Israel in the exact same manner regardless of what it does or does not do, cannot seize any of them. While you wallow in your self-proclaimed and undeserved victimhood, I am the one who keeps insisting that it is disgraceful to be a passive captive to the forces around you when there are alternatives. But, of course, the alternatives have to be understood realistically, not romantically or ideologically, if they are to be realized, and you recoil at any effort to understand the world as it is rather than as but some version of the fiction you admire. So, of course, like your mentor, Goebbels, you must invert everything, stand it on its head, and turn it into a lie, putting your own horrifying ideas in my mouth, and attempting to club me with my own. You disgust me. What a horrid world of slime and lies you inhabit. Are you even a person any longer or just a bundle of torment? How completely hopeless it must be to be you.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 10:55am

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

You exhaust the list of adjectives for "vile," noga. I have run out. I can only repeat what I said earlier: In my entire life, I have never directly encountered a human being as thoroughly awful as you.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 11:03am

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

I think one would have to know something about Arendt herself, quite apart from her writings, to be able to call her "an appalling human being" (quite apart from the ugly hyperbole of the term). Is there any evidence that she acted in her life in some noticeably reprehensible way? Did she justify mass murder? Did she lie and cheat? Did she broadcast to the U.S. from fascist Italy (as Ezra Pound did, whose poetry people read who despise his politics)?

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 11:48am

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

Arendt was a person of letters, not of action. Her medium was thought and writing. That is the only place we find her "deeds," such as they are, other than her relationship with and apologia for Martin Heidegger, a worse human being. She asked to be judged on her thought and writing, and so we are perfectly within our rights to do so. Indeed, as this is the very medium by which Arendt judges others, it is fitting that she be judged based on what she writes, and, given her freedom just to think, we are entitled to hold the result to a high standard. I find her appalling. To sit at a safe distance and pen disdain for ordinary people caught in unimaginable and desperate circumstances, struggling for their survival, displays a hauteur and contempt for people who are just people, not brilliant philosophers, that I consider a moral disgrace. She regards them as inferior for failing to summon the particular strength of character that she considers meet but has never herself demonstrated because never in circumstances even remotely as dire. There are other places in which Arendt expresses her disdain for ordinary people. I don't find it difficult to see this as of a piece with Heidegger and his and her intellectual antecedents in Nietzsche (less so Kierkegaard). As you have been instructing us, irony, hideous deeds are not achieved solely by those who wield the physical weapon. The moral inversion that blames the truly helpless victim for her plight or for doing the best, psychologically, that she can in the face of excruciating fear and torment is not a positive contribution to the justice of the world. It relieves some of the moral responsibility of the torturers and shifts it to the victim, just as dismissing Eichmann as "banal" relieves him of moral responsibility. We are not summoned to moral greatness or heroism, as this strain of existentialist thought too often claims. We are summoned to moral decency in the very ordinary sense. That would truly suffice. Considering the safety from which Arendt was able to write her critique, I don't think "appalling" is too harsh at all. Had she herself been under some excruciating pressure, I would be much more forgiving. I did not suggest that no one should read Arendt, but we are obliged by her very philosophy to form our own opinions of what she wrote.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 12:32pm

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

Thanks, malahat. I really appreciate that.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 2:00pm

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

"other than her relationship with and apologia for Martin Heidegger," Since roi is obviously such an expert on Arendt, there should be little problem for him to support these claims with something she actually wrote and published. If he cannot produce such a quote, from Arendt's books, then he should either retract what he said or be taken for a braggart and a liar.

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 3:12pm

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

Comparing Arendt's writings, which are mostly about politics, moral structures, revolution, and freedom, to Mein Kampf says volumes about the standard of thinking on this thread. Regarding the Heidegger relationship, if you can peer into people's hearts and seek to adjudge which other human beings they should have been attracted to and which not, then best of luck, O Divine One.

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

Re Malahat's response to irony, it appears that Arendt herself had some things to say on the subject (taken from the Stanford Encylopedia): "Let us now turn to an examination of the disclosing power of action and speech. In the opening section of the chapter on action in The Human Condition Arendt discusses one of its central functions, namely, the disclosure of the identity of the agent. In action and speech, she maintains, individuals reveal themselves as the unique individuals they are, disclose to the world their distinct personalities. In terms of Arendt's distinction, they reveal “who” they are as distinct to “what” they are — the latter referring to individual abilities and talents, as well as deficiencies and shortcomings, which are traits all human beings share. . . . It is thus only in action and speech, in interacting with others through words and deeds, that individuals reveal who they personally are and can affirm their unique identities. Action and speech are in this sense very closely related because both contain the answer to the question asked of every newcomer: “Who are you?” This disclosure of the “who” is made possible by both deeds and words, but of the two it is speech that has the closest affinity to revelation." It would seem that on the very subject of the revelatory power of one's words to disclose "who" someone is, that Arendt herself agrees with Malahat and disagrees with irony.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 4:24pm

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

Well, I'd just say it's an odd parallel to select, malahat. I see nothing in what I've read by Arendt (and I've not read everything by a long shot) that tells me she was "an appalling person" -- quite the opposite, in fact. She seems to me to be a person that devoted her life to trying to work out why human beings collectively or individually do certain things, and have such difficulty doing other things. More broadly, I think there are some distinctions that could be made about authors and things authored: for example, the argument that fiction and poetry are more removed from specific ideas than political theory or even analytic reporting, although many would not accept that. Regarding adultery, the truth is, if one subjected all writers to a kind of moral-scrutiny filter that included whether they slept with someone someone else was married to, we'd all have a pretty thinly populated bookcase. Also, I personally feel very uncomfortable using other folks' sexual morality as a yardstick to judge their writing or other work by. Intellectual attraction and physical attraction are not always so far apart, even where it seems an unlikely combination, and desire and pleasure are a legitmate crew members on the good ship Existence.

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 4:34pm

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

I didn't claim Arendt agreed with me, roid. Neither is it necessary: I actually have an idea or two of my own, now and then.

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 4:35pm

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

"Adultery is immoral, in my opinion," Strictly speaking, it was not Arendt who committed adultery. She was unmarried, 18 years old and enthralled to a charismatic professor. Like there is anything so unusual about this scenario, the stuff of the most banal romances. Heidegger was 35, married and in a position of power. The onus of immorality is upon him. But then no one here has alleged that Heidegger was anything but an appalling human being. "He may have been a bad philosopher, but he's still a philosopher. The point about Heidegger, surely, is not that he leads straight to Nazism, but that he's the godfather of the whole anti-enlightenment obfuscatory tradition of late 20th Century post-modernist thinking, and it's as well to be reminded on occasion of its totalitarian and anti-humanist roots." http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2010/01/-being-about-heidegger.html

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 4:36pm

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

Still waiting for roi to furnish proof of Arendt's "apologia for Martin Heidegger," Arendt's words about the close affinity between speech and (self) revelation can serve as a very nice guide by which to assess and judge roi's very own personality.

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 4:55pm

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

"Neither do I " Then why did you bring it up?

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 4:56pm

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

And you thought this was a good enough biographical detail to merit roi's designation of Arendt as a an appalling human being? "SHEESH!" ?

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 5:07pm

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

If you say so.

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 5:19pm

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

That's right, noga. Which is just how I discern that you sip liberally from the cup of Goebbels. You cannot speak, but that you lie.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 5:22pm

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

At the old CR site, this is about where I would have posted some wisecrack on the lines of "Hey, there's the waitress -- anyone want a drink?"

- ironyroad

April 7, 2010 at 5:22pm

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

irony, I just thought it sounded better coming from Arendt, and it is ironic. I don't suppose that you necessarily agree with her every word because you admire her.

- roidubouloi

April 7, 2010 at 5:28pm

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

What lie would that be, roi? That you failed to furnish proof of Arendt's "apologia for Martin Heidegger,"?

- noga1

April 7, 2010 at 7:43pm

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

See above. Thank you, malahat.

- roidubouloi

April 8, 2010 at 12:22am

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

See above where? This sudden urge for laconic answers, does it mean you are out of words and arguments? I repeat, where is the lie? Where is your quote from Arendt's writings supporting your allegation of her apologia for Heidegger?

- noga1

April 8, 2010 at 6:48am

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

An Internet friend who shares my interest and admiration for Bertrand Russell and Hannah Arendt left two links to articles about Arendt which may be of interest to ironyroad and malahat (I'm not including roi because I fear the articles may be too morally-nuanced for him. He will only pounce on whatever serves his own bias while discarding the rest) : On Russell: http://poumista.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/on-the-stupidity-of-intellectuals/ And on Arendt's "un-wordly-ness of the philosopher, as his "professional deformation", her attempt to understand her mentor Heidegger. Which leads nicely to this, on Raul Hilberg's problem with Arendt: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100419/popper/single And another cuber friend left this link: Shlomo Avineri's problem with Arendt: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153098.html _________ As an aside, I think one of the problems with criticism of Arendt, (you can find some similar frustrations with Orwell' body of work) is that she cannot be easily embraced by either the Right or the Left as supporting either side's interpretation of history and current events.

- noga1

April 8, 2010 at 10:09am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close