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 One Of The World's Oldest Stories Is Playing Out Before Our...

THE SPINE JUNE 22, 2010

One Of The World's Oldest Stories Is Playing Out Before Our Eyes

BY MARTIN PERETZ

“The Jews are being scapegoated again,” writes Shelby Steele in the Wall Street Journal. And they are being scapegoated in the name of “world opinion.”

This is not a screed but a carefully crafted argument by one of the country's wisest political intellectuals.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 100 comments

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

100 comments

We can thank Barack Hussein Obama for giving this global lynch mob free rein.

- amidut

June 22, 2010 at 7:47am

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

I guess the 60-year grace period after the Holocaust has come to an end.

- NR114746

June 22, 2010 at 9:14am

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

Of course. Because if Martin Peretz doesn't think it's a screed, it can't possibly be a screed. This is the wise political intellectual who thinks that Obama's biggest problem is that he's too Black.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 9:33am

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

Yes, the grace period has come to an end. Regarding Israel, the normal competition of national interests, including the interests of enemies, will now play out in international affairs. Smart people in Israel and amongst those who are concerned about Israel will think about this carefully. The messianic nuts will continue to imagine that the ritual invocation of the Holocaust or Jewish history will have magical effect and demand that everyone do so. Typical of right-wing magical thinking is to suppose that no concrete Israeli policy over the last 60 years has had any effect on its current position in the world, but that the words of Barack Hussein Obama have produced a sea-change of sentiment against Israel and the Jews. Now, how silly is that? And how long in a genuinely dangerous world can we afford such silliness in the conduct of policy, both here and in Israel?

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 9:35am

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

In case Roid thinks that Jerusalem wasn't appeasing America and world opinion enough, see story of Israeli concessions: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=179088. The problem is that Obama's acquiescence to world opinion has created this crisis. Roid is a captive of the old rabbinic instinct to blame ourselves first, eagerly concurred in by Christian and Islamic supersessionists. It is not just "because of our sins ...". That may offer the psychological benefit of meaning in a powerless situation, but harsh geo-political realities and powerful enemies provide a much better explanation.

- amidut

June 22, 2010 at 10:20am

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

Oh no, amidut!!! now that the palestinians will be armed with pasta and condiments, they can't possibly be stopped!!! Seriously, this is the big tragic concession????

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 10:34am

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

miceelf “Of course. Because if Martin Peretz doesn't think it's a screed, it can't possibly be a screed.” And what makes you think it’s a “screed?” Is it because it tackles the issue of antisemitism? “This is the wise political intellectual who thinks that Obama's biggest problem is that he's too Black.” Where did he say that, Mouse? Here we have another supporter of Obama who feels very comfortable with antisemitism. With friends like you Obama will never get reelected.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 10:46am

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

roidubouloi “Yes, the grace period has come to an end.” What the fuck are you babbling about? What grace period? When did Israel ever get a “grace period?” “Typical of right-wing magical thinking is to suppose that no concrete Israeli policy over the last 60 years has had any effect on its current position in the world,…” Calling something “magical thinking” doesn’t prove your argument. People engaged in magical thinking, like the ghost dance, or the cargo cult, don’t usually bother to become actors in the world. It’s people who think that if only Israel didn’t bother to defend itself, or if Jews stopped living in a sovereign State of their own “all would be well in the world” and antisemitism would disappear, who engage in “magical thinking.” As usual Roi uses words and phrase he only half understands.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 10:56am

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

"Roid is a captive of the old rabbinic instinct to blame ourselves first, eagerly concurred in by Christian and Islamic supersessionists. " It's the Jew-flu, an interesting theory advanced by Uzi Silber trying to explain why Jews are more susceptible to hate their kin than other tribes. There are many theories trying to explain this phenomenon, such as the following: "Is Jew Flu a bona-fide illness? Michael Welner, a psychiatrist at New York University, suggests that Jewish Anti-Semitism is akin to a personality disorder, enabling a person to "derive some psychological benefit from this pathological thinking." What causes Jew Flu? Harvard psychiatrist Kenneth Levin argues for twin culprits: so-called 'Stockholm Syndrome', where "population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous", as well as "the psychodynamics of abused children who blame themselves for their situation and believe they could mollify their tormenters if they were 'good'." Julie Ancis, a psychology professor at Georgia State University says that it isn't "uncommon for a minority group with a history of oppression and persecution to possess internalized self-hatred regarding their cultural/religious identity." But Silber somewhat cheekily but nonetheless with some scientific validation, has a different take on the root causes: "David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations. Brooks reports that "the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own" This phenomenon was epitomized by Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik and Jew Flu victim. "I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering," declared Rosa the Red. "Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles? I feel closer to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations of Putumayo or the Negroes in Africa... I have no separate corner in my heart for the ghetto." And he tries to pinpoint the prognosis: "The intriguing research out of Haifa suggests that Jews may very well be inherently altruistic. But while exhibiting more sensitivity to another group's pain is one thing, embracing the goals of people openly committed to one's destruction is a form of madness. So here's my ultimate theory for the cause of this nefarious virus: Jew Flu is a condition in which being "more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than (one's) own metastasizes into a malignant emotional and moral identification with people committed to (one's) annihilation." http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/the-jew-flu-the-strange-illness-of-jewish-anti-semitism-1.267172 About the red Rosa, Gustavo Perednik: "With hindsight, those Jews of the 1916 ghetto would have been happy to exchange their fate with the Putumayo workmen and Black Africans in Africa. As Irving Howe put it “even in the warmest of hearts, there is a cold spot for the Jews.” http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia10.htm

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 11:01am

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

Israel kills nine members of a terrorist organization aboard a "peace flotilla" and it is said to be a nazi State. Turkey kills scores of men, women, and children in raids on Kurdish villages and no one says anything. People like Roi don't like such comparisons since they expect the Jews to be perfectly saintly (by becoming flaggelants) so that the unsaintly non-Jews would come to love them. This is an example of "magical thinking."

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:03am

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

jdyer, I'm not comfortable with anti-semitism. I just don't think that criticism of particular policies of Israel is the same thing. And people who conflate the two are being dishonest as is the case with Steele, and, occasionally, you. Speaking of anti-semitism, I don't refer to people I disagree with as 'silly jewish boys' or more demeaningly 'jewboys.' The same cannot be said for another erstwhile Obama supporter, who shall remain nameless, but rhymes with Bartin Beretz. As to Steele's claim that obama's problem is that he's too Black, check out 'A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win.' It's probably in remainder bins at your local Borders so shouldn't cost very much. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10book.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1277218839-0WmY2w6nR3Qu95DbpqSz0Q

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:05am

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

I am still waiting for Mice to actually say something about the Shelby Steele article.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:08am

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

Noga, members of many maligned groups believe that their own group is uniquely self-hating. I don't doubt that it happens among Jewish people, but it's also very common among African Americans, for example. of course, the trick in both cases is determining whether another is truly self-hating, or if it's simply the case that calling them self-hating is convenient for those who disagree with them on particular points.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:10am

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

miceelf “jdyer, I'm not comfortable with anti-semitism. I just don't think that criticism of particular policies of Israel is the same thing. And people who conflate the two are being dishonest as is the case with Steele, and, occasionally, you.” Where did I conflate the two and where did Shelby Steele do so in his article? And, if you don’t feel comfortable about antisemitism how is it that you never mention its presence among the critics of Israel, but feel very comfortable accusing people of racism? As to the Marty quote, I didn’t like it, but it’s one thing for a Jew to use the expression “Jew boy” and quite another for a non Jew, same with Black people calling other Blacks (“niggers”), something you or I would never do.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:14am

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

jdyer, the article is standard right-wing "whatever we [or those we favor] do is right and justified" pap. it's exactly the kind of article that Peretz would link to. However, Steele is reflexively on Israel's side for somewhat exotic reasons: he assumes Israel is "whiter' than Palestine, and it's on this parochial basis that he sides with Israel. That's the one slight variation from any of the standard right-wing approach, and I'll grant that it's an odd one. I occasionally hear that argument from the far left, as a justification for blindly supporting the palestinians; Steele is a little original in the conclusion he draws from his own equally silly attempt to project American racial politics onto Israel. In both cases, I find myself wondering if they have met any Israelis or Palestinians.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:17am

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

miceelf “Noga, members of many maligned groups believe that their own group is uniquely self-hating. I don't doubt that it happens among Jewish people, but it's also very common among African Americans, for example.” I lived with Black people for a number of years in the service and I never heard a Black person accuse another Black person of hating Blacks. The dynamic of self hatred works in different ways among different people. There are many classical studies of the phenomenon among Jews and you should familiarize yourself with them if you want to comment on this unique Jewish social problem. You can start here: “Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews” by Sander L. Gilman http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Self-Hatred-Anti-Semitism-Hidden-Language/dp/0801840635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277220000&sr=1-1

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:21am

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

jdyer, you're right of course that the context is different, but as I said, I don't do either one. In other contexts, I actually confront antisemitism regularly and have lost friendships over it. I've pointed out the antisemitism of ndmack on occasion here, but in general, you see it sometimes where I don't. The opposition to the blockade is a good example. While I don't doubt taht some criticism of Israel is reflexive and rooted in antisemitism, the Steele notion that it's necesarily the motivation of critics seems to be one that you at least occasionally give voice to. As to your most recent conflation. Well, you repeated it. You said I was comfortable with anti-semitism (I'm not). The main area where we disagree is on Israel policy, which leads me to the not too crazy conclusion that you're inferring that I'm comfortable with anti-semitism because I'm comfortable with criticism of some aspects of Israel policy. The only other area of disagreement between us that I can think of is that I tend to be more likely to call out obvious anti-arab or anti-muslim bias. But I can't believe that you think opposing such bias is proof of comfort with antisemitism.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:25am

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

miceelf “However, Steele is reflexively on Israel's side for somewhat exotic reasons: he assumes Israel is "whiter' than Palestine, and it's on this parochial basis that he sides with Israel.” Where does Steele say that Israel is whiter, and what does that mean? Are you saying that no Black person can be for Israel because it’s too white? Miceelf you sound like a disgusting antisemitic bigot. Jews can never win, for some they are too white for other not white enough.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:26am

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

jdyer, you wouldn't hear such accusations (I'm assuming you're white, correct me if I'm wrong). I wouldn't infer that such an absence of conversations in your hearing proves an absence of such conversations generally. But if you want to point me to particular research, I'll gladly read it. THanks for the link. here are some for you: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3180843 http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/high/decdistorted.cfm http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0021934708318664v1.pdf Also, Asian Americans; http://asiammedia.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/harvard-study-racial-identity-formation-self-hate-and-white-worship-among-asian-american-youth-in-high-schools/ etc.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:34am

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

miceelf “In other contexts, I actually confront antisemitism regularly and have lost friendships over it.” Hic Rhodus, hic salta! “I've pointed out the antisemitism of ndmack on occasion here, but in general, you see it sometimes where I don't.” That’s because I know more about the history of antisemitism than you do. I pointed this out before: “Meanwhile, Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian businessman of Palestinian descent who heads the “Free Palestine Organization” and is funding this boat, as well as another that is to carry journalists and parliamentarians, said over the weekend on Hizbullah’s al-Manar television station that he was more and more optimistic that one day these same boats would take “Europe’s refuse [the Jews] that came to my homeland back to their homelands. “Gilad Schalit should go back to Paris and those murderers go back to Poland, and after that we will chase them until the ends of the earth to bring them to justice for their acts of slaughter from Deir Yassin until today.” Kashlak, a fervent Hizbullah supporter, called Israel a “rabid dog sent to the region to frighten the Arabs. He said he had a message for Israelis: ‘Get on the ships we are sending you and go back to your lands. Don’t let the moderate Arab leaders delude you, [you] cannot make peace with us. Our children will return to Palestine, you have no reason for coexistence. Even if our leaders will sign a peace agreement, we will not sign.’” He said the boat carrying journalists and parliamentarians will carry 12 former American diplomats as well..” http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=178935 How do you feel about the above quote?

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:37am

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

I have no idea what it means, jdyer, you'll have to ask Steele, himself. As I said, someone who assumes Israel is whiter isn't paying attention. I think that applies to steele. I am not saying anything about what Black people can or cannot do. I am sying that steele is an idiot, not for supporting israel, but for doing so because he thinks it's "whiter." his Israel = white, palestine = brown construction is beyond silly. I have no idea why I'm responsible for what Steele decided to write. From the nonscreed by the wise political intellectual: "Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people." ... "By appearances they were shock troopers from a largely white First World nation willing to slaughter even "peace activists" in order to enforce a blockade against the impoverished brown people of Gaza."

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:40am

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

jdyer, it's a deplorable quote.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:41am

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

miceelf “jdyer, you wouldn't hear such accusations (I'm assuming you're white, correct me if I'm wrong). I wouldn't infer that such an absence of conversations in your hearing proves an absence of such conversations generally.” Well, I did hear Blacks call other Blacks (“niggers”) in my presence and we did talk about intimate issues concerning race and antisemitism. Some were honest enough to tell me about the existence of antisemitism in the Black communities and I talk about racism in the Jewish community.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:42am

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

miceelf “jdyer, it's a deplorable quote.” Yes, and it’s not unique I heard similar quotes from Arabs when I studied in France a couple of decades ago.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:45am

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

jdyer, fair enough. I guess I find it surprising, in such intimate conversations about race that self-hatred never came up. I DO know that I've had similar discussions and it has come up. And there's a great deal of research out there. I agree that the dynamics are different in different groups. I guess my point is that if Jewish people are "uniquely self-hating" then so are Black people, Asian people, gay people, French-Canadians, and others.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:48am

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

Jdyer, I believe you. I guess this is my question; does the fact that some (many?) Arabs give voice to such sentiments justify bias against Arabs? Do you believe that it's fair to assume that Arabs (in general) are going to be antisemitic?

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 11:51am

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

Here is the context of Steele speaking of Israel as "the whiter" country: ""World opinion" labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era—a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow "world opinion" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311011923686570.html What he said is indisputable in the sense that people who a couple of generations ago would never have seen Jews, even European Jews, as white (The Nazis killed them because they weren't white) now accuse it of being a "white supremacist" nation" Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact, especially among those who don't know history, which is true of most people.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 11:51am

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

Never heard of self-hating French-Canadians. Jacques Parizeau is a self-confessed anglophile but this in no way mitigates his identification with the Quebecois pure laine.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 11:59am

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

While one can never underestimate the resiliency of Jew-hatred in the world, what Shelby Steele fails to expand on is the way British history is viewed by the left as a greater insight to the delegitimization of Israel campaign (and, based on how Obama treats Great Britain, a frame to Obama's view of history): "... The British empire was, after all, an avowedly racist despotism built on ethnic cleansing, enslavement, continual wars and savage repression, land theft and merciless exploitation. Far from bringing good governance, democracy or economic progress, the empire undeveloped vast areas, executed and jailed hundreds of thousands for fighting for self-rule, ran concentration camps, carried out medical experiments on prisoners and oversaw famines that killed tens of millions of people. ..." quote from "This attempt to rehabilitate empire is a recipe for conflict: Prepare for an outbreak of culture wars if Michael Gove's appeal to colonial apologists to rewrite school history is taken up" Seumas Milne The Guardian, Thursday 10 June 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/10/british-empire-michael-gove-history-teaching There does seem to be a generational divide based on when one studied history. When I discussed today's Israel, when it was Olmert/Livni, with 30-something Liberal American Jews, they always saw British history this way, and that framed their view of Israel. Because I am 58, I can acknowledge this view of British imperialism while also seeing the positive legacy of language, laws, not to mention ending slavery as a moral issue. One can never judge the legacy of British imperialism in isolation. Look at the legacy of the Russian and Ottoman land empires, or Japan, Dutch, Spanish, or French, or Belgium's King Leopold's legacy in Congo. The Vikings were terrorists, but today's Ireland celebrates their Viking foundation in the schools. Neither the right nor the left has a monoploy on any historical narrative. But it does seem the left's disgust for the legacy of British (and French)imperialism does have as much to do with anti-Israel as the underlying anti-semitism.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 12:01pm

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

Noga, it's actually a similar dynamic to what Steele ascribes to Palestinians. "White niggers in america" is the classic argument about French-Canadian feelings of inferiority (from the perspective of one of the nationalist terrorists). incidentally and a propos of nothing, I have not witnessed as much rabid antisemitism in north america as I did when I lived in quebec.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 12:05pm

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

miceelf “Jdyer, I believe you. I guess this is my question; does the fact that some (many?) Arabs give voice to such sentiments justify bias against Arabs? Do you believe that it's fair to assume that Arabs (in general) are going to be antisemitic?” You have to ask these questions of Mizrahi Jews, Jews who fled Arab countries because of antisemitism. In any case, the parallel you try to draw between antisemitism and anti Muslim or anti Arab bigotry is not valid. Antisemitism led to expulsions and to the Holocaust. Even in our day there are Jews fleeing countries like Venezuela because of antisemitism. Had there not been an Israel this would have been more of a problem than it is. There dozens and dozens of Muslim and Arab countries in the world to which Arabs who feel threatened and discriminated against can go. This is hardly the case for Jews. This is why anti-Arab bigotry doesn’t have the same urgency as antisemitism. Of course bigotry is wrong wherever it is found and no matter who the target is. Still the consequences of such bigotry are not the same for targeted populations. A recent study in France, btw, showed that while the number of attacks against Jews and Arabs where roughly the same in terms of percentages it was quite different: Jew constitute only about one percent of the population while Arabs/Muslims constitute about twenty percent of the country. Moreover many of the attacks on Jews in France were carried out by these “minority” populations.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 12:07pm

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

miceelf: the same quotes you cited from Shelby Steele made me think of the broader left-right war over the legacy of British (and French) imperialism I noted above: "Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people."... Why did Peretz jump up for Steele, and not the Friends of Israel declaration? "Stand for Israel, Stand for the West. The Friends of Israel have joined together in a new international initiative on the basis of the following convictions: 1. Israel is a Western country. With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations. 2. Israel´s right to exist should not be questioned. In the face of a uniquely campaign of deligitimation, we remind all people of goodwill of the true historical context in which the State of Israel was re-established following United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947. We state emphatically that that decision to recognize the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination was not merely a gesture of compassion following the horrors that had befallen the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It was, above all, a recognition of the right of the Jewish people to establish a sovereign state on land in which they have had an enduring presence and to which they have had a historical claim for thousands of years. 3. Israel, as a sovereign country, has the right to self-defense. Israel is indeed a normal Western country, but it is one which faces unique threats and challenges. Israel is the only state in the world forced to fight one war after another to secure its very existence. Confronting some of the most violent and well equipped terrorist groups in the world it is also the only country whose right to self-defense is consistently and widely questioned. Today, Israel has been forced to fight on two fronts: one to defend its borders and another to defend its legitimacy. We stand with Israel, and demand that it be accorded the same legitimacy and the same right to defend itself as any other Western country. Human rights statutes designed to defend the dignity of people everywhere, laws on universal jurisdiction intended to be used against criminals and tyrants and international bodies established to secure justice, have been subverted, their guiding principles stood on their head, to wage war against Israeli democracy. The campaign against Israel is corroding the international system from within. 4. Israel is on our side. With this in mind, we must be clear in recognizing that Israel’s fight is our fight. Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral heritage which first gave rise to those institutions and the values which initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values. Israel stands on the front line, but we are next in line. If Israel’s right to self defense is questioned in the Middle East, our right to self-defense will be questioned when fighting similar terrorist enemies in Afghanistan, and at home. If principles of human rights and universal jurisdiction are to be turned into weapons against Israeli democracy, what makes us so sure they will not one day be used against European and North American democracy? Israel’s future is our fate. 5. We believe in peace, but peace in the Middle East is not just about Israel and the Palestinians. The aspiration for an enduring peace in the Middle East is a noble one, and it is one we share. But outsiders, helpful as they can sometimes be, can only achieve so much. The parties involved should know how to reach a satisfactory solution themselves. Attempts to impose solutions from the outside will fail. The key to ending this conflict is for the Palestinian side to unequivocally recognize Israel as the legitimate national homeland of the Jewish people. Once that step has been taken, good faith negotiations have a chance of achieving success. 6. We share the same threats and challenges. There are two related threats which also imperil the region, and the wider world: the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and jihadism; and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. These threats are as existential for the state of Israel as for the rest of us: the jihad knows no boundaries and a nuclear Iran represents a strategic revolution of global dimensions. Israel cannot and should not face those threats alone. For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. 7. Believing that the continuous deligitimation of Israel has a great deal of responsibility in raising an aggressive and dangerous anti-semitism, in a spirit of solidarity with the State of Israel, and in recognition that we, the Western nations, must stand together lest we fall together, we therefore launch the Friends of Israel Initiative to do the following: a) To combat the deligitimization of the State of Israel at home, abroad and inside the institutions of the international community. b) To publicly show our solidarity with Israel’s democratic institutions – the legitimate expression of the Jewish people’s millennial aspiration to live in peace and freedom in its national homeland. c) To support Israel’s inalienable right to secure borders unmolested by terrorists or tyrannical regimes so that its citizens can continue living with the same guarantees that our own societies enjoy. d) To consistently and firmly oppose the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. e) To work to ensure that Israel is fully accepted as a normal Western country, an essential and indivisible part of the Western world to which we belong. f) To reaffirm the value of the religious, moral, and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage as the main source of the liberal and democratic Western societies. These convictions inspire this Friends of Israel Initiative. We invite all men and women of goodwill to join us." http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 12:14pm

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

jdyer, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel at all. I was asking if you thought one justified the other. I was genuinely curious as to what you thought, as it wasn't obvious to me what your answer would be (particularly the question about whether you would feel justified in assuming Arabs are antisemitic). I hear what you are saying about the consequences of bigotry being important. I am not entirely sure I buy the "other countries they can go to" argument, at least in many cases. For example, hasn't part of the source of a great deal of Palestinian suffering been a lack of this very thing (i.e., no Arab countries that will take them in)?

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 12:16pm

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

Is everyone more divinely favored than I am, or why did the link to Steele's WSJ piece bring me to the title and nothing more?

- ironyroad

June 22, 2010 at 12:16pm

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

K2K, do you have a theory as to why?

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 12:17pm

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

ironyroad, it's clear that g-d hates you.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 12:17pm

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

What global lynch mob against jews? It's always Obama's fault (although I don't know what "it" is exactly. Just more pining for the days of Bush, Bob Jones, James Dobson, looting middle class wealth and general NeoCONfederacy policy

- OscarPeck

June 22, 2010 at 12:39pm

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

It is clear that Israel's current government doesn't give much thought to world opinion. Why should it, after all. It is also clear that it does not think much about the refugees and the people of Gaza. Some, perhaps most, anti-Zioinists are also anti-semities. All anti-semities are anti-Zionists. There is an undenialble over lap. Since noga1 is quoting Irving Howe, let me do the same. This quote is taken from "After the Middle East War" and is co-authored by Stanley Plastrik, published in Dissent: "To be sure, a peace settlement does not depend on Israel alone. It is time for the Arabs to end the brutal pretext that they are in a permanent state of war with Israel, thereby justifying border raids and sea blockades; it is time for the Arabs to recognize (which does not mean approve) the existence of Israel. But in turn the Israelis should take a constructive and humane attitude toward the problem of the Arab refugees—who, even if exploited by the Arab governments, are suffering human beings and deserve more sympathy and active help than they have gotten from a nation itself comprised of refugees."

- LawrenceGu

June 22, 2010 at 12:45pm

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

I thought the Steele article was excellent. The "whiter" quotation was obviously open to misinterpretation. But it's an argument advanced not by Steele but by people who see Israel as white supremacist, which is line with the Durban resolution linking Israel to South Africa and Zionism to racism. Obviously these are ridiculous associations, especially since Jews got exterminated and continue to be objects of discrimination due to not being white enough. And associating Israel with the British Empire is beyond ridiculous for a host of reasons. But the fact is, Israel seems to be taking the blame for all European colonialism/imperialism and various other misdeeds including the oppression of "brown" people (as though Israelis aren't "brown" and/or "indigenous people") and as though Europeans are the only people to have established empires. The existence of Muslim empires in particular is largely ignored by people accusing Israel of colonialism/imperialism and it also begs the question of Jewish origins in Israel. The fact is, Israel isn't anybody's colony and even in the case of West Bank settlements there is ambiguity in view of the fact that Jews have lived on the West Bank and "Arab East Jerusalem" for 3400 years until Jordan conquered them and threw out all the Jews. If it were legal for Jews to buy land/homes in Jordan or the PA, no doubt there would be a lot of money changing hands. As it is, it's a capital crime to sell property to Jews - why isn't this a UN issue? And why doesn't the UN tackle, once and for all, the shame of "refugee camps" still in existence in various Arab states but even on the West Bank and in Gaza? Re the "white" thing: race consciousness is different on the left and on the right and this gets Jews in the middle of any argument, which in either case we can't win. I run into people on the Right who see white people as victims. Jews are among the threats to "white" people along with, of course, Muslims and black people and Mexicans, etc. On the Left though white people are "oppressors" and everything is seen in terms of white vs "brown" and in this context Israel is "too white." Of course "brown" oppressors are nonexistent or invisible. I'm beginning to think this is all absurd. It also has nothing to do with Israeli policy, pace Roi - this is existential and it has to do with Jews. That's why it's ok to attack Israel 24/7 but not mention a word about Turkey killing tens of thousands of Kurds, even flying across the Iraqi border, and nothing is said in the UN "Human Rights Commission" about anybody but Israel, including the hundreds of thousands of displaced people, thousands of dead in Kyrgyzstan (and that's only the latest example of an outrage which is ignored by the UN): http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.D7FE/UN_Watch__Monitoring_the_UN_Promoting_Human_Rights.htm As to Obama, he didn't cause this, it is cyclical and recently has been building for years. But, many of Obama's constituents and supporters are not only anti-Israel but if you read "progressive" blogs they are antisemitic. Jewish conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Jews Being Too Powerful, disloyal to America, Israel runs America comments etc etc, are common on the Left sometimes to the point that I think the far far Right is deliberately infiltrating the progressive blogs but that's me in my tinfoil hat. Surely this could never happen right? and everybody on the 'net is who they claim to be no doubt. Regardless, this perceived support for anti-Jewish positions in the Administration might have emboldened Middle Eastern actors like Turkey to begin attacking Israel except for one thing: if you follow the history, Turkey has been growing increasingly antisemitic for years what with the "Valley of the Wolves" program and also the recent popularity of "Mein Kampf" and also reaction to the war in Iraq. This obviously predates the Obama Administration by years. And, there were people in Republican administrations, even US presidents, who were antisemitic also, like Nixon. And even American icons like FDR haven't been overly helpful to persecuted Jews and some, like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, were outright bigots. And pace miceelf and Roi - this really doesn't have anything to do with Israeli policy. Attacks on Israel long predate 1967 and PLO was created to destroy Israel, not to "end the occupation." Before Israel, there were pogroms against Middle Eastern Jews.

- Sophia

June 22, 2010 at 12:50pm

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

Could noga1 kindly give us the citation for Irving Howe's quote, " even in the warmest of hearts, there is a cold spot for the Jews.” I didn't find it in the article which she directs us to. Thanks.

- LawrenceGu

June 22, 2010 at 12:52pm

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

Thanks, malahat. I agree with some of Steele's argument but I don't feel like letting Netanyahu off the hook for the intelligence failure that led to the ship incident. Ultimately, it was a setup designed to trap Israel and they walked into it -- now the discussions about relieving the blockade of Gaza make it look as if the Israelis have conceded under pressure that they were wrong. To the best of my knowledge some Israeli politicians warned in advance of the incident that this was a publicity tactic -- a battle of images -- and a military response could go wrong.

- ironyroad

June 22, 2010 at 12:53pm

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

I'm a little discomfited that I'm quite sympathetic to Steele's basic thesis. But in the half of his piece that focuses on Western attitudes toward Israeli Jews, the phenomenon Steele describes is very much not "scapegoating." If Steele is correct, then the alienation of Western Gentiles from Israeli Jews today is not at all like the alienation of European Christendom from European Jewry between the wars. That was scapegoating, and it was based on deliberate and chosen hatred of Jews-as-Jews. The phenomenon Steele describes is hardly anti-Semitism at all, and thus more insidious and probably dangerous for Israel. It's a generalized lack of cultural confidence, and it focuses on Israeli Jews not because they're Jews but because they happen to be powerful and Western. In Steele's reading, had the Crusades turned out differently and Jerusalem was the capital of a Latin homeland instead of a Jewish one, today's Hamas apologists would be accusing the Judean Catholics of "piracy" and "apartheid". That Israel is populated by Jews and not Latins has nothing to do with it. I think Steele is basically right about this; it jibes with the general attitudes about the use of state power I encounter among educated Europeans. This is a new kind of anti-Semitism, closely related to dominant forms of racism in contemporary America. It's not the hard bigotry of deliberate hatred; few of today's reflexively anti-Israel Westerners would exclude Jews from their neighborhoods or clubs. It is a softer bigotry of uneven expectations. By throwing about the "scapegoat" canard, we risk fooling ourselves into believing that the old methods of fighting previous forms of anti-Semitism can solve the problems posed by this new form of anti-Semitism; and if they've been tried and failed (as they obviously have), then we just need more and stronger accusations of anti-Semitism. But most of today's anti-Israelites don't have an anti-Semitic bone in their bodies, as far as they believe. Accusing them of it simply discredits the accuser and reinforces their notion of being the aggrieved party, in much the same way that accusing your average white American of racism because he forwarded to his friends an email with Obama as Curious George only serves to convince him that he's the victim of "reverse racism". How can I be anti-Semitic when I work with or for or employ Jews, I have Jewish friends and neighbors, my kids go to school with Jews, my church teaches about and respects Judaism, blah blah blah? The accusation is obviously nonsensical, a lie, and demonstrates something nefarious in the accuser's motivations. If Steele's analysis is at all correct, then the old methods of fast and shrill denouncement by the ADL, by Marty, hell even by noga and jdyer, not only cannot and will not change minds, words, or actions, but they will be counterproductive and actually harmful to the proper goal of sustaining and rebuilding Western support for the Israeli experiment. As the problem is new, new solutions will be required. And if Steele is at all correct, then those solutions will have little to do with anyone's regard for Jews-as-Jews; solutions to the problems Steele identifies must be rooted more in fostering greater cultural self-confidence in the West generally, with little or no distinction or special regard for Jews particularly.

- rhubarbs

June 22, 2010 at 12:59pm

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

I think some of the ADL's comments are counterproductive but only because they bring out the haters. That doesn't let the haters off the hook nor should ADL et.al. shut up. The West has lost confidence in itself and Israel seems to be the scapegoat for all our problems. The Shoah itself can be seen as a huge failure of the West so now Israel is the Nazis? Oy. This is definitely a form of scapegoating isn't it and also an attempt at absolution, ie, see, the Jews were bad all along so we're not guilty.

- Sophia

June 22, 2010 at 1:28pm

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

miceelf “I hear what you are saying about the consequences of bigotry being important. I am not entirely sure I buy the "other countries they can go to" argument, at least in many cases. For example, hasn't part of the source of a great deal of Palestinian suffering been a lack of this very thing (i.e., no Arab countries that will take them in)?” This is a purely politically manufactured phenomenon. It is the Arab countries who are guilty of discrimination and they have used the refugees since 1948 as a way of carrying their war against the Jewish State. The UN has colluded with these States by setting up a unique refugee agency at the request of the Arab countries which only services these Arab “refugees:” UNRWA “The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 1:28pm

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

jdyer, I agree completely. I am just saying, in practical terms, that there aren't Arab countries available in any real sense for Palestinians to go to. I agree it's the decision of the Arab countries not to take in the palestinians. But that doesn't change the real situation of the palestinians very much.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 1:34pm

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

"And pace miceelf and Roi - this really doesn't have anything to do with Israeli policy. Attacks on Israel long predate 1967 and PLO was created to destroy Israel, not to "end the occupation." Before Israel, there were pogroms against Middle Eastern Jews." Sorry, sophia, but the notion that nothing has anything to do with Israeli policy is every bit as unsupportable as the notion that Arab enmity is purely the result of Israeli policy. What I was calling attention to was the fact that the same people, such as amidut, who believe and insist here that nothing that Israel does has any impact, positive or negative, or any bearing on any outcome -- because everything that occurs is entirely due to anti-Semitism, nothing more, nothing less -- can also believe that words from Obama, not of Jew-hatred but that simply fail to follow the right-wing Zionist historical narrative, can unleash enormous forces against Israel. Do you see how perfectly psychotic this is, to attribute such godlike powers to Obama's words while absolutely denying in every case that anything Israel does or does not do, actual deeds (other than kill its enemies that is) makes any difference? And this comment of mine then elicits a paroxysm from the self-appointed Super-Jews who spend their lives, consume themselves, in ritual denunciation of anti-Semitism and hate any Jew who refuses to join them in their endless wallow in self-pity. This is a very sick crowd. I repeat what I said: "Yes, the grace period has come to an end. Regarding Israel, the normal competition of national interests, including the interests of enemies, will now play out in international affairs. Smart people in Israel and amongst those who are concerned about Israel will think about this carefully. The messianic nuts will continue to imagine that the ritual invocation of the Holocaust or Jewish history will have magical effect and demand that everyone do so." Does anyone familiar with modern history really believe that the foundation of the State of Israel, the willingness of a majority of the UN to vote in favor of partition, owes nothing to guilt and horror at the Holocaust? And has that not had any persistent impact on the international politics surrounding Israel? Of course it has. But memories of the Holocaust are waning, we have fresh horrors in the world, and no matter how many times the Jackson Dyers seek to remind the world of what it owes the Jews, the world today is not going to have the same attitudes as the world of 60 years ago. Israel has real enemies who really hate Israel and Jews. Do you, sophia, suppose that only the right-wing "friends of Israel" know this? It is just that some of us want to think about what is to be done about concrete threats, not indulge ourselves in grandiose self-righteousness of the kind described by Steele in relation to Arab claims of victimhood. Is this how Israel is supposed to protect itself, by out-competing the Arabs in claims of victimhood? Apparently there are many here who think so and cannot even conceive of any other way of conducting themselves in the world. Disgusting and disgraceful. An insult to Zionism and to Judaism. The point of Zionism was to get out of the ghetto, not to drag it around forever like a set of clanking chains.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 2:23pm

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

Sophia, the form of scapegoating you describe is very much not what Steele argues is taking place. If you're right, then Steele is wrong, and we can stop talking about Steele's essay now. If Steele is right, then the scapegoating you describe, even if it's happening somewhere, is beside the point. The phenomenon of what might almost be called projected emasculation Steele describes does not let anyone off the hook for any problem, as scapegoating does. It's not the shifting of blame for one's own problems - scapegoating - but improperly assigning blame for things that aren't actually problems. In matters of domestic race, I distinguish between racism and bigotry. Forwarding the Obama-as-a-monkey email to your friends may be a sign of racism. But it's not an example of bigotry. Bigotry is excluding black people from a jury or harassing a black colleague at work. Certain segments of the black establishment spend far too much time crying "Wolf!" at every arguably racist utterance such that they have less credibility when denouncing the rarer but more important instances of demonstrably bigoted actions. Calling someone who does not intend racism a racist only teaches him that accusations of racism are political BS. If Steele is correct about the nature of modern anti-Israeli sentiment, a similar dynamic is likely to be at work. Labeling any wrong-headed utterance about Israel or Israelis anti-Semitism will tend to reduce the efficacy of efforts to counter overtly anti-Semitic actions. Restraint on old-school ADL-style denouncement, then, would seem to be in order, so long as it can be coupled with more assertive actions to encourage positive changes in confidence in Western civilization. What those positive steps might be, I don't know, and apparently neither does Steele, which somewhat reduces the efficacy of his diagnosis!

- rhubarbs

June 22, 2010 at 2:30pm

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

miceelf; "K2K, do you have a theory as to why?" not clear question. Steele used the leftist anti-colonialism frame in this op-ed, without developing WHY he used it, although it is certainly a rich topic for Steele's colleagues at the Hoover Institution, especially Victor Davis Hansen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution Arab countries already have Palestinian 'refugees', now in their third and fourth generation. June 17, 2010: "...Currently, Lebanon’s population of around 400,000 Palestinian refugees are forbidden from working in most professions, cannot benefit from social security even if they work legally, and are barred from owning property. The draft law was met with considerable opposition, however, with MPs failing to reach an agreement. Some parties, particularly Christian parties, said they feared “rushing” the amendments through would lead to the naturalization of Palestinians. ..." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=116070#axzz0rbfxhFtf Someone else can address Jordan's policy towards THEIR Palestinian refugees, also in the thrid and fourth generation, although Jordan does not discriminate the way Lebanon does. Other Arab countries (Syria, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait) have different policies, none of them more welcoming. I never know whether Egyptians consider themselves Arabs. But, I can not find the historical citations as to whether Egypt used Gaza as a form of 'internal exile' for the most troublesome of the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1920's-1967. My point is that Palestinians (and their descendants) living in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, and those who are Israeli citizens, have far greater rights than those who went to Lebanon, before any of them were calling themselves Palestinians.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 2:34pm

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

The cited paragraph below from the article "Israel and the Surrender of the West" by Mr. SHELBY STEELE is pure neo-conservative propaganda: "One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on." 1.) Reluctant to use our full military might: What is he talking about? Nuclear warfare? 2.) Enforce our borders. We have been having border issues with Mexico for 150+years and Western civilization has not come to an end. Truth be told, Mexico is a member in good standing of Western Civilization. 3."Ask for assimilation from new immigrants:" The number of language schools advertising "Learn English" in every language imaginable, including in Russian for the non-English speaking Soviet Jews, in NYC, is phenominal. 4.) Western Civilization is what is principally studied in our schools, with minority status given to Non-European Civilizations. 5.) Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on." You may face this problem in Greenwich Village, the East End, Soho, or in Berkeley, Ca. The West is hardly on the defensive. This is an extremist point of view. The other side of the argument is that the West has made some major league mistakes in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The sky is not falling but the article implies that the sky has already fallen. From these arguable premises a whole world view is created whose consequenses, intended and unintended, is to frighten, alarm and disorient us from the serious foreign policy chanllenges ahead of us.

- LawrenceGu

June 22, 2010 at 2:34pm

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

sorry, K2K, I meant why did Peretz choose steele (whose most recent book is a huge embarrassment) instead of the Friends of Israel, which might be an embarrassment of a different kind?

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 2:44pm

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

LawrenceGu, Shelby Steele's bugaboo is anything approximating white guilt or indeed any acknowlegement of America's history of racism and anything even remotely likely to address some of the current problems facing African Americans. He addresses Israel-Palestine, just like everything else, through this prism. All of his other complaints, voiced as asides, boil down to "white people are just too apologetic" That's the only way of making sense of what he writes. Like Peretz, he can't resist the malicious asides against the various things that he imagines are "sacred cows" but in fact are very easy and popular targets. in short, there's a part of him that believes that Al Sharpton recently succeed Jesse Jackson as president. It's standard conservative victimology, very analgous to Bill O'Reilly's imagined war on christmas, except in Steele's case, the villain is the allpowerful Black politically correct lobby, which controls the media, runs Hollywood, and has all the money.

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 2:50pm

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

Here is at least one of Steele's core points. "'World opinion' labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era—a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow "world opinion" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people." This is a wonderful piece of rhetorical sleight of hand, because it simply treats as an obvious truth that there is absolutely no basis for comparison between Israel and South Africa and that any such comparison is merely projection. Believing that Israel is a "colonial power" committed to occupation of a Third World people is some sort of delusion. Except that, in reality, the settlement of the West Bank while under occupation bears far too much resemblance to apartheid. If it is not yet full-blown apartheid, it aspires to be, and the similarities should discomfit anyone who takes human rights seriously (oh, like Martin Peretz lets say). Indeed, this appalling situation is so discomfiting that the only response one gets from the defenders 99% of the time is to point to worse deeds by someone else in the world, preferably Moslem. The West Bank is not incorporated Israeli territory. It is occupied, and acknowledged by Israel to be so. By settling it, Israel violates the Fourth Geneva Convention by transferring its own population to explicitly occupied territory. It cannot and will not grant political equality and rights to the inhabitants of the territory. Hence, we have a situation with a pretty white, Western, technologically and economically advanced society occupying, colonizing, and asserting political and military control over a less-white, non-Western, technologically and economically backward society. This is not a fantasy of Israel-haters, or some distorted perception of Westerners lacking self-confidence, as Steele would have. It is a fact. Not is it the logical, necessary or acceptable outcome of the Six Day War, It is a deliberate choice by a succession of Israeli governments to colonize the West Bank based on historical and messianic claims and the strange belief that something about Israel and Jewish history granted a license to ignore the international human rights convention to which Israel is itself a party. This has nothing whatever to do with "a territorial dispute" as Steele says and everything to do with the human rights of the people in an occupied territory. If Israel claimed the territory and granted the inhabitants citizenship, THEN it would be a territorial dispute. For now it is a human rights violation. Steele thinks the problem lies with people who notice this, rather than with the people who strive to deny it, and he concocts a whole right-wing fairy tale around it. He has invented the problem and the fairy tale is his. It has instant appeal to the right because it at once absolves them of any responsibility for the human rights problem and assures them of their moral superiority. Their single favorite thing, better than catnip for a cat or chocolate ice cream for a three-year-old. It should not be forgotten that, until very recently, the Likud openly aspired to permanent possession of the West Bank without any intention whatsoever of according the inhabitants political equality. It should also not be forgotten that, upon his election, Benjamin Netanyahu, prince of peace, could not bring himself publicly to accept a two-state solution in order to form a coalition with Kadima. Yet we can be sure that he was not in favor of a one-state solution with equal rights for all. The notion that at least some large minority of Israel has aspired, and still aspires, to colonial domination of the West Bank is not a fantasy. The whole thing is so shameful that Israel's defenders must contort themselves endlessly in order to pretend that these facts do not exist and to draw attention away from them. If you call attention to it, then you are an anti-Semite. (About this, Mearsheimer and Walt are not so far off the mark. One need only read the Spine to see it.) The one thing that seems never to occur to them is that Israel ought to just stop doing it, or that anyone who criticizes this state of affairs might actually have a legitimate point.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 2:51pm

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

"Could noga1 kindly give us the citation for Irving Howe's quote, " even in the warmest of hearts, there is a cold spot for the Jews.” I didn't find it in the article which she directs us to. " It's quoted in the sixth paragraph, just before the subtitle "COMMUNIST JUDEOPHOBIA"

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 2:54pm

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

You can find the quote here as well: Irving Howe and secular Jewishness: an elegy (Judaism, Wntr, 1996 by Edward Alexander) "This last letter from Irving prompted me to go back to the first one he sent me, in 1972, an unsolicited response to the first piece I ever wrote on a Jewish subject, an essay on Chaim Grade in Judaism magazine.(5) He expressed wonder not only that Grade's story "My Quarrel with Hersh Rasseyner" hadn't attracted more attention but that the Treasury of Yiddish Stories, the anthology in which it appeared in English in 1953, was never reviewed in any American literary journal. He also recalled, without explicitly endorsing, the saying of a friend that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews.'"(6) The parochialism and unearned condescension toward Yiddish literature (especially among Jewish critics) was among the few literary offenses that could ruffle Irving's sweetness of temper. He told me, in a letter of 1983, how Lionel Trilling, when he heard that Howe was working on Yiddish literature, expressed his "suspicion" of Yiddish literature. The remark pained and also enraged Howe, who never forgave Trilling for it, especially since the Columbia professor was entirely ignorant of the subject. Nevertheless, he and Trilling did become friends.(7)" Spam filter won't allow the link.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 2:57pm

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

micelf: "I meant why did Peretz choose steele (whose most recent book is a huge embarrassment) instead of the Friends of Israel, which might be an embarrassment of a different kind?" good question. I have no idea. my exposure to Peretz and TNR is very recent - I only come here because most of the commenters are interesting :) and it is an increasingly polarized blogosphere when the subject is Israel. While I acknowledge the depth and breadth of Jew-hatred and fully understand the risk of those who would love to finish what Hitler started, I prefer the FriendsofIsrael view: treat Israel like any other Western democracy, legitimate nation-state.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 3:57pm

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

The irony of the situation is that Western societies have developed the tools of self-criticism and established the political freedom to be self-critical. At the same time we've failed to teach our children and ourselves what a remarkable and rare achievement this has been. So our kids go to school and learn about the history of Western racism and imperialism. That would be fine if they were also taught about the histories of all the other imperialist empires from the Assyrian to the Mongol to the Ottoman that enslaved, pillaged and exploited. Then they would realize that we were only the last and most recently successful players in a game that has gone on through the millennia. Their was nothing uniquely evil about Western imperialism. In fact, one could argue plausibly that the French in West Africa, for example, were far better colonial masters than the Turks in the Balkans. And, Western imperialism deserves some recognition for actually collaborating in the processes that led to its final dismantling. What other empires ever did this? Or taught their children about the history of their moral shortcomings? Yet today the West is, as Steele points out, constantly on the defensive, parrying the charges of racism and imperialism. And, in it's in that void created by misplaced guilt, that the Islamists manage to sell the story of Israel, the nation of imperialist aggressors, come in their prison ships from Cypress to plunder the desert sands of the Negev.

- willjames77

June 22, 2010 at 4:03pm

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

Roi, one of the things that bothered me most about the Steele piece is that it wasn't written by a Democrat or a leftist.* It shouldn't fall to the right to say these things. Unfortunately left wing defense of Israel is hard to find and that says more to me about the "new" left than it does about Israel. Incidentally please note I carefully and clearly do not blame Obama, although I reiterate: some of his supporters and apparently advisors are suspect with regard to Israel as well as Jews. Read the damn blogs if you don't believe me. That said, the increase in antisemitism has been obvious for years. So how can that be Obama's fault? Also please read where I state that I think, and this time I'm not joking, that the far right has been using the progressive blogosphere to attack Jews. The kids who post on Kos for example may not know enough to sniff out an old time Jewish conspiracy theory and an anti-Israel political statement. That said, as far as I'm concerned an anti-Israel political statement is probably de facto antisemitic to begin with, not including criticisms limited to specific Israeli policies which are of course legitimate. But outright hostility to the nation per se? How else do you interpret that? Do we see entire discussion forums, TV shows, demonstrations and conferences dedicated to the disappearance of France? The overlap between antizionist leftists and traditional antisemites has in some cases been explicit. This is true of the divestment and boycott movements in England for example, which have actually been seen linking to neonazi and KKK sites in the US. At times Kos and Moveon.org have read like Stormfront, this is also true of discussion threads at HuffPo. There's nothing "progressive" about this stuff so if it isn't being planted by the antisemites on the Right where is it coming from? The "electric intifada" maybe? And why aren't "progressive" leaders speaking out about it? By the same token though - I stand by my assertion that antisemitism old or new has nothing to do with Israeli policies, many of which are the result of serial war, rejection by the world of nations, attacks by the UN, terrorism and broken promises. Israel was attacked by Day One, Roi. What about Israeli policy caused that? And prior to Day One - the Yishuv was disarmed and blockaded by Britain and boycotted by the Arab nations. What did this have to do with Israeli government policy? I have also clearly stated that Israeli policies which "collectively punish" the Palestinians are bad. But those in themselves do not begin to explain the global obsession with Israel and nor do they explain Arab and British hostility or French and American betrayal or Soviet incitement of war and the arming and funding of radical anti-Israel states and militias. *Note, except for the part equating Western greatness with military power. I think that's kind of nuts. One of our biggest problems in the West is our propensity to extreme violence. But what does that have to do with Israel except insofar as Jews were victims of Western violence?

- Sophia

June 22, 2010 at 4:30pm

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

roidubouloi "This is a wonderful piece of rhetorical sleight of hand, because it simply treats as an obvious truth that there is absolutely no basis for comparison between Israel and South Africa and that any such comparison is merely projection." In most cases it is merely a projection. In this case it is a malicious and bigoted projection. However, as Henry James has taught us comparisons stop nowhere and there is always a basis of comparison between two entities. Hell, one could compare Roi’s opinionated posts to diarrhea they each run automatically without thought. Steele, on the other hand, is a much better writer and thinker than Roi and is certainly more accomplished. Roi is just some old fart stock in an old age home with some kind of laptop.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 4:31pm

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

rhubarbs, I have to think about your interesting comment/analysis. I hadn't thought of the distinction between bigotry and racism, for one thing.

- Sophia

June 22, 2010 at 4:36pm

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

...Here is at least one of Steele's core points...(etc.) This is pretty strongly and well argued but I think that Steele has the better of the issue. The first reason why is that rather than the more nuanced position set out in above post, Steele is responding to a (forgive me) black and white view of the occupation that is of a piece with Palestinian irredentism, that won’t make peace, that won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that is Islamist in some parts and inclines to it in other parts. That irredentism curries, and gets the favor of, “world opinion”. It is that unnuanced, black and white view of things increasingly seeping into, and informing, world opinion, that Steele is responding to, a view that calls for Israel to dismantle the blockade, that hedges on ideological terror, that won’t cede to Israel its sovereign legitimacy, and that is continuous with liberal self haters such as Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash who would laud Tariq Ramadan regardless of his espousal of the righteousness of the terror war against Israel. Once one understands who and what Steele is responding to one understands further two things astride the critique made out I the above post: 1. in fact, in context, it is no rhetorical sleight of hand; and 2. there need be no inconsistency between Steele’s characterization and his (if he has them, I don’t know) discrete criticisms of Israel’s settlement policy, just as Israel has many strong and ardent defenders who criticize its settlement policy. The second reason why the criticism is, finally, off centre is the totality of all the reasons that make it difficult for Israel simply to end the West Bank occupation. While there had always been a messianic thrust to that policy after 1967, it strikes me as unreasonable both to see the continuation of that messianism in current policy and to hold that even if conditions permitted Israel would not end the occupation and not welcome a the trading of land for peace. To put the second point more assertively: if it had a partner for peace, Israel would make peace: it is unreasonable not to think so. And that point is so regardless of how late Netanyahu arrived at the dance. Gaza taught Israel the perils of unilateral withdrawal. A reasonable case can be made, and is, that Netanyahu pursues what two statism he can. He does this, it can be reasonably argued, by his policies encouraging West Bank Israeli joint ventures and easing check points on the premise of a bottom up growth of Palestinian statehood, which is the starting point for Salim Fayed. Military necessity and Islamist irredentism bedevil easy talk of Israel withdrawal from the West Bank. 3. This second reason bleeds into the third: talk of apartheid is inapposite, to put it mildly, since, essentially, Israel would forgo the West Bank for peace. And the assimilation of Israel to South Africa, an explicitly racist regime, de facto and de jure, is a mile wide for all that anyone can point to the oppressive conditions under which West Bank Palestinians live. The Occupation presents Israel with a tragic dilemma which it would solve if it could. An apartheid state it is not. So, as I say, Steele is, I think, right and the above arguments made against him proceed from the wrong premise, and, conceptually wrong to start with, get entangled in their own complications.

- basman

June 22, 2010 at 4:48pm

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

Why, jackson, how wonderfully mellow for you. I do believe your Tourette's is abating somewhat. Nope. No basis for comparison between a white society that dominates a non-white society, settles its people in privileged enclaves, controls water, roads, has to use repressive security measures against the restive population to protect itself and a white society that dominates a non-white society, settle its people in privileged enclaves, controls water, roads, has to use repressive security measures against the restive population to protect itself. Projection is all. There is no doubt that Israel faces genuine security threats from the Arabs, including certainly the Palestinians. The fraud is that security is enhanced by, or somehow justifies, colonization. That is the line that apologists such as yourself want to peddle. But it just won't wash. ________________ Sophia, I don't deny the existence of virulent anti-Semitism or that it explains much of what motivates states and people hostile to Israel. But, roughly speaking, so what? This reality doesn't tell us anything about what Israel should or should not do. It certainly should not be interpreted to mean that Israel can do whatever its own worst elements want because there will be anti-Semites in any case. Israel is a part of the west. Denying that political and cultural reality at this juncture seems pointless to me. Its security ultimately likes at least in large part in being firmly and fully a member of the western community. The ongoing conflict with the Arabs taxes the west for a variety of reasons and so western nations would like to see it end. They would like Israel to be doing what it rationally can to that end, not invoking security as cover for policies that are not about security. Would a greater effort to to this by itself end anti-Semitism or fully welcome Israel to the western community of nations. Probably not. But the alternative of not doing so is worse. Willjames makes two points, that the west is far from unique in its imperialism and colonialism (there was a book review in TNR just a few days ago about Comanche domination of the other Plains tribes). And it is unique in stumbling into an ideology that call for an end to colonial domination. No other nation or group of nations can say that. It has, however, occurred. (Some brilliant social historian will have to explain how this occurred and why.) From the League of Nations through the United Nations, anti-colonialism has been one of the pillars of western foreign policy and ideology. The French and British made invited scorn for being late to accept the reality, the US for seemingly picking up the colonial mantle from France in SE Asia. Israel, patronized by the west, makes it easy for former colonial possessions to claim that the western concerns for sovereignty, human rights, de-colonization are merely opportunistic frauds by which the west seeks to maintain its domination by other means. "See, look at Israel? All that human rights crap goes right out the window when it is one of their own that is engaging in the supposedly prohibited behavior. The "human rights" agenda is merely another form of western domination." Indeed, if you read only Martin Peretz, you would be convinced that human rights is merely a political tool to be used for one's own aggrandizement. Hence, Israel complicates both western diplomacy and the prevailing ideological narrative in the west. That doesn't mean anti-Semitism doesn't exist. It does mean that there is a real problem between Israel and other western nations that is not adequately explained either by anti-Semitism or by Israel's legitimate security needs in the face of Arab and Moslem threats.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 4:54pm

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

Sophia, you articulate my feelings exactly. You hit the sweet spot, as they say in tennis.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 22, 2010 at 4:59pm

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

"...has to use repressive security measures against the restive population to protect itself and a white society " "white society" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w99X2wcsbRg&feature=related One of the achievements of Israeli society is that it has managed to overcome its mainly fifties delusion that it was a white, European society. There are still quite a few bigots around, but for the most part, Israeli society has matured into a deeper understanding and affection for its rainbow essence, its constantly becoming culture, its future spectre, which is less blond and much too brown for roi's levels of comfort. What an utter bigoted schmuck.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 5:09pm

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

what an utter bigoted golem. (schmuck implies a note of virility).

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 5:50pm

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

What a pair of fucking morons you two are. Vicious, racist, sadistic, unprincipled, disgusting, and stupider than toast. I am so grateful that I have no possibility of encountering either of the two of you in person. It isn't even worth rebutting you. No point arguing with such vile and detestable human beings.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 5:57pm

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

| roidubouloi "Why, jackson, how wonderfully mellow for you. I do believe your Tourette's is abating somewhat." Yours hasn't. Besides, I love to keep you writing. It doesn't take much to get you to write a chapter of pretentious and nonsense in the service of Judenhass. But then, you have nothing else to do, do you?

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 6:02pm

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

Show us the rainbow picture of the settler population why don't you noga. Not some "we are the world" concert, but all the black and brown faced settlers in the West Bank. Come on. Ever drive through? Ever notice just how the guards at checkpoints decide whom to waive through and whom to stop and check? It ain't just license plates. And you have the chutzpah to call me a racist. Do you ever open your mouth without weird, psychotic lies emerging? What a nightmare you are.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 6:05pm

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

roidubouloi "What a pair of fucking morons you two are. Vicious, racist, sadistic, unprincipled, disgusting, and stupider than toast. I am so grateful that I have no possibility of encountering either of the two of you in person. It isn't even worth rebutting you. No point arguing with such vile and detestable human beings." Temper, temper, tourrette makes a comeback. This is why they call it "tour'rette. It goes round and round and where it stops no one knows.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 6:06pm

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

Plus, the notion of Israel protecting itself to preserve its"white" privilege flies in the face of of its accomodating over the years of its own Sephardic popoulation and its according (imperfectly) functionally equal civil rights to its Israeli Arab citizens even to the extent of harbouring a potential fifth column. To argue otherwise is just to argue for the sake of arguing, no matter how implacably, repetitively or lengthily.

- basman

June 22, 2010 at 6:08pm

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

Judenhaas, jackson? A wack-job like you couldn't possibly tell the real thing if it walked up and grabbed you by the throat. Corned beef is Judenhaas to you. You adore being hated, revel in being loathed, and I am sure that there is no one in your life to do it for you personally. Probably the only thing that gives you any sense that you are actually alive. Hence, you come here for a good wallow. But rest assured, jackson, I don't think you are a wack-job because you're Jewish, just because you're a wack-job.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 6:10pm

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

Dear basman, You too need to get out more, visit the West Bank, see just who it is who is settled there. Whether Israel proper is a multi-complexioned society is quite besides the point. Israel has never had any intention of giving imperfectly equal civil rights to the Arab residents of the West Bank, any more than apartheid South Africa did to residents who were not of the designated privileged class. And the claim that Israel has no partner for peace is no more true than that the Arabs have no partner for peace. They each have no partner who will accept their terms. If Israel offered to accept the Saudi peace plan, what would the Palestinians say, no? Even if those terms were offered by Israel without any Palestinian right of return, the odds are overwhelming that it would be accepted by the Palestinians. The claim that there is "no partner for peace" is made to obscure that Israel insists on terms that most of the rest of the world does not consider acceptable. If the Arabs were smart enough to declare their state, insist that they will pursue their goals by purely peaceful means, and refuse to surrender any of their claims, the game would be up for Israel and we would suddenly see just how devoted Israel is to peace rather than land. If the Arabs did this, they would achieve not only a state but more than likely their territorial objectives within a decade.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 6:20pm

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

http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-government-who-s-who-in-the-new-cabinet-1.273321 Here's a nice set of photos of Israel's cabinet. Looks like the UN? Not exactly. And there's not a single black kid singing, as in the video served up by noga. The fact that Israel is a largely white society does not make it a racist society. The fact that it is a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank makes it a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank. The facts are stubborn, and accusing everyone in the world of being anti-Semitic for noticing them is not making any headway -- which should surprise no thinking person.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 6:28pm

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

Yes, Roi, judenhass. You make the settlers (most of whom are just there for cheap housing) on the West bank sound like Spartans in charge of a populaton of helots, which is absurd. The settlements should be dismantled though in the context of a peace accord. As for your picture gallery most of them look like what they are, Jews, and very few of them, if any including Avigdor Lieberman, Yaakov Margi, and Netanyahu himself would pass the "aryan test."

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 6:49pm

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

roi to noga: "It isn't even worth rebutting you. No point arguing with such vile and detestable human beings." Followed by a most pathetic attempt at "rebuttal": "Here's a nice set of photos of Israel's cabinet. Looks like the UN? Not exactly. And there's not a single black kid singing, as in the video served up by noga. The fact that Israel is a largely white society does not make it a racist society. The fact that it is a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank makes it a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank. The facts are stubborn, and accusing everyone in the world of being anti-Semitic for noticing them is not making any headway -- which should surprise no thinking person."

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 6:54pm

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

"The fact that it is a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank makes it a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society in the West Bank." It would be racist if it dominated that society because of skin color which is not the case. It is true that many of the settlers deep in the West Bank are pretty nasty towards their Arab neighbors. And the sooner they can be moved to Israel the better off the Jewish State would be. Israel has tried to negotiate a withdrawal but so far has been unsuccessful. This fact is what Roi’s posts a bunch of nonsense.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 7:05pm

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

" Jews who think Israel’s policies are wrong should say so and Jews who think Israel shouldn’t exist should say so too. What they shouldn’t imagine is that doing so is going to make them anymore aceptable to the hordes who have antisemitic rage bubbling just beneath their civilized and polite countenances." http://blog.z-word.com/2010/06/timerman-and-antisemitism/#more-1644

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 7:18pm

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

...The blond David of yesteryear surveys from a helicopter the occupied Palestinian lands and fires missiles at unarmed innocents; the delicate David of yore mans the most powerful tanks in the world and flattens and blows up what he finds in his tread; the lyrical David who sang praise to Bathsheba, incarnated today in the gargantuan figure of a war criminal named Ariel Sharon, hurls the 'poetic' message that first it is necessary to finish off the Palestinians in order later to negotiate with those who remain... ...Intoxicated mentally by the messianic dream of a Greater Israel which will finally achieve the expansionist dreams of the most radical Zionism; contaminated by the monstrous and rooted 'certitude' that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological and pathologically exclusivist racism are justified; educated and trained in the idea that any suffering that has been inflicted, or is being inflicted, or will be inflicted on everyone else, especially the Palestinians, will always be inferior to that which they themselves suffered in the Holocaust, the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner. Israel seizes hold of the terrible words of God in Deuteronomy: 'Vengeance is mine, and I will be repaid.' Israel wants all of us to feel guilty, directly or indirectly, for the horrors of the Holocaust; Israel wants us to renounce the most elemental critical judgment and for us to transform ourselves into a docile echo of its will.... Jose Saramago

- basman

June 22, 2010 at 7:33pm

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

As Shelby Steele said: ...the consolations of hatred...

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 8:07pm

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

noga1 Re:As Irving Howe put it “even in the warmest of hearts, there is a cold spot for the Jews.” Your post indicates as follows: "He [IH]also recalled, without explicitly endorsing, the saying of a friend that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews." In your post you note, "As Irving Howe said....." When, in fact, it is Irving Howe not explicitly endorsing what a friend said...." I attended the memorial service for Irving Howe at the 92nd Street Y. The auditorium was packed. Leon Wieseltier spoke movingly of his friend Irving. Howe's editor spoke for their friendship and work together. A Yiddish-ist spoke in Yiddish of their warm relationship and work on Yiddish literature. There were old socialists who hadn't spoken in years, grieving a great man and comrade. Max Shachtman's wife, Yetta Shachtman was there--Howe being once one of "Max's boys." There were people from many walks of life who had worked and struggled together with Howe over many decades. One of Irving Howe great associates was Michael Harrington, a rebel Irish-Catholic and socialist leader who died young and closely collaborated together with Howe to build a non-sectarian democratic socialist movement in the US. I find it inconceivable you could credit Irving Howe directly with such a remark. Your sources are tertiary at best. Please show more respect for historical ethics as well as the great humanist, Irving Howe.

- LawrenceGulotta

June 22, 2010 at 8:28pm

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

I did not note anything. Both were quotes from sources about Howe citing him as saying such and such. "He also recalled, without explicitly endorsing, the saying of a friend that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews.'"(6) implies that even if he did not EXPLICITLY endorse his friend's opinion, he IMPLICITLY did. Why else would he recall it in that particular context? What other meaning would you attribute to that statement? "He expressed wonder not only that Grade's story "My Quarrel with Hersh Rasseyner" hadn't attracted more attention but that the Treasury of Yiddish Stories, the anthology in which it appeared in English in 1953, was never reviewed in any American literary journal. He also recalled, without explicitly endorsing, the saying of a friend that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews.'"(6) The parochialism and unearned condescension toward Yiddish literature (especially among Jewish critics) was among the few literary offenses that could ruffle Irving's sweetness of temper." What's this statement of yours "One of Irving Howe great associates was Michael Harrington, a rebel Irish-Catholic and socialist leader who died young and closely collaborated together with Howe to build a non-sectarian democratic socialist movement in the US. " got to do with any of it baffles me.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 8:56pm

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

some men get mean when they get drunk. verbally mean. maybe all we are encountering is AbsolutRoid. who will never know if he is encountering any of the objects of his mean drunkenness.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 8:57pm

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

LawrenceGulotta I generally enjoy your posts. Fwiiw, if you google the subject apothegm, you'll keep bumping into its attribution to Howe--not definitive certainly but relatively convincing.

- basman

June 22, 2010 at 8:59pm

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

It doesn't take any alcohol at all K2K to realize that you and noga are detestable. You are. The difference is that you are a detestable boob, more muddled and hapless than anything else. She on the other hand is a serial liar, a propagandist in the image of Josef Goebbels whose favorite tactic is to invent and attribute to others detestable ideas for which she then assaults them, casting herself as victim. As well, she has perfected his endless self-pity while engaged in his vicious behavior. The exaltation of victimhood while in search of prey. Goebbels to a tee. A real sociopath. One can only be grateful that this blog is the most important thing in your sorry lives as you have no means of doing real harm. If you were given the opportunity, I have no doubt that you would both do some horrific damage.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 10:33pm

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

"Jews who think Israel’s policies are wrong should say so and Jews who think Israel shouldn’t exist should say so too. What they shouldn’t imagine is that doing so is going to make them any more acceptable to the hordes who have antisemitic rage bubbling just beneath their civilized and polite countenances." It is the Jewish self-loathers, such as noga, who are obsessed with whether they will be acceptable to the hordes. Those of us who have not internalized anti-Semitism as she has don't care, except and to the extent only that there are practical problems created. Those we look to solve or avoid or minimize, but not by trying to render ourselves acceptable. We accept ourselves. We have no need.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 10:39pm

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

"Israel has tried to negotiate a withdrawal but so far has been unsuccessful. This fact is what Roi’s posts a bunch of nonsense." Israel demands as the price for withdrawal that the Palestinians legitimize their own colonization by Israel in violation of international law and morality. The Palestinians have declined to do so. Israel than uses this to justify their continued colonization claiming it has "no partner for peace." What Israel lacks is a partner who will acquiesce and accord Israel the fruit of its violations. This is a rather perverse notion of "trying." What Israel, particularly the Likud, wants more than peace is not to have to admit that the colonization of the West Bank has been a colossal error. Hence, it negotiates first and foremost not for peace, but for legitimation of this error. A successful negotiator understands not only his own needs and wants but those of the other side, and contrives to bring the other side irresistibly close to its goals at an acceptable cost. Israel and the self-proclaimed friends, who are intent on dragging Israel down they love it so much, are so lacking in imagination that they cannot even understand why, from an Arab point of view, Israel's offers of the territory it will keep are unacceptable. Even if you don't accept the other side's point of view, you have to understand it. Instead, Israel and self-proclaimed friends just keep insisting that the Arabs are either stupid not to accept Israel's offers or do not want peace. I cannot think of an instance where this has worked as a negotiating tactic. This is why jackson's posts are such crap. He has the insight of a flea. No, I take that back. He lacks so much as the insight of a flea. Given his incapacity, it is far easier for him simply to keep insisting that obvious falsehoods are true.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 11:00pm

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

The friends of Israel are so thick that they simply cannot understand that a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society to which it will not grant political equality is unacceptable in the modern world WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE MOTIVATION IS RACIAL. By seeking to distinguish Israel from South Africa based on the lack of racial motivation, they do not negate the analogy with apartheid. Rather, they confirm it with their obliviousness to the facts that give the analogy force in the world.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 11:07pm

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

WTF would raging roid know about "A successful negotiator understands not only his own needs and wants but those of the other side, and contrives to bring the other side irresistibly close to its goals at an acceptable cost. " psycopathic bully of a lawyer sucking the lifeblood out of everyone.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 11:29pm

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

Now you're talking, K2K. Obviously you've never made a deal. But, no matter. No one expects you to know what you are talking about anyway. That would be out of character.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 11:56pm

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

noga1: Irving Howe's life long political commitments undermine the notion of his belief that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews." Howe, in his mature years, believed in coalition politics. Coalition political strategy which brings together diverse peoples, causes, committees and movements to achieve a common goal. If Howe actually believed and acted upon the notion that "in the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews" he would have suffered political paralysis. Why advocate coalition politics if you think "in the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews?" Howe was a close associate of many non-Jewish political leaders such as Michael Harrington (lapsed Irish-Catholic), Bayard Rustin (Quaker), principal organizer of the 1963 March on Washington and intimate associate of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Norman Thomas and many notables of the democratic left. Do you think Howe could have maintained a close bond with these non-Jewish political associates, over a life time of struggle and sacrifice, if he felt they maintained a "cold spot for Jews?" The idea is preposterous. Howe fearlessly crossed religious, class and ethnic lines to fight for a better world. The infamous quote is third degree hearsay passing as fact. It doesn't fit the man, his philosophy or his life's work. If you wish to get a second opinion, contact the folks at Dissent magazine or ask Leon Wieseltier. My thanks to "basman" for his warm compliment. I hope to maintain your interest.

- LawrenceGulotta

June 22, 2010 at 11:57pm

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

roid to K2K "Obviously you've never made a deal" you have no idea how very wrong you are. if only you knew how wrong. but you are always wrong because you are only here to attack Peretz, believing your own lies and exuding the most vicious ad hominem attacks, alienating everyone else, persuading no one to your position because you are so mean in spirit. golem.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 12:03am

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

roid, the reason I know you are a psycopathic bully is because no one can negotiate with them; they only accept unconditional surrender, and not even that from anyone who exposes them. you are the third such creature to cross my path the past forty years.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 12:07am

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

roidubouloi “The friends of Israel are so thick that they simply cannot understand that a largely white society dominating a not-so-white society to which it will not grant political equality is unacceptable in the modern world WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE MOTIVATION IS RACIAL.” Roi confuses CAPS with evidence. Israel is not a white society nor is it large, no matter what you think. Even the government is composed of a mixture of Ostjuden, and Sphardi Jews. Nor is it their wish to dominate the Palestinian many of whom are also “white” and have blue eyes like the late Mufti of Jerusalem and Arafat’s’ wife. Roi doesn’t know what he is talking about which sis why he keeps repeating the same point over and over again. As to the "world not tolerating white controlling non whites" that too is bulshit. I haven't seen any protests against the governments of Brazil or Paraguay or Argentina, or Chile, etc. all of which have white governments dominating non white majorities.

- jdyer

June 23, 2010 at 12:34am

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

Here is another example of the 'longest hatred:" “ Decoy Jews” “Dutch police are to use “decoy Jews”, by dressing law enforcers in Jewish religious dress such as skullcaps, in an effort to catch anti-Semitic attackers. Secret television recordings by the Jewish broadcasting company, Joodse Omroep, broadcast at the weekend, have shocked Amsterdam, a city which prides itself on liberalism and which is home to the Anne Frank museum. The footage showed young men, often of Muslim immigrant origin, shouting and making Nazi salutes at a rabbi when he visited different areas of the Dutch capital.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7846704/Dutch-police-use-decoy-Jews-to-stop-anti-Semitic-attacks.html will do the hypocrtical Israel haters about this?

- jdyer

June 23, 2010 at 12:37am

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

"Do you think Howe could have maintained a close bond with these non-Jewish political associates, over a life time of struggle and sacrifice, if he felt they maintained a "cold spot for Jews?" The idea is preposterous. Howe fearlessly crossed religious, class and ethnic lines to fight for a better world" From your fierce response to the very idea that Irving Howe may have kept a small corner of scepticism in his warm heart about the unconscious antisemitism in the best of men I conclude that it must have touched a rather sensitive nerve. The very idea that such an exceptional Jew could actually work and love people in whom he sometimes may have noticed the lingering remains of some antisemitic inclinations. As if the onus is upon him to cleanse his heart of such terrible thoughts, not upon them to cleanse their hearts of such lingering malice. Your response reminds me of another much celebrated Jewish author, Isiah Berlin. From an article “Individuality, Nationality, and the Jewish Question” by Joan Cocks: “Berlin repeatedly represents England as a liberal and tolerant society in which Jews could feel themselves equal to all other citizens. Nevertheless, the realities of English anti-Semitism should make us wonder … Berlin resembles the assimilating Jews he describes in "Jewish Slavery and Emancipation," who for survival's sake had "to make themselves familiar with the habits and modes of behaviour" of Gentile society, to "get this right" and "not miscalculate." … Berlin’s remark, so incongruous with his long and happy existence at the pinnacle of English society, that Marilyn Berger reports in her New York Times obituary for him. "... one has to behave particularly well ... [or] they won't like us." When.. "it was suggested to him that he was surely the exception ... he had an immediate response: 'Nevertheless, I'm not an Englishman, and if I behave badly...'" As you can see from this example, Howe was careful to "not miscalculate" when he "He also recalled, without explicitly endorsing, the saying of a friend that "In the warmest of hearts there's always a cold spot for the Jews.'" The horror!

- noga1

June 23, 2010 at 6:25am

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

You are simply pathetic, K2K. A jumped up wannabe bully who doesn't have the stones, but doesn't have the good sense to be civilized either. There are very few people here who take more crap than I do, and a reasonable share of it comes from you. Your delusions about your self are quite obvious. You are a (very) little prick whose only regret is that he doesn't have the brains to be a big prick.

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 2:08pm

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

roid whines: "There are very few people here who take more crap than I do" You can not see you are a party of one in TNR? thanks for my laugh of the day :)

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 8:20pm

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

"There are very few people here who take more crap than I do" "The Grinch: The nerve of those Whos. Inviting me down there - on such short notice! Even if I wanted to go my schedule wouldn't allow it. 4:00, wallow in self pity; 4:30, stare into the abyss; 5:00, solve world hunger, tell no one; 5:30, jazzercize; 6:30, dinner with me - I can't cancel that again; 7:00, wrestle with my self-loathing... I'm booked. Of course, if I bump the loathing to 9, I could still be done in time to lay in bed, stare at the ceiling and slip slowly into madness. But what would I wear?" ...A lighthouse makes light, so, just for a lark, I built me a darkhouse. A darkhouse makes dark. The Cat in the Hat: That Grinch. That Grinch! That psychopathic Grinch!.. Why is a Grinch? What makes him tick? Why is his Grinch brain sick, sick, sick? Oh boy, if I had a psychiatrist couch, I'd find out what's wrong with that Grinchy grouch... Is there something in your family tree that causes Grinch a leg onesy?.. As a boy, were you never a good Boy Scout? Did you ever eat too much sauerkraut? Did your schoolteacher say that you were a fool? Did you dive in an empty swimming pool? Did you fight a lot with your older sisters? Did you suffer from poison ivy blisters? The shoes that you wore, were they too tight? Were you afraid to go out in the dark at night? Did some big bully steal your kite? Your teeth, was there something wrong with your bite? Or maybe your mother didn't treat you right?... Hmm, one of the most difficult patients I ever had. I'm gonna have to make a house call. "

- noga1

June 23, 2010 at 9:04pm

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

copied from comments attached to: "Homeward Bound: Notes on Helen Thomas" 06/23/2010 - 4:45pm EDT | JackR roid - With that invitation I will be glad to wade in, with the caveat that I know it's easier to give advice than to follow it. First, no one can censor you and, really, no one can drown you out. Your words and thoughts were at all times present, complete, and readable. How else would we have had our colloquy? So you can drop "being drowned out" as an excuse for anything. Second, IMHO it's of critical importance to stay calm regardless of the provocation. These are substantive, intellectual matters, and most readers are fair-minded enough to respond well to clarity and cogency, which happen to be your strong suits. Third, this emphatically does NOT mean that you can't take umbrage at being misquoted, perversely misunderstood, or even insulted. When any of these occur, you can speak authoritatively about your reactions to same e.g. "I'm offended that you characterize me as..." or "You have grossly misunderstood my point..." or "I'm concerned that your ad hominem is a substitute for not having an answer to..." Anyway, you get the point: "I" statements in preference to "you" statements e.g. "You are a shameless acolyte of that fanatic Marty" or "You come off as a Delilah to X's Samson". To put it mildly, these do not qualify as civil discussion and allow the recipients of your ad hominems to respond and escalate in kind. Your "all arms" approach" is both ineffective and annoying. ... 06/23/2010 - 5:46pm EDT | roidubouloi Okay, jack. I have sufficient respect for your cogency, that I am going to take your advice. Let's see what happens.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 9:11pm

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

Perhaps not a party of one, K2K. I don't quite share JackR's optimism, but I am open-minded and willing to learn something new. One should always be open to tactical innovation, no? We shall see. Will you yourself be taking JackR's advice?

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 10:17pm

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

roid: you never notice that I only sometimes respond to what is always your first strike. many have tried to engage you in civil dialog, but you insist on seeing too many as "right-wing Peretz acolytes", collateral damage no matter what we write. I prefer to minimize contact with your personality profile, based on prior experience with the archetype. btw, you are the only person who has ever attacked my intelligence. quite amusing after a lifetime, except for four years of college, of being criticized for being too smart.

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 12:29am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close