The New Republic

Why are you so mystified? During his campiagn, the heart of Obama's foreign policy was nuclear non-proliferation. Iran will be his biggest test.

- K2K

September 19, 2009 at 12:38am

When do they celebrate New Year in Heaven, now or on the first of January? Do the Muslims split the difference? Or is Paradise sectioned off with walls over that too? Sure, I have an alternative to pride: Try hypocrisy. The health and the livelihood of so many who run the world are utterly dependent on it, for one thing. Eloquent AND quotidian? Hmm... Can you cite a few examples. God bless America. The good, the bad and the ugly, perhaps? Is America or Israel at the front of the line up there when all the nations march by The Throne to worship and adore their Creator? These things mystify me more than Obama. Barack Obama. He's the cool cat intellectual AIPAC is stil working on. Happy New Year, Marty. But we'll both have a lot more to say about that I'm sure as we head towards mine. ; o ) gw

- iambiguous

September 19, 2009 at 2:41am

Two points: 1. "Naches - Joy: Gratification, especially from children"; 2. http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/reasons_for_hope_new_year

- basman

September 19, 2009 at 5:54am

Nachus=joy, most definitely. L'shana tova l'culom!

- Shane Fergessen

September 19, 2009 at 6:28am

"Nachus" is the Yiddish way of pronouncing the Hebrew word ""Nachat", which means: satisfaction, contentment, pleasure, calm spirit. A Jew is required to bring “nachat” to God and a child is expected to bring "nachat” to his or her parents (by becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or a professor in the humanities...). In effect, "nachat" means letting go of worry. It is particularly associated with the anxiety that parents feel for their children. ____ Why Is Obama cool towards Israel? Because it is impossible, after twenty years under Reverend Wright's spiritual guideness to shrivel the flowers of such tutelage. Because it is impossible to be good friends with Rashid Khalidi, who hates Israel, and to be favorably inclined towards Israel. Obama cannot help himself. He managed to dupe some of us some of the time but like any pretense it can only last for as long as it takes to achieve its purpose.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 8:31am

Oh please, noga, put a sock in it. For someone who, apparently, is intelligent, and is elegant in word and thought, your paranoia about Obama is getting the best of you. Please spare us your occasional subtle implication of the president's antisemitism.

- scrubby

September 19, 2009 at 9:52am

FWIW, I don't think Obama is antisemitic, subtly, overtly or covertly. It would be much easier to categorize and dismiss him if I thought so. Marty seems puzzled as to why Obama is so cool towards Israel (an understatement, in my opinion) and I pointed back at where he probably got his coolness from. Wright is a friend of Farrakhan and Gadhafi and Khalidi hates Israel. And these two men had tremendous influence on him when it comes to Israel. The "Jews" among his friends came later in his life. These days he probably feels much more cozy with his Jewish friends who served him well and I suspect understand him and America better than those other friends. But none of it will matter because his sentiments have been set earlier on. And please don't go accuse me of secretly harboring the conviction that he is a secret Muslim and a terrorist, which is always the next step after the accusation that I think Obama is antisemitic. It would be so... Carterish.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 10:15am

I was arguibg with someone here about subliminal feelings concerning Black Americans. My argument is that that charge leads to an intellectual cul de sac. I'd say the same thing about Obama's feelings about Jews. It's a non starter as a subject especially when, for one point of circumstantial evidence, his advisors include the likes of Axelrod and Rahm Israel Emanuel. The bigger point is go know what's in the depths of any guy's mind or heart. Just judge him by his actions and leave it at that.

- basman

September 19, 2009 at 10:29am

Once again vecaose Obama doesn't adopt Israel's foreign policy for the U.S.; because he doesn't agree with the philosophy of Israel-first, U.S.-second, he's anti-semetic. What a bunch of garbage; somethinf the Israel-first crowd might call racist if it were the other way.

- P.E.Overbrook

September 19, 2009 at 1:45pm

"FWIW, I don't think Obama is antisemitic, subtly, overtly or covertly.” (noga) Okay. But if as you believe, the president’s tough attitude toward Israel is a result of decades of powerful influence from antisemites, what other conclusion is there? Just like those who believe that opposition to the president is only racially influenced, many Israelis seem to think like you do -- that his views on Israel has antisemitic roots, hence his hard stance. Even Bibi Netanyahu called Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel self-hating Jews, implying the president’s policy that they support and helped in crafting is antisemitic. Though I’d say that Bibi didn’t surprise me, he has always played underhandedly. You wrote this: “The "Jews" among [Obama’s] friends came later in his life.” You don’t believe those Jews are authentic? Why the quote marks? And how would you know there were no Jewish friends earlier in his life? The elder Bush, as president, had a much tougher stance on Israel, and his ties to the Arab world especially Saudi Arabia, was deep and strong. So, also, was James Baker’s, his secretary of State, but I don’t recall the Israelis ascribing dubious motives to them. Why the difference?

- scrubby

September 19, 2009 at 2:00pm

For my part, I wonder why Israel is so cool toward Obama. After all, he's president of the superpower that's their biggest ally. Someone might respond, saying, "oh you poor, sad fool, ironyroad, Israel isn't cool toward Obama -- it's just his policies!" And I might consider that.

- ironyroad

September 19, 2009 at 2:02pm

"And please don't go accuse me of secretly harboring the conviction that he is a secret Muslim and a terrorist, which is always the next step after the accusation that I think Obama is antisemitic. It would be so... Carterish" I won't, noga. Not yet, anyway. I'll wait until you actually do before I say anything. Unlike Carter, I don't toss around charges - of bigotry or any other kind - carelessly.

- scrubby

September 19, 2009 at 2:10pm

Scrubby said: "I won't, noga. Not yet, anyway. I'll wait until you actually do before I say anything." Well, scrubby, you did not wait did you, since you already distorted my words to reflect your own thoughts, haven't you? Here is what I said: "Why Is Obama cool towards Israel? Because it is impossible, after twenty years under Reverend Wright's spiritual guideness to shrivel the flowers of such tutelage. Because it is impossible to be good friends with Rashid Khalidi, who hates Israel, and to be favorably inclined towards Israel." And here is how what I said was re-interpreted by you: "But if as you believe, the president’s tough attitude toward Israel is a result of decades of powerful influence from antisemites, what other conclusion is there?" Therefore no matter what I say, somehow your conclusion is foregone; you don't really need to wait for me to say something before you distort it.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 7:35pm

This is a good time to recall Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Obama in May 2008 and the question he asked the presidential candidate: "JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it." http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php This is by way of an answer to the ironic smartypants of these boards, who, not being a poor sad fool would surely know how to read it.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 7:39pm

Here is President Obama's rebuttal to all those doubters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDRAZDR3ps I read somewhere that someone advised P. Obama to go to Israel and speak directly to the Israeli people from the Knesset. I wonder if this is the poor cousin of that idea (whose efficacy was being greatly disputed anyway). BTW, is it an idea whose... or an idea which...? I always think that "whose" refers to a person and feel uncomfortable using it in relation to a noun that does not live or think.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 8:00pm

George Loony Waltunes is still singing his hateful songs about Jews which he learned from his neo-Nazi friends.

- jacksondyer

September 19, 2009 at 8:27pm

Goldberg's question is a good one, but I think Obama handled it very well: "I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions. Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations. The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious."

- ironyroad

September 19, 2009 at 8:28pm

P.E.Overbrook "Once again vecaose Obama doesn't adopt Israel's foreign policy for the U.S.; because he doesn't agree with the philosophy of Israel-first, U.S.-second, he's anti-semetic. What a bunch of garbage; somethinf the Israel-first crowd might call racist if it were the other way." UberBruck is back trying to post his German thoughts in English. He must have had right arm up in a Nazi like salute judging by his one hand typing.

- jacksondyer

September 19, 2009 at 8:30pm

"I think Obama handled it very well" Yes, the presidential candidate handled it very well, but his actions (or speech-acts) after the elections have not exactly been consistent with his assurances that his "commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency." Goldberg's question is the answer to Ironyroad's chiastic analogy: "Israel isn't cool toward Obama -- it's just his policies!" It's not necessary his policies, it's the tone and vagueness of those policies. As Orly Azulay, of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot noted in one of her articles: "Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Stuff, likes to brag that he used to spend his summers on Tel Aviv's beaches. But he seems incapable of explaining to his boss the essence of Israeliness: when you paint Israelis into a corner, their collective and constitutive response can be summed up in two observations. On the one hand, "I'm not going to be duped by anyone"; on the other hand. "I'll show you what's what". When Obama raised a hammer over Israel and demanded a total settlement freeze, without signaling what the onus on the other party was and when, he failed to get Israelis to see things his way, even those Israelis who basically agree with his policies and habitually raise an automatic cheer to any peace plan. The greater the pressure exerted upon Israelis, the more they will resist "being duped" and will insist on showing you "what's what". They know their neighborhood. Israeli abrasiveness can easily be transformed into a sweeping willingness to deal with any challenge even if it comes with a steep price. But they want to know there is something to work for." It appears that Obama's coolness towards Israel has persuaded 96% of Israelis that his "challenge" is not worth working for.

- noga1

September 19, 2009 at 10:30pm

irony forgive my digression but I came across this and thought of you. I'm about 1/3 through it and it is at a minimum exceedingly well written. I'd be interested in your take, since you labour in these vineyards, if you feel like reading and and commenting. http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/ This resonated with me: "...What are the causes for this decline? There are several, but at the root is the failure of departments of English across the country to champion, with passion, the books they teach and to make a strong case to undergraduates that the knowledge of those books and the tradition in which they exist is a human good in and of itself. What departments have done instead is dismember the curriculum, drift away from the notion that historical chronology is important, and substitute for the books themselves a scattered array of secondary considerations (identity studies, abstruse theory, sexuality, film and popular culture). In so doing, they have distanced themselves from the young people interested in good books..." But what I have read so far ranges far beyond this critique. On the other hand I can imagine you saying, "Oh no, not another one of these"!

- basman

September 20, 2009 at 12:02am

“This is by way of an answer to the ironic smartypants of these boards, who, not being a poor sad fool would surely know how to read it.” (noga) Whatever you say, noga. You know what they say about stick and stones…..and words. On these boards, I may not have the best English reading comprehension, or great writing skills like you do, but what you wrote (and have been writing for some time) about the president is very clear. Indeed so clear that even I could comprehend them. And I believe other readers interpreted them, too, the same way I did. It’s not exactly nuclear physics, you know. Now, if you say my interpretation is not what you meant, or that the way you wrote them did not properly reflect what you were trying to communicate, I’ll take your word for it. But I’ll put out a few points you’ve in different ways hammered many times: a) the president is always sucking up to the Muslims and the Arab world, always appeasing them, and have practically taken their side, if not in their war, at least in their narrative, against Israel. b) his views and stance, which he can’t help, are anti- Israel. So, too, are his Mid-East policy. c) those views, which he can’t help, were shaped by Rev Wright, Rashid Khalid and other Israel haters. Those views were hardened by his early and long exclusive association with them. d) Wright, Khalid and those others are anti-Semitic. e) the president had to be dragged kicking and screaming before he denounced Farrakhan. f) when you wrote about the president‘s Jewish friends, you wrote it in quote marks like this: “Jews”. Which implies what exactly? I don’t know, but it smacks of condescension to those Jews. Unless you dispute making points a - e, which by the way, except on Rev Wright being antiSemitic, you are factually wrong on, and unless, also, you dispute writing about his Jewish friends in quotes, then I don’t understand how my conclusion was wrong. But then perhaps I should take more English comprehension lessons. That way, I could stop being “a poor sad fool” who doesn’t know how to read. Actually, I come to this site partly to learn, and never pretended to be “smartypants”, what ever that means. But I know when I’m being insulted and called names. However, I’ll ignore it and take solace in a Chinese (or African) saying to the effect that when two people have a disagreement on something, the first one to hurl insults knows he/she has lost. Shalom.

- scrubby

September 20, 2009 at 12:31am

"Whatever you say, noga. You know what they say about stick and stones…..and words. " Dear scrubby: The ironic smartypant who is not a poor sad fool at all was not meant at you. I aimed them at someone who called himself a poor sad fool knowing full well he is on pretty safe grounds in that respect. Cast your eye back a few comments and you will see that.

- noga1

September 20, 2009 at 7:31am

BTW scrubby, I think I made my position pretty clear and if you read my comments in good faith you will understand what I'm saying. You have to believe me if I say that had I thought Obama was an antisemite I would simple state my opinion. I am not shy of calling Carter, Tutu and other great personages of this age antisemites and I genuinely stand by my assessment of these two. There is a slight whiff, a light stench, that wafts about an antisemite that cannot be ignored. It's not always obvious for the likes of Ironyroad who still cannot quite detach the idea of antisemitism from its far right variety. I wrote about Axelrod and Emanuel "Jews" not because I think they are self-hating Jews or bad Jews or not really Jews but because they are the first item that anti-Israel bashers like to bring up as proof that Obama cannot be anti Israel. For some reason the presence of these "Jews" is sufficient evidence that Obama is not cool towards Israel. It's a silly assumption since these "Jews" are not there because they are Jews but because it is in their own personal interest and Obama's interest that they will serve him. They can not sway him one way or another. They are "Jews" for those who can only see them as Jews and not as the political functionaries they are. I never use "self-hating Jews". It does not make sense because it is clear that those Jews who are thus labeled actually love themselves very much. I have great pity for them because they are as much a rational result of antisemitism as the gas chambers were.

- noga1

September 20, 2009 at 7:52am

Thanks for the clarification, noga. Also, point taken on the “smartypants” shot. Sorry I misunderstood. One point though on your last post: Some of us (at least I do) point to Rahm Emanuel to counter charges that the president is anti-Israel, not because of his Jewishness, but because of his very solid pro-Israel credentials. In other words, anyone that knows his record, character and tough personality, would understand that no way would he be a part of any policy that would be detrimental to Israel, his being a Jew notwithstanding. He doesn’t have to serve the president. Remember he gave up a straight path of becoming Speaker of the House in Congress. We, also, point to Hillary Clinton for the same reason. And she’s not Jewish. Both of them - Emanuel and Clinton, are accomplished in their own rights, and would not sell out themselves or Israel just to serve the president. It’s very important for Israelis and those suspicious of the president’s policy to understand that. A good faith reading of this foreign policy team would cut down a lot of the friction between the White House and Israel. As Itzik stated earlier, only their action should be judged, not what may or may not be in their heart.

- scrubby

September 20, 2009 at 10:11am

basman -- thanks for the link to the Chace essay. I guess part of my reactions is indeed "oh no . . . !" (your pre-emptive quotation of me gave me a laugh). The academic jeremiad on the decline of the humanities is an long-standing and familiar genre, and one could almost put one together blind, like those training exercises they give you in the army when you have to reassemble a rifle in the dark. An even better example of what Chase is discussing is, I believe, not English but the Classics departments. Some 40-plus years ago, a considerable number (60,000-80,000?) of undergrads at American colleges were signed up for a Classics major, but now it's down to a few thousand at the very most across the country. One might unearth, in teasing out that story, an even more distinct and visible model of what happened to the humanities in the last few decades of the 20th century. A refusal of a certain kind of difficulty definitely played a role, but there were other factors too. Be that as it may, I simply don't recognize the picture he paints as universal. I've no doubt that you could find an example of each of the pathological symptoms in almost every educational institution -- although finding them all might be hard. But I have no personal experience of a lack of commitment to "British and American literature" in a more canonical sense. In almost all schools, undergrads queue up for Shakespeare courses. For my own part, I can work with the students' shaky historical grasp -- you can correct that -- but it's actually not the absence of a mental timeline that worries me, but rather of a kind of philosophical/theoretical grasp of what literature is. Students wander into upper division fiction classes (e.g. the American novel in the 19th c.) with only the crudest of notions as to what a novel is, or is meant to do, or how it does it. One a side note: medical schools tend to like applicants with English BAs, and the trend is for English majors to score higher on MCAT than even biology majors. I think that something more interesting than merely fast reading skills is going on there (it's a small point, but Chace for some odd reason seems to set up an adversarial zero-sum relationship between a humanities degree and med school). Incidentally, I'm confused by what he means when he says that public universities have no interest in the humanities -- I did my doctorate at UCLA, and at the time (not so long ago) the English undergrad major was the biggest in the College of Arts and Sciences, ranging between 1300-1500 students in any given year. And that department is still very committed to a year-long rigorous historical survey as a requirement for the major (from the Beowulf poet's Beowulf to Seamas Heaney's Beowulf, you might say) But, as a jeremiad with a touch of nostalgia, it's well done and has the required moments of prophetic anger and of elegiac regret.

- ironyroad

September 20, 2009 at 1:58pm

noga: As Orly Azulay, of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot noted in one of her articles: "Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Stuff, likes to brag that he used to spend his summers on Tel Aviv's beaches. But he seems incapable of explaining to his boss the essence of Israeliness: when you paint Israelis into a corner, their collective and constitutive response can be summed up in two observations. On the one hand, "I'm not going to be duped by anyone"; on the other hand. "I'll show you what's what". george: The very ESSENSE [Goodliness, Godliness] of Israeliness? As opposed to the very ESSENSE [Evilness, Helliness] of Palestinianness? "I'm not going to be duped by anyone" [who refuses to believe what I do] "I'll show you what's what" [and all you have to do is agree with it] Yes, I'm familiar with that narrative. As for Rahm Emanuel, in his short political career [since 2004] he has amassed $1,600,542 from the Securities and Investment industry, $740,268 from the Lawyers and Law firms industry and $341,124 from the real estate industry. Now some might suggest that is the very essense of JEWINESS. But not me, of course. george

- iambiguous

September 20, 2009 at 9:14pm

Scrubby: "Even Bibi Netanyahu called Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel self-hating Jews, implying the president’s policy that they support and helped in crafting is antisemitic. Though I’d say that Bibi didn’t surprise me, he has always played underhandedly." In an interview on Israel TV Channel 10, Netanyahu claimed that this is a fabrication: "Yaakov Elon: 'A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that Obama's Jewish advisers, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod are self-hating Jews. Is there truth in this?' "PM Netanyahu: 'This is a lie. I did not say this; I did not say this. Neither do I think it. I think that, first of all, their Jewishness is not relevant in this case. It is their private matter. They are, first of all, US citizens. They are the President's advisers and I am certainly not going to classify them.'" Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If not, perhaps it is not Netanyahu who is playing underhandedly.

- JPKatz

September 20, 2009 at 9:52pm

George says: "As for Rahm Emanuel, in his short political career [since 2004] he has amassed $1,600,542 from the Securities and Investment industry, $740,268 from the Lawyers and Law firms industry and $341,124 from the real estate industry. Now some might suggest that is the very essense of JEWINESS." This is a nice example of what Mark Twain called: " the swollen envy of pygmy minds.”

- noga1

September 20, 2009 at 10:52pm

Iambiguous said, "...Now some might suggest that is the very essense of JEWINESS. But not me, of course." You just did, and that's despicable.

- malahat

September 20, 2009 at 10:53pm

bl462 why do you even bother replying to the Jew hating loony tunes George Walton? The guy is also a pretentious ass.

- jacksondyer

September 20, 2009 at 11:29pm

Jackson, The only thing I have to say to George after his last comment is, in the immortal words of my latee grandmother, "Gey kaken weiter" And, as far as I'm concerned, "kak ihm an".

- malahat

September 20, 2009 at 11:38pm

bl462 "Jackson, The only thing I have to say to George after his last comment is, in the immortal words of my latee grandmother, "Gey kaken weiter" And, as far as I'm concerned, "kak ihm an"." Bl. That should read, "Gey kakn oyfn yam," (or) "gey in drerd arein." Forgive my Yiddish. Either one will do, though. In any case, I am glad that the essence of the misreant George has been revealed to you. Shanah Tova U-Metukah.

- jacksondyer

September 20, 2009 at 11:58pm

Jackson, Ketiva ve-chatima tovah!

- malahat

September 21, 2009 at 12:02am

b1462: You just did, and that's despicable. george: My point [in reacting to noga's usual one trick pony liturgy above] was meant to be ironic. It was an attempt to hold her desiccated narrative up to the light and expose all the holes by responding just as she did---but really, really hyperbolically. But you don't get that part, do you? Instead, you take my words about Rahm Emanuel literally. As though this is how I feel about him rather than the manner in which I was mocking those genuine anti-Semites who would string him up by the balls based on their own mindless prejudices about What Jews Are. Do you have even an inkling about this sort of tactical approach to bigotry? I don't think so. And if you'd make the attempt to understand my existential narrative on identity, it would be clear how my point in no way, shape or form is a snapshot of me or of how I think about the identity of others. I keep telling myself this is the The New Republic not Time magazine. I keep expecting the intellectual depth here to be so much more capable of discussing things like this below the surface. Maybe TNR 4.0..... I take a chance in here. I think, sure, most literalists will react as you do and excoriate me---smug as a bug in a rug. But there are always a few capable of weaving in and out of the ambiguities of irony. And when I bump into them I am always so grateful. So grateful in fact that reactions from folks like you are just that much more bearable. george

- iambiguous

September 21, 2009 at 12:18am

Mr Walnuts: Writing that your "Jewy" remarks were meant to be taken as ironic is kind of like my kids saying, "I was only joking when I called her a fatty." There is something really creepy about you.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 21, 2009 at 2:38am

I posted something a while back but it got lost, a lot here on the thread and while I never read anything by walton, I see by the comments of others that he has again made an ass of himself. I disagree with Molly that walton is creepy, he doesn't rate that high, simply put, I don't think there is any there there,and all of his provocations and blather is just his way of trying to assert his existence. Buddhists believe in the reincarnation, and we exist in a world of old and new souls. I think Walton's soul was stillborn, but his body lived on, hence his complete and utter shallow profundities, his inability to go beyond the surface.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 11:16am

"I think Walton's soul was stillborn, but his body lived on, hence his complete and utter shallow profundities, his inability to go beyond the surface." This is so good, so true, I wish I had written it myself. Terrific post, Blackton.

- jacksondyer

September 21, 2009 at 12:42pm

ms: There is something really creepy about you. george: No more creepy than your metaphors. And mine don't need to stretch as far as your's do. You need to get out of MartyWorld more. Try Jackson's intellectual wasteland in Area 51. ; o ) gw

- iambiguous

September 21, 2009 at 1:19pm

"Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If not, perhaps it is not Netanyahu who is playing underhandedly." (JPKatz) No, JP, I have no hard evidence, other than news reports, that the Prime Minister called White House aides "self-hating Jews". Yes, Bibi denied it, but many unbiased observers don't believe his denials, and it is certainly not underhanded to disbelieve him. Given his track record of political duplicity and equivocation, you can understand the skepticism. One of those that don't buy his denial is The New Republic's own Leon Wieseltier. Quote: "A spokesman for the prime minister later denied this, but I have heard from Israeli friends that this conspiratorial explanation is quite popular in the prime minister’s office. I have no reason to believe otherwise. The accusation of ethnic infidelity is an old feature of the political culture of the Likud. The defenders of Greater Israel have values, but the critics of Greater Israel have motives." http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/washington-diarist-1

- scrubby

September 21, 2009 at 1:37pm

"but I have heard from Israeli friends that this conspiratorial explanation is quite popular in the prime minister’s office. I have no reason to believe otherwise." Who are those Israeli friends? What kind of access do they have to what is being discussed behind closed doors in the Prime minister's office? Why would you believe these unnamed mysterious sources and not the open and public disavowal from Netantyahu himself? "In an interview on Israel TV Channel 10, Netanyahu claimed that this is a fabrication: "Yaakov Elon: 'A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that Obama's Jewish advisers, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod are self-hating Jews. Is there truth in this?' "PM Netanyahu: 'This is a lie. I did not say this; I did not say this. Neither do I think it. I think that, first of all, their Jewishness is not relevant in this case. It is their private matter. They are, first of all, US citizens. They are the President's advisers and I am certainly not going to classify them.'" It would be interesting to note that both Netanyahu and Emanuel are the sons of members of Etzel. Both their fathers had left Israel not long after its establishment.

- noga1

September 21, 2009 at 1:50pm

Digression continued a little. Irony, thanks for your gracefully written and thoughtful comments. When I read Chace’s essay, I found the statistics of depression in the numbers of humanities students remarkable and assuming their accuracy I found persuasive his reasons for them beyond what the humanities departments are themselves doing. I also found persuasive this being a time when there is a marked shift of what a liberal arts education means over what it meant say when I was an undergraduate between 1964 and 1968 in British Columbia. The astronomically increased costs in attendance even in your public universities and the shrinking public educational dollars must, I would think, generate some of the consequences Chace discusses. On reflection, I wonder though whether his internal criticism of English departments, the focus of his piece, is, as you suggest, overstated and is starting to verge on being a certain kind of talking point. I read you to say that in your experience literature courses are being taught the way Chace would want them to be taught. One of the problems with his internal criticism of English departments is that the numbers fall off in the humanities seems spread pretty consistently across the board, with no special drop off for English alone. Interesting about English students doing well on the MCATS: for me, in retrospect, perhaps the road not taken, not counting my fainting as the sight of blood and without the manual ability to change a light bulb. Surgery anyone?

- basman

September 21, 2009 at 2:22pm