PrintNot long ago, Andrew Sullivan had ultra-hawkish views on Israel and the Middle East. The problem as he saw it, was very simple: The Muslim world was anti-Semitic and wanted to kill all the Jews. Naive Western governments pushed innocent Israelis to make peace, when the only answer was force. Here are some excerpts from an August 2001 column he wrote:
[T]he notion of a negotiable peace with the murdering hoodlums who run the PLO was always a fantasy. ...
Or maybe these optimists simply read the report of the recent suicide bombing printed in USA Today and noted by conservative commentator George Will: "The blast ... sent flesh flying onto second-storey balconies a block away. Three men were blown 30ft; their heads, separated from their bodies by the blast, rolled down the glass-strewn street ... One woman had at least six nails embedded in her neck. Another had a nail in her left eye. Two men, one with a six-inch piece of glass in his right temple ... tried to walk away ... A man groaned ... His legs were blown off. Blood poured from his torso ... A three-year-old girl, her face covered with glass, walked among the bodies calling her mother's name" ...
Here's the scenario, floated by the Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the brilliant analyst who helped formulate the Reagan doctrine: "A lightning and massive Israeli attack on every element of Arafat's police state infrastructure -the headquarters and commanders of his eight security services, his police stations, weapons depots, training camps, communications and propaganda facilities--with a simultaneous attack on the headquarters and leadership of Arafat's Hamas and Islamic Jihad allies.
"Arafat has given Israel war; he will now receive it." ...
Under the onslaught of constant murder and fear, the Jewish public might be convinced to surrender enough arms and territory to give the PLO what they really want: a chance to destroy Israel altogether and murder any Jew they can find.
And here is one from 2002:
Then there was the recent Not In Our Name rally in Central Park, demonstrating against a potential war against Iraq. Around the edges of the rally copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the classic forged document of 19th-century anti-semitism, were being sold. According to the New York Sun, this peddling of anti-semitic tripe was not entirely accidental.
One protester said: “There are interest groups that want Israel to dominate Palestine. If Bush goes with them and is too critical, he might lose their support . . . the international financiers have their hooks in everything.” Ah, those international financiers. Remember them? America’s anti-war movement, still puny and struggling, is showing signs of being hijacked by one of the oldest and darkest prejudices there is. Perhaps it was inevitable. The conflict against Islamo-fascism obviously circles back to the question of Israel. Fanatical anti-semitism, as bad or even worse than Hitler’s, is now a cultural norm across much of the Middle East. It’s the acrid glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis.
The style will be immediately familiar to any reader who has discovered his lively blog over the last few years: Sweeping moralistic pronouncements, graphic descriptions of violence committed by the villains deployed as moral bludgeons, innocents beset by violence-crazed monsters. Except, of course, the innocents and the villains have now swapped places. Once infinitely tolerant of Israel's need to defend itself militarily against terrorism, Andrew is now completely intolerant. Once he saw anti-Semitism lurking everywhere among Israel's critics; now he sees the perception of anti-Semitism as nothing but a weapon to silence criticism of the Israeli war machine.
Naturally, such a jarring reversal has prompted speculation about Andrew's motives. Leon has written what I consider to be a trenchant and persuasive dissection of Andrew's (current) worldview on Israel and the Israel lobby. Unfortunately, Leon also implies at several points that Andrew has succumbed to anti-Semitism. I object to that conclusion. Two years ago, Leon wrote, "I know as an incontrovertible fact, based on my long acquaintance with him and his writings, that he is not an anti-Semite." Anyone is entitled to change his mind, but I haven't -- I agreed with what Leon wrote then, and I still do.
Here are my problems with impugning Andrew's motives on this question. Leon notes, correctly, that Andrew has begun repeating tropes that happen to track classic anti-Semitic canards. His obsession with the singular power of the Israel lobby, writes Leon "has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people." Agreed. But just because an idea has a revolting provenance, it does not follow that everybody who subscribes to any version of it shares the same motive. The exploration of the link between race and I.Q. also has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people. It is, however, a legitimate topic of inquiry.
Leon agrees that the pro-Israel lobby wields significant power in U.S. policymaking, and determining this level of power is also a legitimate topic of inquiry. At one point on the spectrum of thought you have what Leon and I would consider a realistic assessment of the power of the Israel lobby. As you move further along the spectrum, you eventually approach Osama bin Laden's view of the power of the Israel lobby. Clearly, bin Laden qualifies as an anti-Semite. But the judgment can't be that as soon as you go just a little further along the line from my view, then you're an anti-Semite. There has to be some room on this question to be merely wrong -- to harbor an exaggerated view of the power of the Israel lobby without being an anti-Semite. Otherwise debate becomes impossible.
Now, I believe that those who wish to explore areas that coincide with the favorite obsessions of bigots have an obligation to do so with more care than they might use with other subjects. Andrew has been careless, but carelessness isn't bigotry.
Leon writes very carefully about the Middle East. I find his writing on this subject extremely well-informed and, in my opinion, invariably persuasive. There are topics about which I'd say the same about Andrew, but the Middle East is not one of them. (None of us can be an expert in everything.) Indeed, on the Middle East, Andrew falls prey to a habitual tendency to see the world divided between children of darkness and children of light. This is not a problem for a writer who is describing conflicts between Democrats and Republicans. When the parties involve happen to correspond with ethnic groups, then it's going to be impossible to avoid language that appears racialistic. I don't think that Andrew's transformation from overwrought hawk to overwrought dove is driven by, or has brought about, a different view of Jews. It seems instead to be the shattering of a brittle worldview and its replacement by a new worldview, equally brittle.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
COMMENTS (53)
“When the parties involve happen to correspond with ethnic groups, then it's going to be impossible to avoid language that appears racialistic. I don't think that Andrew's transformation from overwrought hawk to overwrought dove is driven by, or has brought about, a different view of Jews. It seems instead to be the shattering of a brittle worldview and its replacement by a new worldview, equally brittle.”
I am sorry Jonathan Chait, but your comment isn’t convincing.
You are making Sullivan out to be a nitwit at the mercy of stereotypical language that no one can avoid. He is anything but a nitwit. He is an intelligent writer who was the editor of you magazine at one time.
I can be pro ... view full comment
“When the parties involve happen to correspond with ethnic groups, then it's going to be impossible to avoid language that appears racialistic. I don't think that Andrew's transformation from overwrought hawk to overwrought dove is driven by, or has brought about, a different view of Jews. It seems instead to be the shattering of a brittle worldview and its replacement by a new worldview, equally brittle.”
I am sorry Jonathan Chait, but your comment isn’t convincing.
You are making Sullivan out to be a nitwit at the mercy of stereotypical language that no one can avoid. He is anything but a nitwit. He is an intelligent writer who was the editor of you magazine at one time.
I can be pro Israel or pro Palestinian without indulging in racialized comments. Or once can take a more moderate view as the Israeli writer Amos Oz does.
There is not reason, though, one needs to identify every political opponent as Jewish as Sullivan often does. We can agree that Jews are not powerless in the US today without indulging the fantasies of an uber Jewish lobby conspiracy of an M and W.
Finally, you make Sullivan out to be mentally unstable going from one extreme to another.
I, on the other hand have no problem saying that Sullivan’s views on the conflict are antisemitic. If he wants to not to be perceived in that way, let him moderate his views and be more careful with the language he deploys when writing about Israelis and Jews. Words don’t exist in an historical vacuum and in this case there is a two thousand year history that one needs to pay attention to when describing Jews.
The predictable Yglesias and other bloggies are weighing in:
"For the purposes of intimidation...baseless charges work better than well-grounded ones. Nikolai Krylenko, Bolshevik Minister of Justice, said “we must execute not only the guilty, execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.” And it’s much the same here. If you call anti-semites anti-semites, then people who aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism will figure “hey, since my political opinions aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism, then I’m safe.” The idea is to put everyone on notice that mere innocence will be no defense. But relatively few people are actually goonish enough to execute the strategy ... view full comment
The predictable Yglesias and other bloggies are weighing in:
"For the purposes of intimidation...baseless charges work better than well-grounded ones. Nikolai Krylenko, Bolshevik Minister of Justice, said “we must execute not only the guilty, execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.” And it’s much the same here. If you call anti-semites anti-semites, then people who aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism will figure “hey, since my political opinions aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism, then I’m safe.” The idea is to put everyone on notice that mere innocence will be no defense. But relatively few people are actually goonish enough to execute the strategy properly, so instead Wieseltier’s piece beats around the bush and doesn’t really come out and say what it’s saying."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-latest-...
So Wieseltier is not some kind of Bolshevik official. These people are just kids with computers playing with words.
Sorry the last sentence should have read: 'so Wieseltier IS some kind of Bolshevik official. These people are just kids with computers playing with words.'
Sorry the last sentence should have read: 'so Wieseltier IS some kind of Bolshevik official. These people are just kids with computers playing with words.'
Okay, everyone knows the guy better than I, but I didn't like the Sullivan comments Wieseltier quoted to the effect of: "I love Jews. They're such a sensitive, liberal people. Which is why it's such a bummer that they have turned into monsters of late." Of course, that's not an exact quote, but a more exaggerated version of the substance conveyed. Even if you buy that Sullivan's criticism of Israel and the "Israel lobby," etc., is merely glib, shrill, and careless -- as opposed to tinged with antisemitism -- why bring Jewishness into it at all? Why, for example, refer to Krauthammer as part of the bad wing of Jewry, and not merely as a smug, specious blowhard (I know, friend of the mag ... view full comment
Okay, everyone knows the guy better than I, but I didn't like the Sullivan comments Wieseltier quoted to the effect of: "I love Jews. They're such a sensitive, liberal people. Which is why it's such a bummer that they have turned into monsters of late." Of course, that's not an exact quote, but a more exaggerated version of the substance conveyed. Even if you buy that Sullivan's criticism of Israel and the "Israel lobby," etc., is merely glib, shrill, and careless -- as opposed to tinged with antisemitism -- why bring Jewishness into it at all? Why, for example, refer to Krauthammer as part of the bad wing of Jewry, and not merely as a smug, specious blowhard (I know, friend of the magazine, etc.), as I do? I didn't even know he was Jewish. I thought he was part of the bad wing of krauts. As Sullivan must know -- considering his prior support for Israel -- such support is not always because one is either (a) Jewish, or (b) captured by AIPAC, nor is it necessarily, for Jews, a mere function of their Jewishness. And yet, Wieseltier's piece points to instances where Sullivan gratuitously brings Jewishness into the discussion, even if to spout positive, but condescending stereotypes. I dunno -- doesn't feel right.
I sometimes feel like Peretz and Wieseltier need their own magazine, where they can fill all the pages with their various vendettas. I don't know what the subscription rate would look like, but it would improve the quality of TNR.
I sometimes feel like Peretz and Wieseltier need their own magazine, where they can fill all the pages with their various vendettas. I don't know what the subscription rate would look like, but it would improve the quality of TNR.
Who cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks about anything? I see him on TV, I reach for the remote, and when he pops up on the page I look for another wave to surf. I cancelled Atlantic because of his hagiographic articles about Obama during the campaign— they were over the top, and fluff. I am only writing this in the hope someone will answer.
This is a guy who places personal ads pleading for sex in general circulation newspapers, posts paintings of himself in Burt Reynolds pin-up style, advertises his preference for a sexual partner ursine features (what he likes in a partner is his business: that he feels the need to intersperse his babbling with it is a character flaw of exhibitionism— I ... view full comment
Who cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks about anything? I see him on TV, I reach for the remote, and when he pops up on the page I look for another wave to surf. I cancelled Atlantic because of his hagiographic articles about Obama during the campaign— they were over the top, and fluff. I am only writing this in the hope someone will answer.
This is a guy who places personal ads pleading for sex in general circulation newspapers, posts paintings of himself in Burt Reynolds pin-up style, advertises his preference for a sexual partner ursine features (what he likes in a partner is his business: that he feels the need to intersperse his babbling with it is a character flaw of exhibitionism— I'd just as soon hear about Mark Sanford's preferences in women and hiking trails) , has an instance, unthinking hatred of anything Clinton despite the accomplishments of that administration in politically challenging times and circumstances (many of the challenges, admittedly, being created by the Clintons themselves), and most disgustingly, in 2000 supported the election of the the most stupid man to occupy the White House since Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter not excepted. Sports talk radio has more trenchant thoughts than this self absorbed armchair reporter. As to what he says about Israel in the Gaza War, who cares? If he was not on either side of that sad border dodging rockets or bullets before or during the fighting it has no more meaning than anything else he has no knowledge of. I stopped reading anything he had to say when it became clear that he had no personal experience of anything but the satisfaction of his loins. I want to read about that kind of stuff, I'll read the advice column in Playboy.
He hates Jews, he doesn't hate Jews, who's got the time? No one would follow this guy. He's irrelevant.
Considering the content, tone, and direction of their respective writings, Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot. If you want to call Sullivan an anti-Semite, fine, but that leaves no room for defending Peretz's writings on Arabs and Muslims (and blacks, recently) from the charge of bigotry. Conversely, the best defense of Peretz - that owing to the confluence of personal passion and the nature of his medium, overly broad categorical statements about topics that overlap with racial or ethnic divisions create an unintentional appearance of bigotry - applies equally to Sullivan. At times, I'm convinced of the case against each, but ulti ... view full comment
Considering the content, tone, and direction of their respective writings, Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot. If you want to call Sullivan an anti-Semite, fine, but that leaves no room for defending Peretz's writings on Arabs and Muslims (and blacks, recently) from the charge of bigotry. Conversely, the best defense of Peretz - that owing to the confluence of personal passion and the nature of his medium, overly broad categorical statements about topics that overlap with racial or ethnic divisions create an unintentional appearance of bigotry - applies equally to Sullivan. At times, I'm convinced of the case against each, but ultimately I find the latter, more generous explanation more persuasive in both cases. In any event, I cannot conceive of a fair reading that allows us to conclude that one of them is a bigot and the other is not; in whichever boat floats Sullivan, there floats Peretz too.
Thanks, Rhubarbs, I agree.
I suspect that the general tendency on both their parts to be hyperbolic (Peretz is infamous for leaving the impression that a scholar he disagrees with is the worst scholar ever, to take a more neutral example) also increases the risk of appearing bigoted.
Thanks, Rhubarbs, I agree.
I suspect that the general tendency on both their parts to be hyperbolic (Peretz is infamous for leaving the impression that a scholar he disagrees with is the worst scholar ever, to take a more neutral example) also increases the risk of appearing bigoted.
Listen: Marty Peretz has had more important people over for dinner at his house than the two of you clowns combined! He is good friends with lots and lots of important people - so suck on that!
Listen: Marty Peretz has had more important people over for dinner at his house than the two of you clowns combined! He is good friends with lots and lots of important people - so suck on that!
miceelf “I sometimes feel like Peretz and Wieseltier need their own magazine, where they can fill all the pages with their various vendettas. I don't know what the subscription rate would look like, but it would improve the quality of TNR.”
They have it and it’s called TNR.
It’s you who is fooling himself thinking that TNR without Wieseltier and Peretz would be a better magazine. It wouldn’t exist.
So, elf, if you don’t like it, lump. Cancel your subscription before you get a heart attack.
miceelf “I sometimes feel like Peretz and Wieseltier need their own magazine, where they can fill all the pages with their various vendettas. I don't know what the subscription rate would look like, but it would improve the quality of TNR.”
They have it and it’s called TNR.
It’s you who is fooling himself thinking that TNR without Wieseltier and Peretz would be a better magazine. It wouldn’t exist.
So, elf, if you don’t like it, lump. Cancel your subscription before you get a heart attack.
Funny defense of Sullivan, who, as jackson has pointed out, is made to look like an irrational extremist. I would rather be called an anti-Semite, because, and lets face it, anti-Semitism is bred into the bone of Euro-American culture. (but, thankfully, in America is has become far less virulent due to our essentially enforced integration). And lets not deny this. As jackson wrote: If he wants to not to be perceived in that way, let him moderate his views and be more careful with the language he deploys when writing about Israelis and Jews. Words don’t exist in an historical vacuum and in this case there is a two thousand year history that one needs to pay attention to when describing Jews ... view full comment
Funny defense of Sullivan, who, as jackson has pointed out, is made to look like an irrational extremist. I would rather be called an anti-Semite, because, and lets face it, anti-Semitism is bred into the bone of Euro-American culture. (but, thankfully, in America is has become far less virulent due to our essentially enforced integration). And lets not deny this. As jackson wrote: If he wants to not to be perceived in that way, let him moderate his views and be more careful with the language he deploys when writing about Israelis and Jews. Words don’t exist in an historical vacuum and in this case there is a two thousand year history that one needs to pay attention to when describing Jews.
I, for one, do take special care when writing about Jews or Israel because I am aware of the cultural baggage I carry, that doesn't mean I won't criticize Israel (not that I would normally care to, anymore than I would care to criticize Denmark, it is only the obsessiveness of the criticism against Israel that leads me to defend it against unjust attacks). The only other reason I have not be particularly critical is because I haven't got the slightest idea how to proceed. (will settlement expansion spur the Palestinians to cut a deal? are the purchases legal transactions? or is it a mistake? etc. I don't know so I withhold judgment)
I simply don't see the logic in Sullivan's change in worldview. Anti-Americanism I can see change as administrations change, but the criticism against Israel is not based on that, and in fact Israel has tried every avenue to secure peace I can think of short of surrender. Can anyone explain to me how Sullivan went from A to Z in what seems like one jump. And can anyone also explain to me why A was even wrong to begin with (or was Arafat really a peace loving misunderstood hippie?)
vegetable head rhubarbs says: "Considering the content, tone, and direction of their respective writings, Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot."
What I said to Elf.
Also, your endorsement of Sullivan isn’t exactly the endorsement of a poster free of anti-Jewish bigoted sentiments.
vegetable head rhubarbs says: "Considering the content, tone, and direction of their respective writings, Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot."
What I said to Elf.
Also, your endorsement of Sullivan isn’t exactly the endorsement of a poster free of anti-Jewish bigoted sentiments.
Right on the money, Jon. Good work.
I guess the only thing I would add is that it's probably pointless to ever accuse someone of anti-semitism (or being self-hating). Nobody will ever admit it and then it's accused of being a weapon of silence (since we all know the terrifying power that Leon wields!). Plus, everybody has some Jewish friends so nobody considers themselves anti-semitic, in the way that nobody considers themselves racist (including that judge who wouldn't perform an interracial marriage).
What's most important is exposing people's arguments as hysterical and groundless, as Chait has done here with Sullivan and many many others have done with W&M.
Right on the money, Jon. Good work.
I guess the only thing I would add is that it's probably pointless to ever accuse someone of anti-semitism (or being self-hating). Nobody will ever admit it and then it's accused of being a weapon of silence (since we all know the terrifying power that Leon wields!). Plus, everybody has some Jewish friends so nobody considers themselves anti-semitic, in the way that nobody considers themselves racist (including that judge who wouldn't perform an interracial marriage).
What's most important is exposing people's arguments as hysterical and groundless, as Chait has done here with Sullivan and many many others have done with W&M.
Rhub: Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot. OK. Fine. But whose blog has far more play (not magazine, but blog). And Marty has been taken down dozens of times in other magazines, and on his own thread. I have seen threads where no one has defended Marty. And you are leaving out other salient points. Marty goes to Israel often, he sees the effect of the war often, he reads the words of the Arab and Muslim fanatics who vow to wipe Israel off the map. Kind of hard not to take it personally, don't you think? And pardon me, but the only times I have heard any Jewish fanatics (like Kahane) make similar pronouncements they have been univers ... view full comment
Rhub: Sullivan is an anti-Semite to exactly the degree that Marty Peretz is an anti-Arab racial bigot. OK. Fine. But whose blog has far more play (not magazine, but blog). And Marty has been taken down dozens of times in other magazines, and on his own thread. I have seen threads where no one has defended Marty. And you are leaving out other salient points. Marty goes to Israel often, he sees the effect of the war often, he reads the words of the Arab and Muslim fanatics who vow to wipe Israel off the map. Kind of hard not to take it personally, don't you think? And pardon me, but the only times I have heard any Jewish fanatics (like Kahane) make similar pronouncements they have been universally condemned by people like Marty.
If Sullivan were to rail against the Brits in Northern Ireland, and he visited there often, and if the Catholics were subject to the type of repression that they used to be, then I could understand the why, but what is his deal with Israel?
Blackton- there was a thread critical of Peretz where jdyer didn't defend him?
And, how many times has Peretz visited Haiti and/or experienced voodoo up close?
Blackton- there was a thread critical of Peretz where jdyer didn't defend him?
And, how many times has Peretz visited Haiti and/or experienced voodoo up close?
bigm: I guess the only thing I would add is that it's probably pointless to ever accuse someone of anti-semitism
I disagree, I freely admit it. If I were to say something thoughtless and anti-Semitic call me on it.
Of course I am bigoted. Here is an example. Not long ago there was a thread on Ron Paul, and in the comment section I repeated the slur "Paultards" and someone called me on it, and I have to admit it was bigoted. I now refer to them as Paulnuts. Nuts is a generic term. Retarded is not. I am not trying to be overly politically correct, but I am also not going to lie to myself and pretend I am a paragon of virtue, someone who doesn't possess any bigotry whatsoever. Damn right I ... view full comment
bigm: I guess the only thing I would add is that it's probably pointless to ever accuse someone of anti-semitism
I disagree, I freely admit it. If I were to say something thoughtless and anti-Semitic call me on it.
Of course I am bigoted. Here is an example. Not long ago there was a thread on Ron Paul, and in the comment section I repeated the slur "Paultards" and someone called me on it, and I have to admit it was bigoted. I now refer to them as Paulnuts. Nuts is a generic term. Retarded is not. I am not trying to be overly politically correct, but I am also not going to lie to myself and pretend I am a paragon of virtue, someone who doesn't possess any bigotry whatsoever. Damn right I am a bigot, and a racist, and an anti-semite, and sexist, and homophobic, the difference is I acknowledge those aspects of myself that is and work hard to combat them (and yes, I often fail).
I will also admit being part of the dominant strain of American life, White Male Christian makes things a hell of a lot easier, and therefore whatever bigotry I possess is far more pernicious than that of a minority group.
Marty being anti-whoever is out to kill hm is a lot different than my anti-people who I have been trying to kill.
mice, I criticized Marty on that voodoo thread and Jackson agreed with me, I don't see why you would want him to repeat my words. It is not my place to speak for Jackson but he has disagreed with Marty tons of times, last year during the election Jackson supported Hillary. And you know how Marty feels about Hillary. The only person I have ever seen who has been seriously and more rightly accused of being a Marty cheerleader is Jamie Kirchick. Just because some posters agree with Marty on some issues doesn't mean they are mindless drones.
mice, I criticized Marty on that voodoo thread and Jackson agreed with me, I don't see why you would want him to repeat my words. It is not my place to speak for Jackson but he has disagreed with Marty tons of times, last year during the election Jackson supported Hillary. And you know how Marty feels about Hillary. The only person I have ever seen who has been seriously and more rightly accused of being a Marty cheerleader is Jamie Kirchick. Just because some posters agree with Marty on some issues doesn't mean they are mindless drones.
blackton, if you were anti-semitic I could call you on it but I still don't think it would achieve anything. It's sunk to having the effect of name calling. Name calling can sometimes be accurate but it's still no substitute for refuting someone's arguments. I think Chait, and Leon, did excellent work showing how intellectually shallow Sullivan is on the subject of Israel and the Jews. Chait left it at that and Leon should have also.
Note that all of the defenses of Sullivan, and the outrage against Leon's column, deal with the accusation of anti-semitism, not the exposure of Sullivan's vapidity.
blackton, if you were anti-semitic I could call you on it but I still don't think it would achieve anything. It's sunk to having the effect of name calling. Name calling can sometimes be accurate but it's still no substitute for refuting someone's arguments. I think Chait, and Leon, did excellent work showing how intellectually shallow Sullivan is on the subject of Israel and the Jews. Chait left it at that and Leon should have also.
Note that all of the defenses of Sullivan, and the outrage against Leon's column, deal with the accusation of anti-semitism, not the exposure of Sullivan's vapidity.
blackton, fair enough; I stand corrected.
I never said mindless drones, though, and as much as I dislike him, I don't think jdyer is a mindless drone. Very predictable, and very free with the insults, yes. But not a drone.
I miss MrCookie.
bigm, I find that it's better to focus on the actual behavior/speech. pointing out that particular speech is anti-semitic or racist is usually not a bad thing. Whether a *person* is racist or anti-semitic, is the kind of existential question that inspires pointless back-and-forth that will never be resolved. Even if the antagonists can agree on the definitions, it's not usually provable, as at least one person's definition will depend on internal states not ... view full comment
blackton, fair enough; I stand corrected.
I never said mindless drones, though, and as much as I dislike him, I don't think jdyer is a mindless drone. Very predictable, and very free with the insults, yes. But not a drone.
I miss MrCookie.
bigm, I find that it's better to focus on the actual behavior/speech. pointing out that particular speech is anti-semitic or racist is usually not a bad thing. Whether a *person* is racist or anti-semitic, is the kind of existential question that inspires pointless back-and-forth that will never be resolved. Even if the antagonists can agree on the definitions, it's not usually provable, as at least one person's definition will depend on internal states not knowable to others.
People tend to be much more sensitive to and aware of the privilege of others and not their own. Which I suppose may be why Peretz can be so aware of prejudice against Jews (usually, accurately, in my view), but so completely obtuse about how some Black people or Arabs or Muslims might be one-down relative to him. Blackton's point about privilege is well-taken, but when Peretz goes after voodoo practitioners, or Black people he disagrees with, or Arabs or Muslims in the west, I am not so sure that he's speaking truth to power.
bigm, I agree, but this is why if someone were to call me a bigot my admitting it disarms them. I simply say "you are right, I am, but what am I saying now that is bigoted?" and I will be sincere. This kind of name calling doesn't bother me because it is so generalized. Now if someone were to say I were weird or creepy or I smelled bad, these would bother me. (depending on who said it)
Not because I think I am (though a small part of me would panic) but the cruelty would bother me.
I don't see any cruelty directed at Sullivan. Cruelty has its uses (if it were to drive Palin out of the public eye, for example) but it should be used sparingly, and, as mice said, when speaking truth t ... view full comment
bigm, I agree, but this is why if someone were to call me a bigot my admitting it disarms them. I simply say "you are right, I am, but what am I saying now that is bigoted?" and I will be sincere. This kind of name calling doesn't bother me because it is so generalized. Now if someone were to say I were weird or creepy or I smelled bad, these would bother me. (depending on who said it)
Not because I think I am (though a small part of me would panic) but the cruelty would bother me.
I don't see any cruelty directed at Sullivan. Cruelty has its uses (if it were to drive Palin out of the public eye, for example) but it should be used sparingly, and, as mice said, when speaking truth to power.
Shorter Jonathan Chait:
I have to toe the magazine's line and show my undying support for it by brown-nosing the lLiterary Editor. At least his butt is less full of shit than the Editor-in-Chief's.
Longer Jonathan Chait:
I have managed to keep my job through a whole bunch of layoffs by enrusing that I will come to the aid of anyone at the magazine accused of smearing someone else as anti-Semitic. But, look, I got The Plank all to myself while the other guys walked it - that's just office politics for you.
In the past I have willingly attacked the "Juice Boxes" for their criticism of Peretz even as I pretended their was a sea of difference between my opinion of the Israel oppression ... view full comment
Shorter Jonathan Chait:
I have to toe the magazine's line and show my undying support for it by brown-nosing the lLiterary Editor. At least his butt is less full of shit than the Editor-in-Chief's.
Longer Jonathan Chait:
I have managed to keep my job through a whole bunch of layoffs by enrusing that I will come to the aid of anyone at the magazine accused of smearing someone else as anti-Semitic. But, look, I got The Plank all to myself while the other guys walked it - that's just office politics for you.
In the past I have willingly attacked the "Juice Boxes" for their criticism of Peretz even as I pretended their was a sea of difference between my opinion of the Israel oppression of the Palestinian and his. But, of course, their isn't because we are both in the same rotting hulk.
And you know what the best thing is - Frank Foer is with me all the way. There is nothing like having the Editor at your back. He loves a good fight over Democratic policies and doesn't care if we help sink it. But when it comes to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people he lloves and we love nothing more than to publish ultra-right Zionist propaganda and if this goes against the best interests of American Jews then so be it.
-- Leon writes very carefully about the Middle East. I find his writing on this subject extremely well-informed and, in my opinion, invariably persuasive. There are topics about which I'd say the same about Andrew, but the Middle East is not one of them.
In finding Wieseltiers writing on the Middle Ease "extremely well-informed," Chait confuses knowledge with understanding. Wieseltier may know what it is like, as a Jew, to walk up to Wailing Wall which Andrew Sullivan obviously cannot. But Wieseltier, as does everyone else at The New Republic, has no understanding of the Middle East other than as an ultra-right Nationalist advocating the continuance of racial primacy and supremacy. Chait fai ... view full comment
-- Leon writes very carefully about the Middle East. I find his writing on this subject extremely well-informed and, in my opinion, invariably persuasive. There are topics about which I'd say the same about Andrew, but the Middle East is not one of them.
In finding Wieseltiers writing on the Middle Ease "extremely well-informed," Chait confuses knowledge with understanding. Wieseltier may know what it is like, as a Jew, to walk up to Wailing Wall which Andrew Sullivan obviously cannot. But Wieseltier, as does everyone else at The New Republic, has no understanding of the Middle East other than as an ultra-right Nationalist advocating the continuance of racial primacy and supremacy. Chait fails to recognize that because - perhaps for job security - he has so fully absorbed that peculiar understanding he is unable to recognize the validity of alternative opinions such as that of Andrew Sullivan. He lives in the editorial cocoon at The New Republic where there is no seat for dissent from the Party line. And so he repeats willingly the Hasbarbaric propaganda that anyone not fully aligned with ultra-right Israeli nationalism is an anti-Semite.
The increasing desperation of these attacks against anyone who disagrees with its racist bigotry shows that the editorial cocoon and its friends elsewhere realize that their days of glory are numbered.
jdyer - assuming your posts are trying to make some sort of point, your name calling cancels out any will to hear you out. If you don't care to be heard then at least try to be funny - vegetable head? What are you, 12?
(Ah identity politics fights, always a joy. Where are you Mr, Yard?)
I think the kind of "bigotry" Blackton is gallantly admitting to is more precisely referred to as socialization, especially in Black's case. He admits to his privledge and wrestles honestly with it, mostly with humility. You can't ask more of anyone.
In Andrew's case, I think he simply became angry and when that happens, he goes in to his black/white mode. He's never irked or disappointed or non-plussed o ... view full comment
jdyer - assuming your posts are trying to make some sort of point, your name calling cancels out any will to hear you out. If you don't care to be heard then at least try to be funny - vegetable head? What are you, 12?
(Ah identity politics fights, always a joy. Where are you Mr, Yard?)
I think the kind of "bigotry" Blackton is gallantly admitting to is more precisely referred to as socialization, especially in Black's case. He admits to his privledge and wrestles honestly with it, mostly with humility. You can't ask more of anyone.
In Andrew's case, I think he simply became angry and when that happens, he goes in to his black/white mode. He's never irked or disappointed or non-plussed or frustrated - as with many bloggers, he sticks firmly to enraged. Then the jabbering about it begins. He's a brilliant man with flaws.
It was possible to be a life long Israel supporter, as I am, and be angry at the conduct of the last war. Leon himself was made, at minimum, very uncomfortable. Israel just disciplined people in the military over it. Unfortunately, Andrew's either all for something or all against it and doesn't know when to quit, he festers along in to everything to make his points as airtight to himself as possible. Has this been anti-semitic? Not to me, but then I'm not Jewish. If it hit Leon that way, then so be it. He's a reasonable, thoughtful man on these things. I'd bet it took him awhile to get fed up with Andrew on this.
Marty? That I, along with multitudes, think Marty is an unreconstructed bigot is well known and a bore of a topic. I enjoy smacking his ass around about it regularly and I don't care who calls me what for it. He's useful in a sense as an object lesson to what real bigotry looks like.
I think anyone who knee jerk screams "anti-semite" (not Leon, at least to me) dehumanizes Jews by make them too victimized and tragic to have access to the full range of human experience, as if they can't handle it. They can't possibly make mistakes, they are exempted from them. How dreary, suffocating.
It reminds me of liberal racism, that same patronizing, presumptous straight jacket.
If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck and quack like a duck, chances are people will begin to think you're a duck, even if you say you are not a duck.
If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck and quack like a duck, chances are people will begin to think you're a duck, even if you say you are not a duck.
Er, that should've been "..look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck... " Now I'm ducking out.
Er, that should've been "..look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck... " Now I'm ducking out.
Points to jdyer. Most people treat rhubarb as a fruit, because it cooks like apple or fig. But in fact it's a stalk, not a seed-bearer, so botanically it is a vegetable. Well done jdyer for knowing the difference when writing an insult.
That said, I challenge jdyer to quote anything I have ever written that expresses anti-Semitism.
Points to jdyer. Most people treat rhubarb as a fruit, because it cooks like apple or fig. But in fact it's a stalk, not a seed-bearer, so botanically it is a vegetable. Well done jdyer for knowing the difference when writing an insult.
That said, I challenge jdyer to quote anything I have ever written that expresses anti-Semitism.
Good luck, Rhubs. I got called anti-semitic for suggesting that Wieseltier might have a problem.
Good luck, Rhubs. I got called anti-semitic for suggesting that Wieseltier might have a problem.
ndmackenzie: Once again I ask...why do you post here? Do you think that all of us neo-Nazi extremists are going to suddenly or even eventually realize the wisdom of your words and contribute to the glorious worldwide cause of de-Zionization?
May I recommend, instead, letting off some steam at a lecture hall in Irvine?
ndmackenzie: Once again I ask...why do you post here? Do you think that all of us neo-Nazi extremists are going to suddenly or even eventually realize the wisdom of your words and contribute to the glorious worldwide cause of de-Zionization?
May I recommend, instead, letting off some steam at a lecture hall in Irvine?
rlgordonma asks:
-- Once again I ask...why do you post here? Do you think that all of us neo-Nazi extremists are going to suddenly or even eventually realize the wisdom of your words and contribute to the glorious worldwide cause of de-Zionization?
I like to think that had I been living in Germany back in the 1930s I would have had the courage to condemn those like yourself returning joyously from the rally in Nuremberg. Condemning the racism and bigotry of this magazine takes little courage by comparison. I regard it is a civic duty.
rlgordonma asks:
-- Once again I ask...why do you post here? Do you think that all of us neo-Nazi extremists are going to suddenly or even eventually realize the wisdom of your words and contribute to the glorious worldwide cause of de-Zionization?
I like to think that had I been living in Germany back in the 1930s I would have had the courage to condemn those like yourself returning joyously from the rally in Nuremberg. Condemning the racism and bigotry of this magazine takes little courage by comparison. I regard it is a civic duty.
I see that Jeffrey Goldberg, who seemingly prides himself as the thinking man's Zionut, has joined the fray by praising this tripe from Jonathan Chait. Goldberg is a man who spends most of his life sniffing out "anti-Semitism" and slandering anyone he dislikes with this vile smear. Of course, he doesn't allow comments on his blog - having learned about cowardice when he served in the Israeli Foreign Legion (sorry IDF). A service he continues today with his constant barrage of hasbarbaric propaganda masquerading as rational and intelligent thought.
view full comment
I see that Jeffrey Goldberg, who seemingly prides himself as the thinking man's Zionut, has joined the fray by praising this tripe from Jonathan Chait. Goldberg is a man who spends most of his life sniffing out "anti-Semitism" and slandering anyone he dislikes with this vile smear. Of course, he doesn't allow comments on his blog - having learned about cowardice when he served in the Israeli Foreign Legion (sorry IDF). A service he continues today with his constant barrage of hasbarbaric propaganda masquerading as rational and intelligent thought.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/weighing_in_on_l...
I dunno, rigordonma, I think his predictably formulaic diatribes (something something something Peretz something something something ultra-right-nationalist-bigot-racist-oppressor Zionists) seem more motivated by a desire to bait than to convince.
I dunno, rigordonma, I think his predictably formulaic diatribes (something something something Peretz something something something ultra-right-nationalist-bigot-racist-oppressor Zionists) seem more motivated by a desire to bait than to convince.
Andrew Sullivan has responded with an awesome post that flays Leon Wieseltier:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/something-m...
Andrew Sullivan has responded with an awesome post that flays Leon Wieseltier:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/something-m...
nd, pompous twit, that is about the biggest asshole statement I have read here in a long time. And what courage, pray tell, are you exhibiting here? What have you ever done for freedom or liberty anywhere? Shame on you for even making that connection between people who confronted Nazism and anything that you have ever done here at TNR. Going against the evils of a totalitarian state, you got no idea, so fuck off with your bullshit bravado.
nd, pompous twit, that is about the biggest asshole statement I have read here in a long time. And what courage, pray tell, are you exhibiting here? What have you ever done for freedom or liberty anywhere? Shame on you for even making that connection between people who confronted Nazism and anything that you have ever done here at TNR. Going against the evils of a totalitarian state, you got no idea, so fuck off with your bullshit bravado.
blackton asks:
-- What have you ever done for freedom or liberty anywhere?
The easy answer is that I have condemned the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people the support of which is the central goal of this magazine. And for that I am routinely assaulted with a torrent of abuse from the morally-depraved fools who support the bigotry and racism of The New Republic.
I understand why people like rlgordonma and you - and, for that matter, Wieseltier and Chait - would react with phony fury when anyone exposes the bigoted poison you choose to cocoon yourself in. Is that patronising enough or do you need something stronger?
blackton asks:
-- What have you ever done for freedom or liberty anywhere?
The easy answer is that I have condemned the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people the support of which is the central goal of this magazine. And for that I am routinely assaulted with a torrent of abuse from the morally-depraved fools who support the bigotry and racism of The New Republic.
I understand why people like rlgordonma and you - and, for that matter, Wieseltier and Chait - would react with phony fury when anyone exposes the bigoted poison you choose to cocoon yourself in. Is that patronising enough or do you need something stronger?
Rhubes, I will take you up on your challenge even if jdyer doesn't. You have maliciously explained why not all aspects of the pilot program being conducted in Israel regarding electric cars where you swap out the batteries are feasible, at least for the United States, which, plainly demonstrating your antisemitism.
Rhubes, I will take you up on your challenge even if jdyer doesn't. You have maliciously explained why not all aspects of the pilot program being conducted in Israel regarding electric cars where you swap out the batteries are feasible, at least for the United States, which, plainly demonstrating your antisemitism.
a torrent of abuse? oh heavens, however do you survive the taunts of total strangers? You know, I would have some respect for you if you lived and worked in Gaza doing some kind of aid work, but you don't, so you have no cred. All you have are words, without any action they are meaningless. As to me, I would love to go and work in Israel if some University would hire me, I would have zero problem with backing up my support. I even wanted to teach in Iraq (in Kurdistan) but my wife threatened to divorce me if I did. But believe you me, I don't equate either of these things to "standing up to Nazis." For me, it would be an adventure, with the danger part of the allure. For you, you got nothing ... view full comment
a torrent of abuse? oh heavens, however do you survive the taunts of total strangers? You know, I would have some respect for you if you lived and worked in Gaza doing some kind of aid work, but you don't, so you have no cred. All you have are words, without any action they are meaningless. As to me, I would love to go and work in Israel if some University would hire me, I would have zero problem with backing up my support. I even wanted to teach in Iraq (in Kurdistan) but my wife threatened to divorce me if I did. But believe you me, I don't equate either of these things to "standing up to Nazis." For me, it would be an adventure, with the danger part of the allure. For you, you got nothing.
Re: Sullivan's response, there's one point I'd like to mention:
My biggest quarrel with Sullivan's writing on Israel is that he never gives a bottom line for the Palestinians or other Arab Nations, just Israel. In this response, he says he favors a two state solution, approximately on the '67 borders - standard stuff. But then he lobs the population time bomb: "I would like to save the idea of a specifically Jewish state from demographic suicide." The Palestinians have the ability of turning "suicide" into "murder" -- just wait out the Israelis no matter what concessions they make. Sullivan has consistently refused to answer "what's next" if he got what he wants, a complete Israeli settle ... view full comment
Re: Sullivan's response, there's one point I'd like to mention:
My biggest quarrel with Sullivan's writing on Israel is that he never gives a bottom line for the Palestinians or other Arab Nations, just Israel. In this response, he says he favors a two state solution, approximately on the '67 borders - standard stuff. But then he lobs the population time bomb: "I would like to save the idea of a specifically Jewish state from demographic suicide." The Palestinians have the ability of turning "suicide" into "murder" -- just wait out the Israelis no matter what concessions they make. Sullivan has consistently refused to answer "what's next" if he got what he wants, a complete Israeli settlement freeze, and there was no reciprocity. One doesn't have to say "if that happens, the Palestinians have to except the old 2000 deal offered Arafat," but I think one does have to say "they need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the broad outlines of the land-swap/surrendered right of return + stop the bombings from Hamas, otherwise Israel's hands are untied (save of course the Geneva Convention - which ironically I think means a continued settlement freeze but that's another matter). Same for Iran , whose terrorism would be considered acts of war against any other nation regardless of nuclear weapons -- at what point does Sullivan think Israel has the right to act like a normal nation, regardless of his realpolitik view of whether it would be prudent? I'd read his writings on Israel a lot less cynically if he wasn't so coy about these things.
rhubarbs, never fear, mackenzie is on your side.
I see the Nazi poster had come out of his cave, again to offer his help.
rhubarbs, never fear, mackenzie is on your side.
I see the Nazi poster had come out of his cave, again to offer his help.
ndmackenzie to Blakton, "I understand why people like rlgordonma and you - and, for that matter, Wieseltier and Chait - would react with phony fury when anyone exposes the bigoted poison you choose to cocoon yourself in."
That mackenzie, who refers to Jews as "zionazis," refers to people criticize him as "bigots" is laughable.
ndmackenzie to Blakton, "I understand why people like rlgordonma and you - and, for that matter, Wieseltier and Chait - would react with phony fury when anyone exposes the bigoted poison you choose to cocoon yourself in."
That mackenzie, who refers to Jews as "zionazis," refers to people criticize him as "bigots" is laughable.
First, ndmackenzie is a tiresome bore, even more predictable than Peretz and far less grounded in reality.
But Sullivan's response at least acknowledged Wieseltier's humanity, which is more than I can see in Wieseltier's original post
First, ndmackenzie is a tiresome bore, even more predictable than Peretz and far less grounded in reality.
But Sullivan's response at least acknowledged Wieseltier's humanity, which is more than I can see in Wieseltier's original post
ndmackenzie: Because I question why you post here, as a means to show how much better you are than us, you equate me with a Nazi spewing bigoted poison. Look, I don't know you, I just know what you write here, so I'll avoid getting personal.
But, conversely, you don't know me. More importantly, you don't know a goddamn thing about Nazis: it shows as you throw the term around so callously. Me, I'm no expert in the field. But I tired of hearing everyone spew out comparisons of Israelis or other opponents to Nazis, so I decided that I needed to understand who the Nazis were. So, even though I am Jewish, have read every book on the Shoah on which I could lay my hands, I only saw one side o ... view full comment
ndmackenzie: Because I question why you post here, as a means to show how much better you are than us, you equate me with a Nazi spewing bigoted poison. Look, I don't know you, I just know what you write here, so I'll avoid getting personal.
But, conversely, you don't know me. More importantly, you don't know a goddamn thing about Nazis: it shows as you throw the term around so callously. Me, I'm no expert in the field. But I tired of hearing everyone spew out comparisons of Israelis or other opponents to Nazis, so I decided that I needed to understand who the Nazis were. So, even though I am Jewish, have read every book on the Shoah on which I could lay my hands, I only saw one side of the issue. As I understood them, Hitler and his gang were comically evil, figuring they would kill the Jews and anyone else in their way as some cynical way to seize and maintain power from the masses.
So I have read Kershaw's 2-volume biography of Hitler, and am about to start the third third of Evans' 3 volumes on Nazi rule in Germany. Were the Jews just one of many minorities targeted by the Nazis, or was there something special, something deeper? What drove Hitler? How many Germans really went along with the program? Was the elimination of Jews the primary goal? How was this accomplished, in detail? How much effort did it take for the Nazis to carry out their discriminations, and why were there spikes and lulls in their persecutions?
The answers are far worse, far more sinister than I ever imagined. Before, I lumped Hitler in with Stalin and Mao as the biggest mass murderers of modern times. But I was wrong. Hitler was far, far worse than even them. His war was a race war, pure and simple. WWII was a pure war against the Jews. Not against Gypsies, homosexuals, or even Communists. Jews. The scale of economic rape and pillage of Jews even before the genocide was staggering. It can be argued that the confiscation of the wealth of German Jews allowed for the war machine of Hitler to turn its attention on the rest of Europe.
Maybe I am boring you, maybe you know all of this. But if you do, then shame on you. But you can't be that much of an asshole - I have too much faith in people. No, more likely that you have never read a detailed history of the Nazi Party, and are just acting as an ignoramus throwing hurtful words around.
Word of advice...I know this is a relatively anonymous affair. But perhaps you may gain a bit more respect around here if you would write to people using the same words you would use to their face. I know that if you spoke to me directly, even with my offensive views, you would not call me a Nazi. Because if you called me a Nazi to my face, you would be suing me for your consequential medical bills.
...and about that last sentence: no, I am not physically threatening you. I am trying to illustrate how serious a word "Nazi" is to me.
...and about that last sentence: no, I am not physically threatening you. I am trying to illustrate how serious a word "Nazi" is to me.
Thanks for clarifying, rigor. The last thing we need is ndmackenzie's fantasy persecution complex taken to whatever the next level would be.
Thanks for clarifying, rigor. The last thing we need is ndmackenzie's fantasy persecution complex taken to whatever the next level would be.
rlgordonma writes
-- [Hitler's] war was a race war, pure and simple. WWII was a pure war against the Jews. Not against Gypsies, homosexuals, or even Communists.
This is deeply offensive to the millions of Europeans who suffered under and died fighting Nazism. This deliberate exision from history of the suffering of European Gentiles under the yoke of Nazism is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the most pernicious and pervasive expression of neo-Nazism in the Western World today.
I will remind you that for the last four decades the State of Israel has aided the civilian colonization of the Occupied P ... view full comment
rlgordonma writes
-- [Hitler's] war was a race war, pure and simple. WWII was a pure war against the Jews. Not against Gypsies, homosexuals, or even Communists.
This is deeply offensive to the millions of Europeans who suffered under and died fighting Nazism. This deliberate exision from history of the suffering of European Gentiles under the yoke of Nazism is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the most pernicious and pervasive expression of neo-Nazism in the Western World today.
I will remind you that for the last four decades the State of Israel has aided the civilian colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in an action that has made war criminals of more than 5% of the Israeli population and has made the State of Israel itself one of the worst violators and scofflaws of international human rights laws. And if you were to stand in front of me supporting that evil you would fully deserve the verbal thrashing you will get.
"This deliberate exision from history of the suffering of European Gentiles under the yoke of Nazism is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the most pernicious and pervasive expression of neo-Nazism in the Western World today."
Well, I'm done. You think I suck, and vice-versa. But you know zero about Nazis and WWII, and clearly do not understand what I said. Nor, it seems, are you capable. Nuance is clearly not your strong suit. You remain in your cocoon and have failed to engage any of us. What a waste of time.
"This deliberate exision from history of the suffering of European Gentiles under the yoke of Nazism is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the most pernicious and pervasive expression of neo-Nazism in the Western World today."
Well, I'm done. You think I suck, and vice-versa. But you know zero about Nazis and WWII, and clearly do not understand what I said. Nor, it seems, are you capable. Nuance is clearly not your strong suit. You remain in your cocoon and have failed to engage any of us. What a waste of time.
Who cares? Can we get off this daily dissection of who's anti-semitic and who isn't?
Who cares? Can we get off this daily dissection of who's anti-semitic and who isn't?
mlottman writes:
-- Who cares? Can we get off this daily dissection of who's anti-semitic and who isn't?
Absolutely.
But the responsibility for this lies with those who so readily throw the accusation around. None of this debate would have happened had Wieseltier - with the subsequent aid of Jonathan Chait - not so accused Andrew Sullivan.
mlottman writes:
-- Who cares? Can we get off this daily dissection of who's anti-semitic and who isn't?
Absolutely.
But the responsibility for this lies with those who so readily throw the accusation around. None of this debate would have happened had Wieseltier - with the subsequent aid of Jonathan Chait - not so accused Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew should be deported. He is an an America hating, heterophophic, anti-Semitic piece of garbage. The sight of his degenerate face is enough to make a buzzard puke.
Andrew should be deported. He is an an America hating, heterophophic, anti-Semitic piece of garbage. The sight of his degenerate face is enough to make a buzzard puke.
yeesh bulbman. how do you manage to type spewing all that bile? I think it comes down to this sensible admonition which bears repeating: let him moderate his views and be more careful with the language he deploys when writing about Israelis and Jews. Words don’t exist in an historical vacuum and in this case there is a two thousand year history that one needs to pay attention to when describing Jews.
Is this really so hard?
yeesh bulbman. how do you manage to type spewing all that bile? I think it comes down to this sensible admonition which bears repeating: let him moderate his views and be more careful with the language he deploys when writing about Israelis and Jews. Words don’t exist in an historical vacuum and in this case there is a two thousand year history that one needs to pay attention to when describing Jews.
Is this really so hard?
bulbman1066 is surely another name for mackenzie. He posts similar nonsense and his over the top language is meant to show that Jewish posters are as intolerant as their enemies. It’s an old trick.
bulbman1066 is surely another name for mackenzie. He posts similar nonsense and his over the top language is meant to show that Jewish posters are as intolerant as their enemies. It’s an old trick.