Double Standards

What can you say about a guy like the Bull Moose. "The question is why Democratic leaders continue to collude with the anti-Semitic appeasing left? This should be a time for introspection for a party that relies heavily on Jewish support." Now, in this context, "collude" means that Democratic leaders work with people who run a website on which some other people have posted some allegedly anti-semitic material. Wittman, by contrast, used to work for lunatic anti-semite Pat Robertson. Before that, my understanding is that he was an actual practicing Communist, a dedicated member of a political party committed to the violent overthrow of the United States government and its replacement by a brutal, ruthless dictatorship.

Currently, though, he's a friend to Jews everywhere, which is nice of him. This is the question, though. Does Wittman ever worry, do any liberal hawks ever worry, does anyone on the "decent left" ever worry, that their foreign policy preferences derive large amounts of their electoral support from racist hatred of Arabs and bigoted prejudice against Muslims? Or do they deny that that's the case? Do they think the precious comment threads of warmongering blogs, the call lists at rightwing talk radio, are blissfully free of such sentiments? Call me crazy, but I believe it was David Brooks who published a column over the weekend arguing that the Iraq War failed, in essence, because Arabs are sub-humans incapable of living together peacefully. Or maybe he was trying to say Muslims are like that. And, of course, he didn't say it in so many words but he's David Brooks, conservative punditry's friendly ambassador to the left. Just imagine what they're saying in the fever swamps.

Does this bother anyone?

Comments

actually, i believe that bullshit moose was a trotskyite, to be precise.

but speaking as a lifelong jew, i don't need asswipes like wittman to tell me where my political interests lie and with whom i should associate. a man with his resume has no basis to tell anyone anything about whom their associates should be.

the sad note is, there was a period when i mostly liked what the bull moose had to say, but those days are over a long time ago....

Posted by howard | September 5, 2006 2:24 PM

Or, um, the fact that the destructive foreign policy that they are pimping has, in fact, endangered Israel more than ever?

-

Posted by Hank Essay | September 5, 2006 2:26 PM

How about convincing Moveon to turn on forum moderation and eliminate this drive-by sliming in the first place?

It's pretty obvious the comments are being left on their forums so they can be attacked for them later. This will go on throughout the election cycle unless they take this action.

We are playing against some very rough tactics here. Stop being suckers for them.

Posted by Richard Bottoms | September 5, 2006 2:26 PM

Matt - I was extremely disappointed that you didn't use your guest-blogging privileges last week to remove the BullMoose from Josh's rather small list of approved sites.

Posted by Chuck | September 5, 2006 2:28 PM

Call me crazy, but I believe it was David Brooks who published a column over the weekend arguing that the Iraq War failed, in essence, because Arabs are sub-humans incapable of living together peacefully.

You're crazy! Sorry, had to say it.

Anyway, that doesn't seem to me to be the point of Brooks' column. I believe Brooks is saying that many Arab Muslims have internalized a different set of values from us. Doesn't seem to me to be too controversial.

Also, please check with Garance. I think she may see things differently.

Posted by Al | September 5, 2006 2:30 PM

"What can you say about a guy like the Bull Moose."

- Very, very smart on domestic politics, and important for lefties to listen to. He was the first person in our camp to raise the idea of Big Government Conservatives as the deciding force in American electoral politics, or in the better Moosean terminology, progressive traditionalists. Whichever party wins progressive traditionalists will govern America for the next generation. He's a prophet in this area of thought.

- A full-on Marty Peretz loon on Middle Eastern politics. I sometimes read his Middle Eastern posts to get a flavor for the politics of "let's fight the Turk", but I generally skip those to avoid wanting to throw things at my computer screen.

Posted by Petey | September 5, 2006 2:30 PM

Reading this I thought of Rabbi Gellman's article last month that gives cover to Wittman, so I am not surprised to see you link to Gellman over on the right.

But ya know, I am curious as to Gellman's followup, especially since as many pointed out his article last month contradicted his position from several years ago.

His articles since then have avoided this issue.

Maybe you could give him a call and see if he stands by his article or would make any changes to it....

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2006 2:35 PM

One should ignore Wittman's rhetorical gambits. Given his history, it may be assumed that he regards the 'truth value' of a statement to be of secondary importance. I'm sorry to see that the DLC doesn't grasp this.

Posted by MattF | September 5, 2006 2:38 PM

They've created this fantasy world where the left is filled with neo-communists who's ultimate goal is to topple capitalism and replace it with dictatorial communism.

And Kos will be our lord and master.

The interesting question is why? My guess is that it has to do with the failure of third way politics to cause complete realignment and dominance of the political sphere. Instead, they're watching a rise of a fourth way of sorts, which is doing much of the same thing they said they were doing...bring pragmaticism instead of ideology, but doing it from the bottom up instead the top down.

Posted by Karmakin | September 5, 2006 2:39 PM

Actually, I knew Marshall in the old days. He went from the Young Peoples Socialist League to the Social Democrats USA to the Communist Party to the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. I was in DSOC and knew Marshall as a student working on his Masters in social work.

How he became a rightwinger I'll never know. I wonder if his wife divorced him.

Posted by Dennis L. Galbraith | September 5, 2006 2:43 PM

"How he became a rightwinger I'll never know."

I don't know the intricate details of Wittman's path, but I can theoretically understand how the language of political Christianity could be attractive to someone concerned with social justice.

Posted by Petey | September 5, 2006 2:48 PM

It appears he found a new God (Zionism) to replace the one that failed.

Posted by billmon | September 5, 2006 2:49 PM

I was first referenced to the Bull Moose blog by Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo. This was a few years ago. At the time, his offbeat, 3d-perdson style was unique and interesting and I did not take it as an indicator of his substantive arguments. I thought his policy proscriptions worth listening to, though generally they always struck me as not-quite-right, but that's quite alright by me. The fact that Josh referenced him gave him credibility, in my eyes, so I took him seriously.

Christ. What a lunatic he turned out to be. I see that Josh has stopped referencing him as well. His style quickly wore thin and his constant berating of all things Democratic were clearly not accomplishing anything substantive. When I learned that he comments for the MSM as the Democratic Dem-Basher, he finally lost all credibility.

Sometimes I look back and wonder what happened. Did he change? Did the circumstances change? Have I simply changed? Whatever it was, it's too bad.

Posted by Bribes | September 5, 2006 2:59 PM

Whichever party wins progressive traditionalists will govern America for the next generation.

I'm not sure that's self-evidently true, except in the trivial sense that the party that wins the most votes for the next generation will govern America for the next generation.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2006 3:04 PM

bribes, you and i (as i referenced above) had the same journey with respect to wittmann, except that i thought some of his substantive arguments (see petey, above) made some sense. but his hysteria against mcgovernite revanchism has led me to forget all that.

but really, i post to point petey (and others) at an intersting wapo profile of the man that answers some of the questions posed here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301870_pf.html

Money quote? "In 1980, he moved to Washington with his wife, Karen, a clinical psychologist, and began working as a lobbyist for the National Treasury Employees Union. In 1984, he became a lobbyist for the National Association of Retired Federal Employees.

Meanwhile, the aging lefty was becoming a neoconservative. 'I believed that liberalism had become too weak on foreign policy,' he says, 'and I felt the welfare system had to be reformed.'

In 1986, he switched his registration and began working in two Maryland Republican campaigns -- Linda Chavez for the Senate and Connie Morella for Congress."

Posted by howard | September 5, 2006 3:04 PM

I am with those who started off reading Wittman through Josh Marshall's recommedation. As a declared moderate, endangered species in these times, I found his rants to be interesting, and found myself nodding in agreement many times. Then he started in on how the left has to be war mongers in order to convince people that they are "serious" about foreign policy. I stopped nodding.

His unabashed defense of Joe Lieberman was his undoing in my mind. As a moderate, I am all in favor of bipartisan negotiations and working together to find good, workable policies for this country. But as this administration has proven time and time again, it isn't interested in REAL bipartisanship. It is only interested in peeling off one or two democrats in order to declare a policy to be "bipartisan". Lieberman has provided that cover again and again.

I am not a war monger. I do believe that there are times when a robust military response is quite necessary, but that we need to be EXTREMELY careful about when and how we use that force. Our intense efforts in Afghanistan were on the right path. Our Iraqi adventure has done more damage than I thought possible.

I worry every day for my country.

Posted by Kathleen in CO | September 5, 2006 3:18 PM

> Actually, I knew Marshall in the old days. He went
> from the Young Peoples Socialist League to the Social
> Democrats USA to the Communist Party to the Democratic
> Socialist Organizing Committee. I was in DSOC and knew
> Marshall as a student working on his Masters in social
> work.

> How he became a rightwinger I'll never know.

Well, from there to the fundamentalists to the neocons is a fairly straightforward and common path. Note that the organizations/philosophies listed are all centered around a "big daddy" figure/concept and appeal to people who need to believe that there is an all-knowing authoritarian taking care of them (and perhaps more importantly 'keeping an eye on' the neighbors so they don't do naughty things that We Don't Approve Of(tm))

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 5, 2006 3:28 PM

Does anyone have a reasonable theory about what exactly the DLC gets out of having Wittmann around? He's not a Democrat (doesn't even claim to be one), so his worth to the media as a Democrat-bashing spokesman for a Democratic organization would evaporate if that connection were severed. In what way can the DLC folks argue even to themselves that the guy is helping the Democratic Party (but perhaps assuming the DLC wants to help the Democratic Party is my mistake)?

Posted by KCinDC | September 5, 2006 3:28 PM

How he became a rightwinger I'll never know."

Their checks clear.

Posted by The Art Director | September 5, 2006 3:47 PM

Good points on the Bull Moose... whatever his political positions were in the past, it’s clear that he’s now one of these people who confuses having an eclectic set of positions with actually being an 'independent thinker'. Combining wrongheaded liberal positions with wrongheaded conservative positions doesn’t make you any less wrong. It just makes you more incoherent.

However, the characterization of the David Brooks column is really quite unfair. For once, Al is right.

Posted by RC | September 5, 2006 3:58 PM

So, what exactly, the left and far left are not home to anti-Semitism? This is a false claim? Yes, as a Jew, a lover of Israel and a Democrat, I'm freaked out -- completely and utterly freaked out. What I see coming -- what with talk of a "neo-con cabal", the "Israel Lobby", a resurgence of isolationist sentiment, and an absolute refusal to take Islamists at their word -- is a perfect political storm a-brewing. There has never yet been an anti-Semitic political party that's gained any traction in the U.S. -- but if this shit is permitted to fester among Democrats, it will become one. Yes, in my view, a refusal to acknowledge, after the 20th century, a moral duty to safeguard Jews in Israel IS anti-Semitic. Walt & Mearsheimer -- who insist that Americans have to be manipulated to support Israel, that a moral case is "unconvincing" -- ARE anti-Semitic. And if you don't think many Muslims (NOT Arabs -- Muslims) believe it is acceptible to kill Jews, you are willfully blind and deaf. So Wittmann may be descriptively right -- soon, Jews like me may leave the party in droves. Which would be a shame, because the Republicans are fuckers.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 4:20 PM

"Very, very smart on domestic politics, and important for lefties to listen to. He was the first person in our camp to raise the idea of Big Government Conservatives as the deciding force in American electoral politics, or in the better Moosean terminology, progressive traditionalists. Whichever party wins progressive traditionalists will govern America for the next generation. He's a prophet in this area of thought.

- A full-on Marty Peretz loon on Middle Eastern politics. I sometimes read his Middle Eastern posts to get a flavor for the politics of "let's fight the Turk", but I generally skip those to avoid wanting to throw things at my computer screen."

Petey, I'm glad to see you've tempered your evaluation of the Bullshit Moose as a useful bellweather of the American political center. IMO, he is not representative of the kind of Perot voter - think Jim Webb or Brian Schweitzer - who is the real swing voter in American politics. IN other words, cultural traditional but anti the Christian right. Against big government programs. But skeptical of big business too. Pro strong borders, cutting down on illegal immigration. Tend towards isolationist, but with a belligerent Jacksonian streak. TheMoose, on the other hand, is a jilted neocon who took his ball from the Republican Party when they rejected his political love in 2000. The Dems would be fools to listen to him.

Posted by Ben P | September 5, 2006 4:24 PM

Re: Does this bother anyone?

A "double standard" vis-a-vis other beliefs doesn't bother me if the person is saying something interesting in the particular essay. And I for one think he is saying something interesting here. Overall, in his internet postings, of the admittedly few I've read, especially those that get some bloggers all worked up, the man basically seems to me to be interested giving political advice from a sort of devil's advocate position. He sees something that he thinks might be hurting political goals, perhaps even goals he might not be 100% behind, and he mentions it. What's wrong with that? Take the advice into your whole picture or leave it.

In this particular case, I myself am quite sympathetic to his argument. I have seen a heavy presence of far left anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic commentary on liberal blogs which is too often out-shouts and dominates the commentary. And it is far too often either dittoheaded or simply tolerated without challenge in the guise of "free speech." It is partly because the activists with this bent are so shrill and devoted that they scare anyone else away from challenging. This gives the impression to the much larger blog lurker contingent of not just toleration but approval. Josh Marshall on TPM and TPM Cafe has been one of the few to bother to challenge the far lefties with a more moderate or classically liberal point of view.

The major fault in Wittman's essay that I see is that he switches from complaining about "the bloggers" not doing anything about challenging the dominance of lefties on this issue commenting on their blogs, to "Democratic leaders" colluding with that. I have seen no evidence of that, one is not the same as the other. Even past "netroots" favorites like Dean and Feingold came out pretty strongly in favor of Israel. There's no there there in his accusation about "Democratic leaders." It's all about bloggers.

But what he points out, I have also seen as dominant in blogosphere commentary on this issue, and others. Blog leader tradition, though, is to leave comment sections alone and not challenge. This might be dandy as to free speech principles, but it could be quite damaging as to the party images and labels that eventually leak out to the public at large. It is something that has oftened bothered me about the blogosphere--if your purpose is to be a free speech replacement for media as it is, it's just fine--but if your purpose in blogging is to be politically effective, it's not. In the latter case, it's not smart to just let the commenters on your site define what a "progressive" or "liberal" or "Democratic" position (whichever you present yourself as) is. When far lefty (or far righty in the case of GOP bloggers) overtake your blog on an issue, you're losing any political effectiveness you might have by being silent and not challenging them somehow, either within comments or by reframing with a new post.

I can't express strongly enough how I feel it is important. As someone with many independent bents, on some issues, I can't tell you how often I am turned off by the commenting that is on liberal blogs, and how often I have a visceral feeling like this: "whoever these people support, I almost want to support the opponent." I have to work to rationalize my support, to look at the actual statements being made by those "Democratic leaders" to see that, yes, I was right, they are not with those "netroots" comments I just read. It's a pity that often I suspect the main blogger(s) are similarly not with them either, but because possibility of fear of turning off audience numbers and clicks, they don't challenge their commenters?

All of this is why I just loved that dustup Barack Obama caused posting at dkos a few months back. I totally agreed with his impressions overall, and unlike him, I HAVE been a regular heavy reader of blog commenting over the last few years.

Matt, you have a chance with this new venue to do different. You advertise yourself as "reality based." But any political effect you could have is lost if you continue only to address the points made by other bloggers and pundits and ignore the noises in your comments when they reach a critical mass. Comments CAN label you if a certain contingent takes over unchallenged.

Posted by artappraiser | September 5, 2006 4:30 PM

Marshall is by no means a right winger. The bullmoose stands out like a sore thumb in his links. The other few links are all for liberal sites. I've often wondered why Marshall links to that site but concluded that he probably had developed a friendship with the guy. But Marshall is definitely not a neocon or a conservative. It's just that he has one link to a conservative(and totally bullshit) site among his links.

Posted by Nick Howard | September 5, 2006 4:33 PM

Yes, in my view, a refusal to acknowledge, after the 20th century, a moral duty to safeguard Jews in Israel IS anti-Semitic.

That's a very broad and, AFAIK, very novel definition of anti-semitism. I don't think it matters much as (a) Israel's pretty well situated to defend her own interests, and (b) most Americans do recognize a kinship claim to Israelis and do believe we have duties towards them that we don't have towards others who are somehow more culturally distant from us.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2006 4:34 PM

Just to be clear, Marshall Whittman was born, raised, and still is Jewish. Working for the Christian Coalition does not make one Christian.

To Matt's question, my sense as far as Whittman's take on both the far left and the christian right, is that Whittman feels he has a right to be more critical of both than just about anyone because he was once one of them: Sort of like the reformed alcoholic who can't shut up about the dangers of alcohol. To some extent, I think this is justified: he knows the nasty dark core that can lie at the center of both impulses just as well as anyone, but ends up coming off as too damn self-righteous to be listed to.

And the man is wicked smart. Once again, Petey's comments both make excellent points, though I'm not sure the latter applies in the Bull Mooses' case.

Posted by flippantangel | September 5, 2006 4:40 PM

They've created this fantasy world where the left is filled with neo-communists who's ultimate goal is to topple capitalism and replace it with dictatorial communism. ... The interesting question is why? My guess is that it has to do with the failure of third way politics to cause complete realignment and dominance of the political sphere.

One thing you have to have to be a triangulator is a radical left to triangulate against. If they didn't have one, they'd have to invent one. So they invent one.

Posted by DrBB | September 5, 2006 4:46 PM

Does this bother anyone?

I think the answer is 'no'. Confirmed by the lack of interest in the comment thread of addressing the (rhetorical?) question in your post.

There's been some discussion of this elsewhere. See Abdal Hakim-Murad (We are hated by very many people; and cannot discount the possibility that this hatred will spill over into immigration filters, mosque closures, the prohibition of hijab in schools, and a generalized demonising of Muslims that makes the risk of rioting or state repression against us uncomfortably great).

Others, like Eteraz, strongly disagree (Such fear-mongering is startling, to say the least. First, because the history of Western Muslim distrust .. is fairly new. It is not two thousand years old. It has not led to pogroms. It has not led to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While one may say that the West is going to turn to violence [against Muslim fellow-citizens] in the future, that has not happened ...

As for the Brooks column, Matt is right, it's bad. Nobody lives 'under Islam', anymore than Texans live 'under conservatism' or 'under Baptism'. But Garance is also right -- Brooks has gone from one stupid way of looking at the world to another, different (and possibly less stupid) way of looking at the world. Progress, of sorts.

Posted by Ikram | September 5, 2006 4:50 PM

Matt -- Just jumped over from TPMCafe and I'm finding the font of your blog really tough on the eyes and hard to read. Is it possible to enlarge the text and make it less dense? Just a thought. Thanks.

Posted by Francesco | September 5, 2006 4:55 PM

"Marshall is by no means a right winger. The bullmoose stands out like a sore thumb in his links. The other few links are all for liberal sites. I've often wondered why Marshall links to that site but concluded that he probably had developed a friendship with the guy. But Marshall is definitely not a neocon or a conservative. It's just that he has one link to a conservative(and totally bullshit) site among his links."

Are you talking about Josh MARSHALL or MARSHALL Wittman (aka the Bull Moose). If you are talking about the first, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Josh Marshall is basically the dictionary definition of the American center-left. Great guy. One of my political pole stars. Marshall Wittman, on the other hand, was until 2002 or so a part of the VRWC (a bit of snark here). He was an unabashed champion of John McCain's "National Greatness Conservatism" in 2000 (which Bill Kristol was also a big champion). He jumped the party sometime between 2002 and 2004 because he was pissed with how Rove had dealt with McCain. He'd also worked for the Christian Coalition in the 1990s as Matt notes. As such, I'd say he pretty defintetly right of center in the large scheme of American politics.

Posted by Ben P | September 5, 2006 4:59 PM

Isn't Brooks saying that we failed in Iraq because its inhabitants are *human* -- not "sub-human" -- in a way that end-of-history-ers failed to recognize?

How can you say, Ikram, that "Nobody lives 'under Islam', anymore than Texans live 'under conservatism' or 'under Baptism'"? So far as I know, there are no U.S. "conservative" autocracies or Baptist theocracies that don't guarantee individual liberty. Iran and Taliban-era Afghanistan are and were Muslim theocracies, in which Sharia law was enforced against dissenters. Saudi Arabia comes close, and it appears still to be the case de facto in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 5:00 PM

"Yes, in my view, a refusal to acknowledge, after the 20th century, a moral duty to safeguard Jews in Israel IS anti-Semitic."

Very, very interesting. I wonder if this logic should be extended to any other group? I guess it's anti-semetic to care about Muslims, Jews, and Christians to the same degree, as though all of them were of equal worth because they are all human beings. How foolish of me.

Note - I do think we should safeguard Jews in Israel, but honestly that's not what is demanded by the Whitman's of the world. They want a lot more, mostly because they'd rather feed off of Americans hatred of muslims and arabs than protect Jews.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 5:02 PM

"To Matt's question, my sense as far as Whittman's take on both the far left and the christian right, is that Whittman feels he has a right to be more critical of both than just about anyone because he was once one of them: Sort of like the reformed alcoholic who can't shut up about the dangers of alcohol. To some extent, I think this is justified: he knows the nasty dark core that can lie at the center of both impulses just as well as anyone, but ends up coming off as too damn self-righteous to be listed to."

I agree to an extent, but there is also the psychological tendency to need to demonize and flay most strongly what one was most associated with previously in order to properly define for one's self one's new identify. A version of sorts of the Oedipal Complex.

Posted by Ben P | September 5, 2006 5:02 PM

So far as I know, there are no U.S. "conservative" autocracies or Baptist theocracies that don't guarantee individual liberty.

Spell "Padilla."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2006 5:05 PM

Further - I know everyone likes to talk about progressive traditionalists. To be honest, Marshall always struck me as simply the most shrill, irrational version of the DC common wisdom.

One thing that drives me up the wall about these people - they have no rational plan for dealing with abortion or reproductive rights. It's very simple - a HUGE amount of the Democratic base and Democratic funding and volunteering is provided by the pro-choice. The Traditionalists hot button issue is Abortion - it's almost impossible to appeal to many of them without being pro-life. So, we cannot win them over en masse without abandoning our core support.

Matt has a much better idea - develop a real, intelligent foriegn policy and National Security Chops. That at least makes sense. Whitman's approach to domestic policy doesn't make that sense, nor does his foreign policy.

Clinton was very effective at getting himself elected, and at neutralizing a lot of our domestic weaknesses, but he mostly failed to party build. The DLC has been primarily a disaster, and Whitman is the worse of them.

Finally, speaking in the third person is not an interesting voice. It's pretentious and boring. And I like some conservative commentators. Back in 02 I mostly hung out at Tacitus' site (then he went weird). I've never found Whitman engaging though.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 5:07 PM

If there were a serious political discussion in America, what would matter about Wittman and Lieberman isn't that they're Jewish, but that they are fervent supporters of the expansion of American imperialism into the Middle East.

That Wittman went and fished up a couple anti-semitic comments on an uncensored blog forum in order to create some Joementum is to me the proof signed sealed and delivered to our doorstep that the man is not a serious political subject. Hey, neither am I, but I haven't made a career out of political cross-dressing and lewd acts like he has. I do dress up as Teddy Roosevelt occasionally but that's only when I'm actually going out and slaughtering bison or filipinos.

As for JMM, he's way more establishment left than I hope I ever am, but he comes across as a somewhat honest political insider, never hesitant to put the Bush administration under the scalpel. That's valuable enough that I'll forgive his turning me on to the forgettable political thinker and Israel advocate Marshall Moose, about whom I would've already forgotten had Atrios and Matthew not reminded us just now he exists. He lost credibility for me the second I looked at his webpage. (Sure, I went back for a little more but that was pure masochism.)

Can we please retire Marshall to the appropriate urban pub where his political ideas and 4 dollars can get him and Joe a couple of Bud Lites?

Posted by Murph | September 5, 2006 5:22 PM

" Rather than express concern about the Jew-hater who leads a state that is attempting to acquire nukes"

Texas is trying to get nukes?

Posted by Prudence Goodwife | September 5, 2006 5:35 PM

When I learned that he comments for the MSM as the Democratic Dem-Basher, he finally lost all credibility.

Didn't he used to be a Republican GOP-basher? Does he just spend most of his energy attacking the side he happens to be nominally on at the moment?

Posted by John | September 5, 2006 5:35 PM

So you guys (MDtoMN and SomeCallMeTim) DO seem to belief there's a duty to safeguard Jews in Israel (within some acceptible borders, whatever they may be). Well, that's good news. Just because people you don't like also think so (and disagree, maybe, about where the borders should be drawn) doesn't mean you've got to mumble your belief. As a liberal, a humane domestic policy and human rights abroad are very important to me; but as a Jew (and, I hope, as a member of the decent), Israel is extremely important, too.

Saying it's anti-Semitic to deny such a duty is not to offer a definition of anti-Semitism: it's to give an example.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 5:40 PM

Sorry -- "seem to belieVE" and "the decent LEFT"

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 5:42 PM

On the Brooks column, I think you are reading too much into it. If he wanted to say that, he would have. An important point, perhaps the main one, that he's missing, that would have bolstered his argument and taken the racist thing out of it, would be to point out that Iraq has no professionals, no upper middle class, no "cosmpolitans" left--they are long gone, the few that didn't leave before are going now. For one example, check out where the Sunni/Shiite mixed Jarrar family of bloggers
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com

P.S. off-thread on formatting: I tried links using html, didn't work--slash a doesn't close the link.
have been hanging their hats the last year or so--anywhere but Iraq.

He could have even argued from that that "security is all, you can't have a society without it" and thereby push the "civil rights sometime have to let go" thing if he wanted to. That in a way, Iraq has become the Afghanistan Rohde describes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html

Nuff writing his column for him, as I am not a fan. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | September 5, 2006 5:57 PM

jhschwartz:

Yes, in my view, a refusal to acknowledge, after the 20th century, a moral duty to safeguard Jews in Israel IS anti-Semitic.

Jh, I appreciate your wise choice of last name and first initial. But I can't agree with your assumption here that U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel has any moral component whatsoever. Obviously people claim there is constantly, but people also claim our foreign policy as a whole is based on our fervent desire for democracy, etc.

Was French support for Israel up until 1967 based on a desire on their part to safeguard Israel? No -- it was part of France's strategy for maintaining influence in the mideast. The same is true for the U.S. support (or "support") for Israel. Did the U.S. suddenly discover in 1967 (almost all of our aid to Israel has been provided since then) that the Holocaust occurred? No. We realized Israel would help us run the mideast. As soon as Israel stops being useful, we'll drop it. It's also conceivable that as U.S. power wanes, Israel will try to become someone else's client state.

Moreover, if Israel stops being useful, essentially all the people who scream the loudest about our "moral commitment" to Israel will suddenly realize morality demands whatever current U.S. foreign policy is. (See: Krauthammer, Charles.)

Posted by Jon | September 5, 2006 6:10 PM

So you guys (MDtoMN and SomeCallMeTim) DO seem to belief there's a duty to safeguard Jews in Israel (within some acceptible borders, whatever they may be). Well, that's good news. Just because people you don't like also think so (and disagree, maybe, about where the borders should be drawn) doesn't mean you've got to mumble your belief. As a liberal, a humane domestic policy and human rights abroad are very important to me; but as a Jew (and, I hope, as a member of the decent), Israel is extremely important, too.

And I do too. As I imagine the great majority of liberals believe. Thinking Israel shouldn't exist is truly a fringe position in American politics. Ideally, a two-state solution. I have ideas about using EU membership as bait to achieve this goal.

The GOP has become the more pro-Israel Party - if you define pro-Israel as being graded on how little you criticize anything Israel does or supporting the settler policy with the ostensible goal of ethnically cleansing the West Bank, which the Chrisitain Zionist would have no problem with as it is a part of "God's plan" - because of Christian Zionism and End Times belief (close to the same thing), which is a vital constitunecy of the GOP. As well as the largest and most hardline group of supporters for Israel in America.

Posted by Ben P | September 5, 2006 6:25 PM

Dear Jon (Schwartz?),

Well, a few points to untangle. As I understand you, you deny that US foreign policy is in fact based on a moral duty to Israel. Which may in fact be the case. But that's a separate question from (1) whether such a moral duty does in fact exist, and (2) whether, in general, Americans -- and Democrats in particular -- believe it exists. I believe (1) and hope dearly that (2) is the case, as well. What say you?

Joe Schwartz

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 6:28 PM

Too many "in facts" in last post -- sorry.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 6:34 PM

Bull Moose or no one else seems to know what the problem is. Bush is now finally saying it but doesn't seem to understand what he is saying. It probably has something to do with his political base, an idiot fringe loosely known as evangelicals.

The war on terror, (mid east political problems in general) is the product of ideology. This is not new for Americans. We faced 4,000 suicide attackers, (they supplied their own airplanes) at Okinawa who inflicted the most damage ever on an American fleet. That came as a product of ideology, dagmas, undeniable truths, the works. Had Truman taken either side's stand in today's war on terror we would have lost the war with Japan.

WW2 was a war on terror just like the one we're in today except the terrorist were a bit more confined geograpaically. The word then was, "a good Jap is a dead Jap." Did that mean Japanese babies too? Well,, Nagasaki and Hiroshima says yes.

The Muslims must make an ideological change. We must lead the way by making one ourselves just like we did with the Japanese. In the end all who survive win. http://www.hoax-buster.org is an eye opener that Christians, Jews and Muslims all three need to know before the kill anyone else in the name of any God.

Posted by BG | September 5, 2006 6:55 PM

The evidence is looking good that your book will not be a duplicate of Peter Beinart's.

Posted by otto | September 5, 2006 7:05 PM

But that's a separate question from (1) whether such a moral duty does in fact exist, and (2) whether, in general, Americans -- and Democrats in particular -- believe it exists. I believe (1) and hope dearly that (2) is the case, as well. What say you?

Well, certainly I believe there's such a moral duty, for me personally as well as more broadly. That's one reason I do what I can to change U.S. policy in the mideast, because I think it will be as disastrous for Israel as America. But I don't know if I could honestly say I feel a citizen of Bhutan shares this duty.

As far as Americans generally and Democrats specifically, it's complicated. I'm sure majorities would say yes if asked by a pollster. But I suspect that's extremely shallow. Moreover, I think U.S. democracy is so hollow now that what most Americans and/or run of the mill Democrats think is almost irrelevant when it comes to foreign policy. What happens will be determined by the U.S. foreign policy elite (from both parties). And there morality plays essentially no role, except rhetorically.

Posted by Jon | September 5, 2006 7:12 PM

OK - I'll be more clear. Antisemitism is defined in the dictionary as: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." See Mirriam Webster online.

One can believe the U.S. has absolutely no moral duty to protect Israel without being antisemetic. If you're going to accuse people of antisemitism, you should have some connection between the meaning of the word and their conduct. If a person is an isolationist, into realpolitick, etc, then they may not think we have any such moral duty towards Israel without being an antisemite.

Honestly, the missuse of the term antisemite is really, really bad - it downplays the seriousness of racial animus and antisemitism. It also cheapens the suffering of those who really suffer from antisemitism. Finally, it needlessly offends those who would support Israel out of broader, Liberal values rooted in concern for all humanity, by suggesting that only certain humans (apparently Americans and Israelis) deserve our help.

Further, the idea that the U.S. necessarily owes a special duty towards Israel (as opposed to, say, Ireland or Sudan) is really offensive and reeks of ethnic prejudice, unless you're going to explain why exactly that is. Now, it's one thing for a person to care more about their ethnic group or ancestral home - that's morally questionable but part of life. It's another thing for a person to insist that every other person care more about their ethnic group or ancestral home, and then insist that those who fail to do so are motivated by ethnic animus.

Why does the U.S. owe a special duty to Israel and not West Africa? the Phillipines? Central America? the Native American Tribes? I can see special duties relating to the U.S. that are much more compelling for those nations, to be honest. Not that the U.S. doesn't have some guilt from the Holocaust, but let's face it, there's a lot of bad stuff that we have some guilt from.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 7:17 PM

To follow up - we do have a duty to Israel. But we also have a duty to a lot of other countries. Most people disagree with me, and most of them don't do so out of anti-semitism. They disagree because they think America need only worry about America. That's not antisemetic - it's just wrong for a whole host of other reasons.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 7:20 PM

Your definition of anti-semitism is a joke.

Semites are (according to Merriam Webster):
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

The most anti-semitic country in the world today? Boy that's an easy one: Israel. No other country was founded on the expressed notion of expunging an Arab people from their land.

The only moral duty any American or any citizen of any country has to Israel is to boycott it until it begins to obey international law. It's going on 40 years now that they've refused to. Some think the Holocaust excuses that; I personally think that condemning the Palestinians to a fate not much better than that of Jews in Hitler's Germany is the ultimate in black irony.

Posted by Murph | September 5, 2006 7:43 PM

Why does the U.S. owe a special duty to Israel and not West Africa? the Phillipines? Central America? the Native American Tribes?

Um, the U.S. does recognize a special duty owed to Native American tribes, but if you know anything about the job our government, for adminsitration after adminsitration, has done in carrying out said duty, you'd think most countried would run screaming as far away as possible from any perceived U.S. special duty to them.

Posted by flippantangel | September 5, 2006 7:51 PM

Why a special duty? Because my liberal universalism is tempered, somewhat, by the actual lessons of history.

Anti-Semitism has taken many forms (Mirriam-Webster, after all, has its limits) and is one of the great perenial mysteries of history. It has resurfaced again and again, and with increasing lethality, for the last 1000 years or more. The Crusades involved unthinkable tortures to Jews, but those of the Chmielnesky massacres put them to shame (only the Mongol Horde had done anything equivalent). They in turn gave way to the pogroms of the 18th and 19th centuries, and then, finally, the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism is different in kind from anti-Black feeling -- or, for that matter, anti-Arab prejudice. To assimilate these all to one disreputable sin of "bigotry" is to be blinded by ideology. People are capable of many forms of hatred.

The question now, after this history, is what does the world owe the Jews? You might answer "no more and no less than it owes any other group," and you might be right, too, if you mean to describe outcomes. But such a principle requires that you be certain that the Jews will get no more, and no *less*. than others. And yet, today, what are the Jews getting? They are being accused all over again of getting more than everyone else, and once again being told that they have no right to what they have -- to their homes, to their safety, to peace.

You might say, "sure, but if only Israel would withdraw to this border, if only it would make such and such concession, stop antagonizing the world, the threats would end. This is isn't anti-Semitism, because for it to be anti-Semitism, it has to be groundless." But it is a fantasy of bigotry that it's without reasons. Bigotry, and especially anti-Semitism, always cites reasons. Read any neo-Nazi website -- they are sick with research, much of it good research.

To my mind, to really face anti-Semitism for what it is, you have to recognize that it will always have reasons, and that no matter what the reasons, they will not do to excuse it. To fail to recognize this is, to my mind, to fail to understand what anti-Semitism is -- which is a form of anti-Semitism itself. And to fail to make special provision for Jews (to the limited extent of this added vigilence) is not, in the light of history, indifference, but "hostility" (in Mirriam-Webster's empty phrase).

That's why I say you have to recognize a special moral duty to safeguard Jews -- because the threat facing Jews is unlike the threat facing West Africa. It is not to say that the lives or fates of Jews are any more valuable than those of the Liberians. It is simply to recognize that different dangers demand different responses.

This doesn't mean you have to be a likudnik and an apologist for war crimes. It does mean, however, that FIRST you see to it that Jews are not the targets of systematic attacks, and THEN you start negotiating borders and easements.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 7:54 PM

Sure. It bothers me, a Jew who believes in traditional Democratic values, and who derives that belief from my Judaism. I am against the Iraq war, and not all that happy about the Israel / Hezballah war, but the fault is hardly Israel's. And HRW to the contrary notwithstanding, it is pretty clear that Israel's actions were about as surgical as they could be. If memory serves, HRW thought Janin was an Israeli massacre, too.

With the images of the Fox reporters converting to Islam in mind, I did some research to find out what a good Jew should do in such a situation. It turns out that Maimonides, the famed 12th century physician, philosopher and Rabbi wrote a monograph on the subject. Why? because "submit or be killed" orders were common in Morroco, where he lived, before departing for Egypt. Apparently, his family had been subject to such demands. So he thought the problem, through.

I don't think that Muslims are sub-human. But I do think that Muslims have been doing this stuff for 900 years and more. That incident with the reporter was no abberation. It was a part of their heritage. I don't know what the answer is, but we must find one.

And please remember, neither Jews nor Israelis are sub-human, either. And just because the Muslims desire it, it is clear that Jews will not simply submit. We don't insist that others convert to Judaism. We merely wish to live in peace.

Posted by Barry | September 5, 2006 7:58 PM

The presence of "Murph" on your site, Matt, makes Wittmann's point for him. Or is he a "plant" as well, as "Richard Bottoms" says?

"No other country was founded on the expressed notion of expunging an Arab people from their land." Except for. . . every modern Arab state, which forcibly removed native tribes to make way for the conquering tribes. Arabs make up 1/6 of the Israeli population and have exactly the same rights de jure as any Jew (except that military service is optional). Pakistan, which at its founding was 30% Hindu, is now 1.6% Hindu. And unlike Pakistan, Israel is a representative democracy, whose human rights abuses against minorities are litigated by home-grown activist groups (like Betselem), where women aren't killed by their brothers for having been raped. Why don't you boycott Pakistan?

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 8:02 PM

Well, you're using an idea of Antisemitism that isn't the normal understanding of the term, which is really a bad habit. If you're going to use a term in a way different than it's normal meaning, I would recommend you include that complete explanation every time. If that annoys you, deal with it, because that's the consequence of using language differently than it's generally accepted meaning.

Second, I just don't agree - Some people see the experience of the Jews as utterly unique. Others see it as one more horrible lesson from history, with it's own unique sorrows and tragedies and moments of triumps, but not more "special" or "pernicious" than others. I ascribe to the second view - while I would never deny that Jews have suffered a great, great deal, and I would never deny that a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment is grounded in antisemitism, I'm not about to embrace some notion that one people's hideous suffering and prejudice against them is so different than all other oppressions and sufferings in history. According to you, that makes me an antisemite, which means that I am only allowed one understanding of human history and the human condition, the one you have constructed, which happens to put the Jewish experience at the center of its worldview. A Failure to understand that prejudice against the Jews is Uniquely bad and Uniquely pernicious and storied makes one an antisemite - well, great - everyone must agree with your assessment or they are antisemetic. That's a great definition.

Many of your arguments could be made about different ethnic groups. There's always reasons for hating black people. There's always a logic. We can't take it on face value. There's always going to be arguments and logic against trusting Muslims or Arabs.

I personally don't like the term antisemite for the reasons Murph notes, but I strongly believe that we should try to use language to be understood, rather than use selective definitions to smear others and then explain that we didn't mean what they understood us to say.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 8:44 PM

Matt, btw, is exactly right. A bunch of Muslims came over to the U.S. and murdered almost 3,000 people. A huge part of the appeal of the War in Iraq was that we would be defeating a Muslim Nation and defeating a Muslim army. A huge reason political people in the U.S. don't admit to caring about Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq is that people don't care because they're muslims. People conflate Al Quaeda and Iraq because they can't tell Muslims apart or bother to learn. I think racist appeals in the pro-war forces are pretty obvious. The fact that people don't care suggests the sentiment is pretty wide spread. The fact that valid critiques of the Iraq War and Neo-conservatism are labeled antisemitism shows that a significant number of people refuse to debate the issue and are happy to throw around painful smears.

Posted by MDtoMN | September 5, 2006 8:48 PM

Yes, I have a definition of anti-Semitism, it seems to me the correct understanding, and -- guess what -- I wouldn't be surprised if under that definition most people are anti-Semitic. Thank you for trying to correct my many bad habits.

I don't place Jews at the center of human history (well, we're important in world history, but so's a lot of stuff). What I am asking of the world would cost it next to nothing: no more killing Jews, and stop people who aim to kill Jews. I think it fair to say that the failure so to do is anti-Semitism. This last war in Lebanon might have been completely averted had the world said with one voice, to Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and Lebanon: No. Do what you want, believe what you like, but we will not permit you to kill Israelis, or shell Israeli towns. We don't care about provocation: it will not happen. Had they done that, had France and Sweden immediately dispatched troops, there would have been no war and no dead Lebanese civilians.

So I will persist in my idiosyncratic use of language, just as Galileo persisted in his idiosyncracic understanding of the heavens. Just becuase it isn't in common currency doesn't mean it's wrong.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 9:37 PM

"I used to actually like what he had to say"

Boy, someone fails the nonstop Bush bashing and you rabid lambs really turn on him, don't ya? ;)
Well, I guess Joe could have told us that.

You sure don't take criticism well either. The fact is, you don't particularly _hate_ Jews or love Muslims. I don't think you lambs have deep convictions either way. What you _do_ have is a knee-jerk reaction to be contrary to whatever President Bush seems to support, and any enemy of the USA, since he is president, is a friend of yours. So, you support the Iranian mullahs and abhore anything bad said about them, you back the Iraqi terrorists, you back Hezbollah and spew hate toward Israel, who is an ally of the US, and therefore a supporter of the President, in your eyes. Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, hell even Che Guevara and Mao Tse Tung, if its anti-Bush in some way.

Kind of like how you defended a serial sexual predator because he was a Democrat, you now defend killers and abusers of women, children, gays, religious zealots who are really ARE a threat to your liberties, unlike the evangelistic Christians and pious Jews you love to mock.

You're really dispicable people, with no real morals or standards of decent behaviour, as long as it furthers your cause: hard left Democrat political points. If you ever do get any real power, you'll spend all your time savaging your own party for not being radical enough.

And the result of all this? Pretty good odds of another 8 years if a Republican in the White House, and Republican rule of at LEAST Senate, Executive and the Judiciary, and most likely the House too.

Posted by puppets | September 5, 2006 9:50 PM

>>>"People conflate Al Quaeda and Iraq because they can't tell Muslims apart or bother to learn. I think racist appeals in the pro-war forces are pretty obvious. The fact that people don't care suggests the sentiment is pretty wide spread. Posted by: MDtoMN on September 5, 2006 08:48 PM"

Yeah, you seem to know a lot about throwing around those painful smears yourself, I guess ;) WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Posted by puppets | September 5, 2006 9:58 PM

This last war in Lebanon might have been completely averted had the world said with one voice, to Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and Lebanon: No. Do what you want, believe what you like, but we will not permit you to kill Israelis, or shell Israeli towns.

See, that seems sort of crazy to me. Israel's a real country, with real interests, and a willingness, like all countries, to not be overly concerned with Hoyle in pursuing those interests. The region is hostile, and there is going to be some trading of lives. This seems like just normal things that happen with states. To the best of my knowledge, Israel gives substantially better than it gets, and is no closer to non-existence for all that. In fact, I would have believed that, up until the Iraq invasion, Israel was more well-rooted than it had ever been. I think we've ended up hurting Israel's rootedness, but I don't think it's that far off the high-point.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2006 10:25 PM

"This seems like just normal things that happen with states. To the best of my knowledge, Israel gives substantially better than it gets, and is no closer to non-existence for all that."

If only the world as reasonable as you. Instead, the front page of almost every paper in the world accused Israel of war crimes by bring to bear "disproportionate" force. What the war showed, to me at least, is that Israel's military power is basically irrelevant to its survival. The more it fights, the more it loses.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 10:47 PM

Instead, the front page of almost every paper in the world accused Israel of war crimes by bring to bear "disproportionate" force.

For large parts of the world, perhaps, but I can't think of a single major metropolitan newspaper in the U.S. for which this is true.

Posted by Duvall | September 5, 2006 10:58 PM

And look: I'm just responding to this charge that insisting there's a special duty is "really offensive and reeks of ethnic prejudice." I hope you don't think that anymore. What I'm saying is not that Jews are more important than anyone else in the world, but more vulnerable, and more vulnerable to a certain kind of danger. If it's a question of where to commit our foreign aid, where to send troops and relief workers, etc., I say to the neediest -- to West Africa (which we also owe a special duty), to the wretched of the earth generally. But if it's a question of diplomacy with oil-rich nations and we're asked to buy some line about the offense to Muslim dignity that Israel implies, I think it perfectly reasonable to recognize that we have an absolute moral duty to say "suck it."

Posted by jhschwartz | September 5, 2006 10:59 PM

artappraiser:

>>In this particular case, I myself am quite sympathetic to his argument. I have seen a heavy presence of far left anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic commentary on liberal blogs which is too often out-shouts and dominates the commentary. And it is far too often either dittoheaded or simply tolerated without challenge in the guise of "free speech."

Sorry, artappraiser, but as a Jew and as a Jew who has Israeli relatives, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.

While I'm sure you (and the Moose) can find some wacko lunatic on any liberal-left blog who might by some real definition be an antisemite, the vast majority of the evidence seems to me to exhibit at most the so-called "new antisemitism", the sort who "demands more of Israel than other countries", "cares a little bit TOO much about the Palestians", etc. Pointing this out has been quite a cottage industry for some, like the "Moose", but I'm sick of it.

And I'm not so sure that most of the blog commenters who go ballistic over this issue aren't the same way.

I wish no harm to the Israelis, but this doesn't mean that I must march in lockstep wherever the most belligerent among them want to take me. It doesn't mean I must become "tribal" as Rabbi Gellman said a couple of weeks ago. I don't respect the tribalists among the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland who have been responsible for so much bloodshed, so why should I have any more respect for tribalists who happen to be of my tribe?

The continuing uncritical support for anything the Israeli government may decide to do is, to my opinion, the equivalent of feeding crack cocaine to an addict. IT"S NOT HELPING ISRAEL IN THE LONG RUN! How successful was Sharon's policy of destroying the Palestinian Authority? Now they have to deal with Hamas. Wasn't that a mistake?

Sooner or later, peace must be made, and driving that day ever further into the future isn't helping. Ratcheting up the next anti-Muslim jihad (Iran) is not going to help Israel achieve peace. There just isn't a solution down that path, and I'm sorry if that worries some American Jews, but it is a fact that must be faced and one you aren't facing. Armageddon is not a strategy.

I'm under no illusions about the intentions of many in the Arab world with regard to Israel, but that doesn't mean I have stand by and watch those of your ilk use your worst-case scenarios to drive everything else in American politics. The world is not a happy place. Lots of people are suffering. But I can't and I won't put Israel's desires and demands over and above everyone else's. And, no, that makes me neither an antisemite nor a "self-hater".

Posted by stivo | September 5, 2006 11:09 PM

I don't think that Muslims are sub-human. But I do think that Muslims have been doing this stuff for 900 years and more.

Thank you, Barry, for proving Yglesias's point about anti-Muslim prejudice. Over the past 900 years forced conversions were not exactly unknown in Christendom. In fact Jews almost certainly had it a lot worse in Christian countries than in Muslim countries as a whole; the Spanish Inquisition and things like that.

jhschwartz, I think your fears about Democratic anti-Semitism are considerably overwrought; you've got a few guys on a blog somewhere (and Murph is objectionable, but he's just one person), but Democratic leaders are strongly supportive of Israeli policies; much more than I think wise. And look what you have on the other side. Take Rabbi Gellman's pro-Lieberman column (URL at end of post), with its biting dismissal of "cosmopolitan Jews" -- echoing Stalin's anti-Semitic trope "rootless cosmopolitan." As a Jew, why should I find my home in the GOP when even its Jewish members express such contempt for the majority of actually existing Jews?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14308339/site/newsweek/page/2/

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 6, 2006 12:08 AM

I can't believe how many people are trying to have a serious conversation with someone who is operating with a definition of anti-semitism that makes all foreign policy realists anti-semites. It's a non-serious position, and those who join me in taking actual anti-semitism seriously should be pretty irritated with those who would render the term meaningless.

Posted by djw | September 6, 2006 12:15 AM

"allegedly anti-semitic"?

Let me quote just a few of the lovely things I've seen recently on your fine upstanding sites, like Firedoglake, Think Progress, and of course, Jew-hatred central, aka Huffington Post:

"beanie-wearing pigs", "jewboy", "Go back to Dachau"(my personal favorite)

People, sometimes the people you are fighting are speaking the truth, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Posted by Jokercub | September 6, 2006 12:36 AM

Jokercub, you have just violated Drum's Law. Nutpicking does not advance the debate here...

Posted by DMonteith | September 6, 2006 1:14 AM

"Jokercub, you have just violated Drum's Law."

I believe the correct nomenclature is Kevin's Law. The proffered definition:

If you're forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you've pretty much made exactly the opposite point.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 1:50 AM

djw - how is my position "non-serious"? Simply because it would hold certain policies to be anti-Semitic? Suppose an African-American were to insist that "color-blind" domestic policies, in this day and age, were willfully blind to the reality of the Black experience in America; that justice to African-Americans required something more than empty talk of "equality of opportunity"; and that many if not most of those who hid behind such talk were in fact racist. Is this "non-serious" as well? Isn't this a rather mainstream leftwing position?

Posted by jhschwartz | September 6, 2006 6:58 AM

I've also worried about the disconnect in English between semite: a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs and antisemite: a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews. (Definitions from dictionary.com but I believe are typical.)

Can anyone explain why anti-Arab speech should not be considered antisemitc?

Posted by yank in london | September 6, 2006 7:17 AM

"Anti-Semitism" was coined as a euphemism for Jew-hatred or judeophobia by Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s. He sought to distinguish the old, "irrational" "non-scientifically-grounded" religious hatred of Jews from his new, rational, race-based antipathy to Jews. Marr lumped Arabs and Jews into the same racial category, though only the latter was the subject of his attacks since there was no Arab population in Germany. It retains its meaning of antipathy for Jews, not for other "Semitic peoples," today.

It seems, as well, based on "Murph"'s remark, that it's become a stupid-clever smear of Jew-haters to accuse Jews of being "anti-Semites", just as Jew-haters enjoy calling Jews Nazis. This kind of anti-Semitism, too -- turning Jews' own complaints and vocabulary against them -- has a long history.

Posted by jhschwartz | September 6, 2006 9:02 AM

jhschwartz, you say that Jews are particularly vulnerable today. Just off the top of my head, I can think of people like the Karen people of Burma and several minority groups in Zimbabwe who are even more vulnerable. The Tibetans have been victims of ethnic cleansing. There is suspicion that a covert genocide is taking place in Uganda as we speak. Meanwhile, Israel is a modern nation-state with nuclear weapons and a military that was capable of winning the '67 War in a matter of days (the IDF may have not done as well against Hezbollah, but Hezbollah cannot hope to inflict the kind of damage Nasser was once capable of if he had competent militar