What could you do to me?It's not new to me

Ah, good times. New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz has dispatched his assistant, James Kirchik, to attack me in what I believe is Washington, DC's second most-popular free daily, The Examiner: "Matthew Yglesias, the insufferable enfant terrible of the liberal blogosphere, frequently refers to the 'Lobby that Shall Not be Named,' which supposedly suppresses any critique of the Jewish state . . . When prodded to identify an instance in which legitimate criticism of Israel has been labeled 'anti-Semitic,' the promoters of this meme come up with nothing."

The joke is "The Lobby that Must Not be Named" like in Harry Potter, see? At any rate, Kirchik has a promising future in conservative journalism, having mastered the time-honored techniques of rising through the ranks without any demonstrated ability in fields other than arguing with straw men and making things up about his opponents. Apparently, he's already a bi-weekly Examiner columnist, and I know I always look forward to his pearls of wisdom on the Plank.

UPDATE: It occurs to me to point out that I have no actual reason to believe Peretz sicced his assistant on me and I shouldn't have said that he did.

Comments

Spackerman style for post titles, I like.

On Kirchick: he put up this week one of the ugliest things I've seen on a blog:

It should be noted that the human rights concerns of IGLHRC have not prevented it from dispatching a delegation to a conference in Cuba, which makes Laramie, Wyoming look like the Castro, no pun intended.

(a)positioning oneself as a defender of gay rights
(b)not only turning Matthew Shepard's torture and murder into the set up for a pun, but also somehow claiming that Shepard's torture and murder is evidence of the equality of gays in the US.

What a fucking shithead.

Posted by DivGuy | February 16, 2007 9:48 AM

When prodded to identify an instance in which legitimate criticism of Israel has been labeled 'anti-Semitic,' the promoters of this meme come up with nothing

I see. If it's legitimate criticism, it's not anti-semitic. (Otherwise, it is). And who decides if it's legitimate? "The Lobby that Must Not be Named", presumably. Who could have a problem with that. Sounds pretty rational, fair and balanced.

Posted by JS | February 16, 2007 9:50 AM

From Wiktionary:

Enfant terrible: From the French meaning "terrible child", an enfant terrible is one whose startlingly unconventional behavior, work, or thought embarrasses or disturbs others.

I actually think Kirchik's got that part right, Matt, and it's a badge of honor in my book.

Posted by Glenn | February 16, 2007 9:53 AM

As long as we're talking Kirchik, isn't it odd that he has the *exact same* print mannerisms as Peretz? Marty has a number of horrid tics that make his indefensible opinions unreadable: too-cute alliteration, clumsy transitions via coordinate sentences, the investment of hundred-dollar words in places that won't return commensurate value, and an evident disdain for complex grammatical structures. Kirchik, who graces us frequently at the Plank, shares most of Marty's stylistic quirks, to the point that I've wondered if Marty's assistant even exists (his focus on gay issues, never much of a focus for Marty, says yes).

Posted by twb | February 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Stop bragging, Matt.

Posted by david mizner | February 16, 2007 10:02 AM

When prodded to identify an instance in which legitimate criticism of Israel has been labeled 'anti-Semitic,' the promoters of this meme come up with nothing."

Uh, what's Jimmy Carter, chopped liver? And, believe me, I didn't try very hard to come up with that.

Posted by Baldrick | February 16, 2007 10:03 AM

the insufferable enfant terrible of the liberal blogosphere

I can also see that ol' Marty's been helping Kirchick develop a wonderfully euphonic soi disant writing style, which is de reigeur at TNR. farvegnugen.

Posted by DivGuy | February 16, 2007 10:05 AM

The Kirchick Game: When Marty Peretz wrote in the Plank, I played a little game with myself. For any given post, I would try to predict whether the author was Marty Peretz after reading only the first 5 words. Nearly every time, Marty's insufferable combination of monomania, condescension, and intellectual laziness would out him after 5 words.

Now I play the game with Kirchick.

Posted by Slippery Pete | February 16, 2007 10:05 AM

As long as we're talking Kirchik, isn't it odd that he has the *exact same* print mannerisms as Peretz?

I think the Examiner owes us a follow-up piece that will reveal, finally, the specs of Peretz's cloning device(s).

Posted by David Weigel | February 16, 2007 10:05 AM

In today's WSJ, Peretz uses the term Democrat Party.

Posted by P O'Neill | February 16, 2007 10:12 AM

Is this the new guy that Marty is butt-ramming? Or is Marty still in love with Andy?

Posted by Paul | February 16, 2007 10:26 AM

"the insufferable enfant terrible of the liberal blogosphere"

Now there's a slogan for those MY.com mugs and t-shirts.

Posted by otto | February 16, 2007 10:42 AM

Another example.

On his National Review blog David Frum (January 16, 2007) compared scholar Tony Judt and other liberal critics of Israel to Jews who converted to Catholicism in 14th Century Spain to escape the inquisition and who later denounced 'conversos' that they perceived as backsliding, presumably to protect their newly-won position in Castilian society.

One wonders what he imagines Tony Judt et al to have converted from.

Posted by wsam | February 16, 2007 10:50 AM

Agree with JS: who would be the arbiter of what is "legitimate" criticism? Peretz? AIPAC? Let's hope not.

Posted by whack | February 16, 2007 11:03 AM

"Marty has a number of horrid tics that make his indefensible opinions unreadable: too-cute alliteration, clumsy transitions via coordinate sentences, the investment of hundred-dollar words in places that won't return commensurate value, and an evident disdain for complex grammatical structures."

He's like Thomas Friedman without the mustache of understanding and more crystal meth.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2007 11:07 AM

Ask Kirchik to identify any "legitimate" criticism of Israel at all. My experience with Peretz/Glenn Reynolds types is that their general allowance that "of course it's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic" never actually resolves into an acknowledgement that some specific criticism somewhere is legitimate. We used to also get the "of course the settlements aren't helping" dodge as seamless preamble to but they're not the real problem so let's talk about something else. Now the same people don't even bother to admit that "the settlements aren't helping."

Posted by Jim Henley | February 16, 2007 11:10 AM

sue me, fuck you, what's a couple dollars to me?
*but you will respect me*

Posted by nate | February 16, 2007 11:20 AM

The reason they are attacking like this is that they feel their ability to control the debate about Israel slipping away. A combination of the Iraq War (sold after-the-fact as a war to protect Israel in some quarters) and the emergence of the internet has made it very difficult to pretend that legitimate criticism is bigotry. When the baby boomers are dead and buried, maybe we can finally start having a decent country again. They're the last great racist generation. The people who "traumatized" by riots and civil rights they decided to hate everyone darker than themselves. People so frightened by the world they tried to create a police state. A whole generation that never bothered to grow up and stop hiding under their beds.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2007 11:21 AM

Ezra's got a post with a nice set of links for the current TNR anti-anti-anti-semite symposium. It's kind of awesome.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 16, 2007 11:22 AM

spell Kirchick's name right. you haven't once.

Posted by the dude | February 16, 2007 11:25 AM

Jimmy Carter has been labeled an anti-semite for his latest book any number of times. It won't take much googling to find an example, or many examples.

Posted by mrmetrowest | February 16, 2007 11:47 AM

As long as we're talking Kirchik, isn't it odd that he has the *exact same* print mannerisms as Peretz? Marty has a number of horrid tics that make his indefensible opinions unreadable: too-cute alliteration, clumsy transitions via coordinate sentences, the investment of hundred-dollar words in places that won't return commensurate value, and an evident disdain for complex grammatical structures. Kirchik, who graces us frequently at the Plank, shares most of Marty's stylistic quirks, to the point that I've wondered if Marty's assistant even exists (his focus on gay issues, never much of a focus for Marty, says yes).

I just want to admire that paragraph. Now that is writing!

Posted by Avedon | February 16, 2007 12:02 PM

Can anyone knock together a Yahoo Pipe to exclude Kirchik's posts from the Plank's feed? I toyed with it earlier, but wasn't having any success.

Posted by FS | February 16, 2007 12:27 PM

I can shed some light on Kirchick, as I went to college with him. He does indeed exist, and he is Marty's assistant. He considers himself a Democrat in the Lieberman mold, which is to say that he is liberal on environment, social issues (esp. gay marriage), etc. but an UBER-NEOCON-HAWK, who is EXTREMELY PRO-ISRAEL. Hope that helps some. By his own statements to me, Lieberman is his role model.

Posted by Dan | February 16, 2007 12:30 PM

"When prodded to identify an instance in which legitimate criticism of Israel has been labeled 'anti-Semitic,' the promoters of this meme come up with nothing."

A: "No Scotsman eats his porridge with sugar."

B: "Wait a minute--my Uncle Angus from Aberdeen eats his porridge with sugar!"

A: "Well, no TRUE Scotsman eats his porridge with sugar."

Posted by rea | February 16, 2007 12:46 PM

Ah, they want their shit, and to eat it, too. They're gormless enough to think that if they secrete their bile for only a few selected targets- everyone else will run like rats. A frantic hasbara Manhattan Project is under away with schmendrick #1 (Leon W.) furiously mixing and matching all the old formulas. The ACMs (Anti-Canard Missles) are boomeranging, the black op trolls are dying in the trenches- everything's on panic mode.

Posted by Trevor | February 16, 2007 12:57 PM

'Lobby that Shall Not be Named,'

I thought it was a play on
"She who must be obeyed"
( In Rumpolian context rather then Haggardian)

Posted by Ken | February 16, 2007 1:48 PM

I believe Kirchick, like Sullivan before, takes the most bellicose position on issues of war as a cover for his homosexuality. He is Friedman's moustache.

Posted by C.Paglia | February 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Is Friedman gay? He smacks his lips a lot- like he just had Julio over for a mattress lunch.

Posted by Trevor | February 16, 2007 4:48 PM

Rea,

On his blog David Frum (January 16, 2007) compared prominent scholar Tony Judt, an advocate for a single Palestinian-Israeli state, to Castilian Jews who converted (called conversos) to Catholicism in 14th Century Spain in order to escape the inquisition. Frum then likened Judt to conversos who denounced other ex-Jews for supposedly returning to Judaism. Presumably they did this to protect their newly-won position in Castilian society.

If David Frum is not implying Tony Judt is an anti-Semite what is he implying?

Posted by wsam | February 16, 2007 5:17 PM

Dan! Fancy finding you around here.

Posted by jeremy | February 16, 2007 5:57 PM

In fact, I'll go ahead and be the one to come to Kirchick's defense in that I thought the article was mostly spot on. Especially the part about the "intellectual martyrdom" of the frequent Israel bashers who whine about all the foes they have to dodge & bypass to bravely tell the truth about Israel, yet never seem to have much trouble getting these views published...and discussed, among what I'd assume to be the general public.

who would be the arbiter of what is "legitimate" criticism? Peretz? AIPAC?

True enough, but this goes for the intellectual marytrs of the cause as well. Everyone from our esteemed host, to Alexander Cockburn thinks their criticism of Israel & American Jewry in regards to it is perfectly legitimate, and that they are constantly set upon by meanies falsely tarring them as an Anti-Semites to stifle the truth (in the case of Cockburn, not especially MY).

Posted by DRR | February 16, 2007 6:45 PM

Never, ever, try and communicate with anything that utters "Israel Basher".

Public service announcement.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2007 6:52 PM

"and that they are constantly set upon by meanies falsely tarring them as an Anti-Semites to stifle the truth (in the case of Cockburn, not especially MY)" (DRR)

Not "meanies", but mountebanks. Not "false tar" but another sticky substance. Note the self-pitying soldier of Zion trying not to bawl. "Oooooo Y'Israel...ai yi, yi...

Posted by Trevor | February 16, 2007 11:37 PM

Yet another demonstration that Kirchick's point is basically correct!

Kirchick wrote: "When prodded to identify an instance in which legitimate criticism of Israel has been labeled 'anti-Semitic,' the promoters of this meme come up with nothing."

On this thread I see two claims that Carter has been called anti-Semitic. But who called him that? No one names any names. I heard that some caller on a CSPAN call-in show called him anti-Semitic, is that who you guys have in mind?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the claim that comparing someone to a Spanish "converso" ex-Jew is that same as calling someone anti-Semitic. Is this the best you can do?

Carter's book followed the usual pattern. Carter wrote some nonsense (calling Israel an "Apartheid State," claiming Israel never offered the Palestinians a contiguous state, etc.). Critics demonstrate his errors by quoting his own book (which says that Apartheid isn't a good description of Israel) and the negotiators at Camp David and Taba. Carter apologizes for some of his more minor errors, and cries "he called me an anti-Semite!" since he can't rebut the critics' more serious charges.

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 12:53 AM

Ragout suggests that no one has called Jimmy Carter anti-Semitic.

Martin Peretz in a Spine on 11/26/06

You may think that I am obsessed with Israel and the Middle East. But have you noticed Jimmy Carter's obsession with the same subjects? He's not only obsessed but also really doesn't know what he's talking about. Forgive me: I believe he feels deep rancor towards the Jews and deeper rancor towards Israel. And those feelings give him all the knowledge he thinks he needs. Maybe it comes from his mother. Or maybe it comes from his brother. But, wherever it comes from, it is now a part of his life and his legacy. That's how he will go down in history: as a Jew hater.

I guess calling someone a Jew hater is not precisely the same as calling them anti-Semitic but, in practice, the terms are functionally equivalent.

Posted by ndm | February 17, 2007 1:28 AM

Ragout, Marty Peretz, Kirchick's boss, called Carter a "Jew hater".

Posted by JS | February 17, 2007 1:29 AM

I never said that no one had called Carter anti-Semitic. I just said no one had risen to Kirchick's challenge.

And, as Matt has pointed out once or twice, Peretz is somewhat out of the mainstream. Charging Carter with anti-semitism is not common at all. That's why people have to twist criticisms (such as Abe Foxman's saying that Carter is bigoted but not an anti-Semite, or stuff about "conversos") into charges of anti-semitism.

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 1:59 AM

Ragout writes that Martin Peretz is somewhat out of the mainstream.

Would that be the Martin Peretz who had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today - not exactly what I would call somewhat out of the mainstream. Martin Peretz may be batshit crazy and have zero credibility among anyone except diehard ultra-Zionists - but he is still able to air his idiotic views in his own magazine and the editorial pages of one of the most respected newspapers in the United States.

Posted by ndm | February 17, 2007 2:27 AM

Ragout writes: [t]hat's why people have to twist criticisms (such as Abe Foxman's saying that Carter is bigoted but not an anti-Semite, or stuff about "conversos") into charges of anti-semitism.

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

anti-Semitic - a person prejudiced to or hostile to Jews

bigoted - unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.

Bigotry towards Jews is anti-Semitism and it is despicable of Abe Foxman to hide his accusation of anti-Semitism behind an accusation of bigotry towards Jews. The twisting and turning is all being done by those who slander others as bigots and anti-Semites. The recent articles by Herf & Markowits and David Greenberg in the TNR are full of these evasions and slanders.

Posted by ndm | February 17, 2007 2:37 AM

And, these people are getting nowhere fast. On top of the original Gang of 14 schlubs who resigned from the Carter Center, now there's another dozen or "distinguished" Emory profs who castigated President Carter in the student newspaper for refusing to debate his book once again (the horror!) this time with schmendrick #1-A Dennis Ross. "What is he afraid of?" they ask...Meanwhile, week after week- the book's a mega-best seller and these alta cockas are still moaning about their fallen by the wayside battlers (Dershowitz, Ross, Dore Gold, Alan Pinkas...) It's the Golden Gloves and where is The Great Jewish Hope? and why won't the peanut-jawed Champ (Carter) give him a fight? The sweaty crowd roars with every punch and Carter is down- 1-2-3-4-5...

Posted by Trevor | February 17, 2007 2:59 AM

ndm, The specific words matter.

If I say that someone is "of Italian ancestry," they are unlikely to complain that I'm actually calling them a "Wop." The two words refer to the same group of people but have very different connotations. So too with "bigot" and "anti-Semite."

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 3:07 AM

Ragout, let's play a game.

Person A calls water wet. Person B paraphrases Person A as saying they argued "water is not dry." Now, it is possible to be so disconnected from reality in a real ivory tower sort of way and claim those are not functionally equivalent, yet anyone with half a brain knows that the paraphrase is valid. Is 1.9 with the 9 repeating equal to 2? Yes. Is someone who is bigoted against gay people a homophobe? Duh. If you call someone a Nazi because of their hatred of Jews, aren't you calling them an anti-Semite? Of course. Claiming that the effective distance between these phrases is large is like denying Dickens simply re-wrote "David Copperfield" when he wrote "Great Expectations." Are you arguing in bad faith or are you really being an idiot?

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2007 3:21 AM

Reality Man,

Look, ndm claimed that because the dictionary definitions of bigot and anti-semite are similar, bigot and anti-semite are equally severe insults.

In fact, the dictionary definitions of "Italian" and "Wop" are almost identical, except that the dictionary points out that Wop is disparaging. So, the equivalence in dictionary definitions proves nothing.

You seem to claim that calling someone a "Nazi" and an "anti-Semite" are equivalent. But they're not: Nazi is much worse.

By your argument, calling Carter a bigot is the same as calling him an anti-Semite, which is the same as calling him a Nazi. But I'm sure you'll agree that if Carter complained that Foxman was calling him a Nazi, everyone would laugh at him.

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 3:36 AM

Ragout, you are really all over the place. You keep on moving the goalposts. If you are a bigot against Jewish people, you are an anti-Semite. I doubt Foxman was accusing him of hating the Norwegians. I did not claim that "anti-Semite" was equivalent to "Nazi," but to be a Nazi you have to be an anti-Semite. The line, "By your argument, calling Carter a bigot is the same as calling him an anti-Semite, which is the same as calling him a Nazi," is just pulled out of your ass. I notice you carefully ignored the 1.9 repeating = 2 claim and the bigoted against gay people = homophobe claim with that little line because it would reveal you were arguing in bad faith. The inclusion of those two lines in a list of items where in each individual pair "A implied B" did not mean that each A implied each B. Your mischaracterization of what I said is like claiming I said 1.9 repeating = anti-Semite.

And really, what the hell is with your example of Italian and Wop? Are you really that stupid? Unless you have made your own ragtionary, a bigot against Jews is an anti-Semite. This is axiomatic. It is not axiomatic that an Italian is a Wop unless you think racist slurs are objective labels. There simply is no equivalence for Italian and Wop in a dictionary. It's like I point out that Australia is both an island and a continent, but then you said the Andromeda galaxy is in the same universe as Australia, so there is some overlap, but that Australia and the Andromeda galaxy are not the same thing. Are you just looking for a reason to sneak the word Wop into casual conversation?

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2007 4:27 AM

Has ragout always been willing to be this flagrantly shameless and stupid? I can't remember.

Posted by grh | February 17, 2007 6:27 AM

First this guy says:

On this thread I see two claims that Carter has been called anti-Semitic. But who called him that? No one names any names. I heard that some caller on a CSPAN call-in show called him anti-Semitic, is that who you guys have in mind?

But when he gets his answer, he comes back with:

I never said that no one had called Carter anti-Semitic. I just said no one had risen to Kirchick's challenge.

Where did he say that?

Posted by JS | February 17, 2007 8:21 AM

Reality man, you listed 3 things that said were "functionally equivalent" or "equal."
* "not dry" and "wet"
* 1.9 repeating and 2
* "bigoted against gay people" and "homophobe"

Then you said that if you call someone a Nazi, you're calling them an anti-Semite. You'll have to forgive me if I took that to be a suggestion of equivalence.

Anyway, I agree that "bigoted against Jewish people" and "anti-Semite" are pretty close. If anyone is arguing in bad faith, it is you, by suggesting that I ever said anything to the contrary. What I wrote originally was that "bigoted" and "anti-Semite" are quite different. Not "bigoted against Jewish people," but simply "bigoted."

One can be bigoted by being intolerant of others' opinions. The others don't have to be of a particular race or ethnicity. And "intolerant" is milder than hatred. There are lots of nuances in language that aren't there in math. That's why your "1.9 repeating = 2" example is completely irrelevant.

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 12:02 PM

Isn't passive-aggressiveness more of a gentile, waspy sort of quality? (though obviously it goes without saying that Martin Peretz is not as un-Jewish as George Soros).

I used to go to Friday dinners at my friend Jodi's house. (We had been born in the same town in Jersey for years until one day we realized that was only a curious fiction.) Her older sister Sharri (who once got kicked out of the Whiskey for doing coke) used to climb on the dining room table, stand totally upright, and shout at Bruce (the father) who not surprisingly would get up and shout back. You had to move the challah to avoid footprints.

Posted by Linus | February 17, 2007 12:03 PM

John Doe is anti-Semitic.
Jane Doe is bigoted towards Jews.

Substitute in the definitions

anti-Semitic - a person prejudiced to or hostile to Jews

bigoted - unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.

giving:

John Doe is prejudiced to or hostile to Jews.
Jane Doe is unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant towards Jews.

No intellectually-honest person would differentiate between the intent of these sentences. In fact, I think it is pretty obvious that any reasonable person would believe the second to imply that Jane Doe is anti-Semitic. Foxman wanted the average person to believe that Carter was anti-Semitic but he lacked the balls to say it straight out.

Posted by ndm | February 17, 2007 12:04 PM

JS writes "Where did he say that?"

Where did who say what?

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 12:04 PM

NDM,

I agree. But by the same token, no reasonable person would say that "John is anti-Semitic" and "John is bigoted" are equivalent.

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 12:17 PM

I never said that no one had called Carter anti-Semitic.

Yes you did. You said But who called him that? No one names any names. Isn't it the same thing?

I just said no one had risen to Kirchick's challenge

You did? Where did you say it?

Posted by JS | February 17, 2007 12:27 PM

There is a difference between equivalence and the idea of A implies B. For instance, if you call someone a midget, you are calling saying, among other things, they are small. Now, not all small people are not midgets, but being small is a characteristic of being a midget. Being an anti-Semite is a characteristic of being a Nazi. In real life, if Person A calls Person B a Nazi, do you think it is more likely they want to imply either 1) that Person B is an anti-Semite or 2) that Person B likes welfare policies like passing out blankets? Both were part of being a Nazi, but in real life common sense and not being an ass come into play. I have already made this point. Once again, I did not say being a Nazi and being an anti-Semite is the same thing. Is this really so hard to understand?

"I agree. But by the same token, no reasonable person would say that "John is anti-Semitic" and "John is bigoted" are equivalent."

Of course they are not equivalent, but if the conversation was on a book on Israel that Carter wrote, Abe Foxman is the head of the ADL that focuses much of its attention on anti-Semitism (as opposed to other forms of hate) and Foxman then calls Carter a bigot for his book on Israel, what do you think he is trying to say? That Carter was homophobic? How about that Carter was anti-Chinese? Context matters. No, Foxman was saying Carter was bigoted against Jewish people. Now class, what do we call the bigotry against Jewish people? Sorry ragout, but you get an F. Abe Foxman was saying that Carter was an anti-Semite. What type of bigotry do you think Abe Foxman was talking about? Bigotry is not some free-floating metaphysical concept that exists on its own terms without being applied to something. When you are a bigot, you hate particular people because of their identity. If the head of GLAAD says Tim Hardaway is bigoted against gay people, they are saying that he is a homophobe. Only someone arguing in bad faith or an idiot would not get that point. So ragout, which are you? Does it get tiring to constantly argue in bad faith?

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2007 12:34 PM

Ragout clearly belongs with the other hacks pushing this anti-anti-Semitism meme. I have yet to see a single factual statement in any of the articles TNR has carried on this topic recently. They have all been nothing but lies, innuendo and smears.

Posted by ndm | February 17, 2007 12:58 PM

I don't really know in what context Foxman called Carter a bigot. But I think I can guess.

In his writings, Foxman repeatedly criticizes Carter for a one-sided and "biased approach." (By the way, "biased" can also mean "prejudiced." Is Foxman calling Carter an anti-Semite with this phrase?) Foxman says that Carter's "examination of almost every issue concerning the conflict results in blaming Israel for most or all of what has gone wrong." Foxman makes this point over and over.

Foxman says that by saying "bigot," he meant that Carter has "preconceived notions about things," and one dictionary definition of bigot is "intolerant of others' opinions." So I think Foxman probably meant that Carter ignores the Israeli point of view, and has fixed and unexamined preconceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If you were to shorten this criticism of Carter, it might be "bigoted against the Israelis," or "bigoted against Israeli views," but not "bigoted against the Jews."

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 1:23 PM

NDM, As long as we're on dictionary definitions, don't I have to get paid to be a hack?

Posted by Ragout | February 17, 2007 1:32 PM

"bigoted against Israeli views"

How can you be bigoted against views? Are views now people too? Have they been discriminated against in jobs?

Abe Foxman is the head of a group that is supposed to focus on domestic anti-Semitism. Instead, it has branched out under his leadership to concern itself a lot with problems from Israel's enemies. Why? Well, if one fights perceived anti-Semitism at home, why not abroad? I highly doubt Foxman's primary reason for being interested in Israel is because of its geopolitical position. In short, Foxman is interested in Israel due to its Jewish identity. Foxman has correctly developed a reputation for being unhinged and calling anyone who disagrees with his policy positions a bigot, anti-Semitic, etc. For Foxman, to disagree with his positions on Israel is anti-Semitism.

Have we really downgraded the meaning of the word "bigot" to mean "preconceived notions about things?" This is stretching the term, especially in common use, to mean just about any disagreement. People who disagree often start from different pre-conceived notions and think the other person's notions are wrong. For instance, I believe that you ragout have different pre-conceived notions about reality, but I don't believe that makes you a bigot. I preconceive that water in its liquid form will be wet. Am I now bigoted against ice? A pre-conceived notion is bigotry if it is connected to hate, which is the core of bigotry. To be charitable to Foxman, he is saying that Carter has pre-conceived notions about Israel because he hates Israel. Now why would Foxman believe that Carter hates Israel? Because it's a Jewish state and has a Jewish identity. Foxman has a track record of equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. He can't move the goalposts now unless he wants to demonstrate he writes in bad faith. To sum up, Foxman was calling Carter an anti-Semite.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2007 1:40 PM

Here's another name, ragout (from Hannity/Colmes):

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Former president Jimmy Carter is being accused of making some anti-Semitic remarks... Joining us now is...Monroe Freedman... Good to have you here.

MONROE FREEDMAN, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL: Thank you.

COLMES: Is Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite? Could you make that statement?

FREEDMAN: Well, anti-Semite is a range of things. You go from, say, Nazi is a 10. Country club discreet anti-Semite's at one. I'd put Carter at three.

Posted by JS | February 17, 2007 1:51 PM

Ragout, as you seem to like it, here another argument:

In this thread:
Ragout >Ragout, as you seem to like it, here another argument:

In this thread:
Ragout > (As in: ce Ragout n'est pas ragoutant)
In a good restaurant:
Ragout=ragoutant

My head explodes.

Posted by French Parser | February 17, 2007 4:45 PM

Ragout, as you seem to like it, here another argument:
(posted again, some problems with the [>] and the [ ragoutant.
(As in: ce Ragout n'est pas ragoutant)
In a good restaurant:
Ragout=ragoutant

My head explodes.

Posted by French Parser | February 17, 2007 4:47 PM

(reposted again, still some problems with the ">" and the "(reposted again, still some problems with the ">" and the "

In this thread:
Ragout =/ ragoutant.
(As in: ce Ragout n'est pas ragoutant)
In a good restaurant:
Ragout = ragoutant

My head explodes.

Posted by French Parser | February 17, 2007 4:52 PM

don't I have to get paid to be a hack?

People get paid in all sorts of ways, only a few of them money.

Posted by grh | February 17, 2007 5:07 PM

There's surefire a lot of disingenuous creeps in this world.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 18, 2007 12:14 PM

Can we stop using the word "blogosphere" immediately? It sounds like Marty Peretz describing Anna Nicole Smith's breasts. I propose a new term that should be agreeable to all: eKibbutz. And I think it's "jewy-sounding" enough to appease all those nosy Jews that run the Media, the Banks, Hollywood, the Malibu Police Department etc.

Sorry if that post sounded a little too "country club anti-semitic in effect if not intent" but my satirical saber is a little rusty after a year away from the blo... eKibbutz.

Posted by Gregorio | February 20, 2007 4:05 AM

yojvutglw mncquwj cjgx iuazqcle tvbifcq xjtsbokmh nlxeijcwo

Posted by gxcnjsu epbkqr | June 11, 2007 7:57 PM

ogarsjxzh ivwtkfnj oetkhjwyr rtwpzas haqmr zmuxrs xrqlfj http://www.otiwudlb.njatwu.com

Posted by tmvif iowfyrejh | June 11, 2007 7:57 PM