Check it out -- an article that's largely about me and how aweosome I am.
« WTF? | Main | Guerilla War in Somalia »
Best. Article. Ever.
13 Mar 2007 08:56 pm
Comments (69)
you would be more 'aweosome' if you knew how to spell
MY, I'm delighted for you. The article was largely sensible, and quoted you being sensible.
There's only one small problem.
You see, I think it's great when you and Ezra and other young American Jews push back against the Likud lobby. Because the hard-right confrontationalist wing of Israeli politics isn't good for the Jews, it isn't good for Israel, and it isn't good for America.
But when The American Conservative Magazine pushes back, using you guys? Ugh--I get a little queasy.
Nothing that this artice said is substantively anti-semitic. But Pat Buchanan's record over the years--and TAC is his magazine--is pretty damned transparent. He's only this far away from a traditional Father McCoughlin right-wing Catholic anti-semite.
It's not your fault, and there's nothing you can do about it; the devil can cite Scripture (and I can cite Shakespeare). On the other hand, if I was Scripture, I wouldn't put that particular citation in a very prominent place on my CV.
I find it amazing that people living safely in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles can, with a straight face tell people in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem not to worry about Iran's nuclear capability.
Actually, the subject MY is principally addressing (in the comments referenced in the linked article) is whether people living in Washington, D.C. and New York City, and Los Angeles ought to worry about Iran's nuclear capability. Whether people living in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem should worry about Iran's nuclear capability is a not important, but separate, subject.
But when The American Conservative Magazine pushes back, using you guys? Ugh--I get a little queasy.
Why? I find the article to be very even-handed, sober and well-written. Why should the forum it's written in overwhelm an appreciation of the piece itself?
Freddie, I appreciate the piece.
I even compared it to scripture. When I hear the Devil citing scripture, my appreciation of scripture is not overwhelmed.
But I am still made queasy by the Devil's role in that particular episode, esp. by his intentions, aims, and motivations in citing scripture, and by what snares he may be laying for the unwary by citing it as he does.
Because it's easier to just write off articles based on their appearance in [American Conservative/Weekly Standard/The Nation] than to judge them on their merits.
Pat Buchanan's favorite Jew...
I'm never thrilled to be on the same side as Pat Buchanan. But I thought this was a great article, and as a Jew I'm totally with Matt on the overall issue.
I can't get over how it's ok to talk about Dobson setting policy at the FDA but it's not ok to talk about AIPAC's role in our foreign policy. You want to see anti-semitism, go read a newspaper in Cairo or something. All we're looking for here is to have an honest debate, and being able to talk about the levers of influence is part of being honest.
Pat Buchanan's favorite Jew...
Posted by: Petey on March 13, 2007 09:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MY is a collaborator!
One only has to listen to Amadinejads' rhetoric to realize that. A mistake was made in the 1930s in assuming that Hitler was full of hot air. The attitude in Tel Aviv is, never again. If Mr. Amadinejad is full of hot air, too bad. No chances will be taken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SLC,
I see you're picking up where Krauthammer left off. The one thing that I've never understood about this argument is that the same people making it were prepared and perfectly willing to make the exact opposite argument if Rafsanjani had won the election - namely that the office of the Iranian presidency wielded no power, so it didn't matter what the president was saying. A little disingenuous, no?
What's remarkable about SLC's post is his blithe assumption that Israelis are all of one mind about this. Or gee, maybe they're split between the "never again" faction and the "never say never again" faction.
There's a perfectly mainstream view which holds that destroying every nation which might pose a threat to the Jews, or calling upon the US to destroy every such nation, is a path which never, ever leads to peace. "Never again" is a phrase with a lot of meaning where I come from. It's not supposed to be cheapened into some kind of one-percent doctrine.
Amazing how this is always discussed minus a few facts.
Why should Israel fear an Iranian nuke?
- Israel has numerous nuclear weapons
- Israel has multiple methods of delivering those weapons
- Israel has a history of striking rapidly at any threat.
- Israel has in the past announced a policy of using such weapons
if threatened.
Why is that Mutual Assured Destruction doesn't apply to Iran vs Israel?
(Given that Israel has quite a few more nukes, and a few allies, wouldn't really be mutual.. would it?) Why do you all assume the Iranians are suicidal? Seems rather against the evidence.
Pat Buchanan's favorite Jew...
Yeah, I was just talking about that with Ezra....
Yeah, I was just talking about that with Ezra....
Deep down, Ezra knows he's jealous.
I dunno, I bet Pat has a warm place in his heart for Sammy Davis, Jr.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040716/040716_sammynixon_vlrg.widec.jpg
The American Conservative is ant-semitic only in the sense that it doesn't follow the standard neocon line on Israel. On the other hand, fundamentalist preachers like Robertson and Falwell can say anything they like about Jewish people (which includes, in Falwell's estimation, the Antichrist) and they aren't considered anti-semitic because they are strongly "pro-Israel".
I think Pat Buchanan is smallminded on any number of issues, but seriously, he's a far better human being than Father Couglin or for that matter, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
"Better than Coughlin, Robertson, and Falwell" is a pretty low bar to clear. Buchanan's a serious asshole. Note the Bitburg connection.
I dunno, I bet Pat has a warm place in his heart for Sammy Davis, Jr.
If we're allowed to look at the now dead, I like this guy's chances.
Matt, I've been reading your blog for a long time, but I gotta say you're going to have to tell me whether there's some sarcasm in this post. If there isn't much... I'm always stunned by the meeting at the extremes between the far Left and Buchananite Right on foreign policy issues. Don't you feel uncomfortable in such ideological company? I mean, part of the ideology that undergirds The American Conservative is, frankly, anti-Semitism and racism. Careful with your bedfellows.
Being in the company of Mearsheimer has to be a drag, too. This is the same guy who wrote that the end of the Cold War will bring about high tension across Europe and cause occasional warfare between states who are now strong allies.
I'm not saying AIPAC isn't misguided on what Israel's interests truly are, nor would I ever deny their influence, but I still think the notion that America is compromising its own interests in favor of the interests of the Israelis because of AIPAC is unsatisfying. I think poor decision-making on the part of the Bush administration has, of course, but correlation doesn't equal causality. Just because AIPAC lobbied against a provision demanding Congressional approval for an attack on Iran in a bill that would get vetoed anyway doesn't mean they were the motivating factor behind the provision's removal.
This discussion shows again that discussing Israel IS the third rail of US politics.
Why do the hawks never respond to the question of why Mutually Assured Destruction isn't enough? Would US guarantees like we offered NATO countries to respond on an attack on them as though we were attacked be enough?
Why must Israel or the US preemptively strike Iran when the President of Iran has NO (ZERO) control over miliary forces?
Don't you feel uncomfortable in such ideological company?
I mean, I don't actually know how to have views on foreign policy issues that don't also overlap to some extent with the views of other people who have objectionable views. Obviously, anti-semites are going to be critical of Israel and critical of America's relationship with Israel. Ergo, unless one wants to entirely exempt Israel from criticism, one is sometimes going to be agreeing with anti-semites. Similarly, it's hard to defend Israel against certain criticisms without finding yourself accidentally in agreement with Arab-hating bigots.
More generally, coalitions form and re-form. Given the current constellation of political forces my views have some important similarities to things believed by many libertarians and "old right" types. I don't, however, actually have the same views as these peope. Alternative political leadership will likely cause that coalition to collapse and new ones to form.
This is the same guy who wrote that the end of the Cold War will bring about high tension across Europe and cause occasional warfare between states who are now strong allies.
Man, that's crazy talk! It's not like we had actual famous pundits calling for war with France in 2003 or anything...
Matt - If you stop using "goyim" I will stop using 'fucking Hebrews' and we will both be better for it.
Why must Israel or the US preemptively strike Iran when the President of Iran has NO (ZERO) control over miliary forces?
Because the people who DO control Iran's military forces also control who is the President of Iran. That is, the President of Iran is a visible signal of the intentions of the people who do control the military forces.
If you stop using "goyim"
Why? Is there some undercurrent that the word "goyim" is offensive? It isn't.
Sorry, Matt, but as the "regrettably anonymous" commenter quoted at length in the piece, I think it's only fair to say the article's largely about me and how aweosome I am.
Matthew, there's a big difference between a partial "overlap of opinion" and a "coalition". Could you clarify this point please, thx.
1:22, SCMT:
Oh. My. God. I had not known that the Elders of Zion controlled the Confederacy and had Lincoln assassinated. But it all makes sense when you think about it.
"I mean, I don't actually know how to have views on foreign policy issues that don't also overlap to some extent with the views of other people who have objectionable views."
Exactly. Neither does anyone else. So don't sweat it: the fact of overlap does not give you reason to revise your views or even apologize for them, provided that your route of arriving at them was good.
As the one who cast the first stone on this thread, let me make clear: I was not criticizing your views by criticizing the venue. I was just criticizing the venue.
(And secondarily, I was ribbing you about appearing to be *proud* of appearing in that venue. It would be a better source of pride if TAC were to *attack* you. But don't worry; they will get around to it. Your overlap is not that extensive.)
Correcting horrific typo in 3/13 9:21 p.m. comment: "not unimportant"
Careful Matt, or you'll wind up being the Irshad Manji of Jewish foreign policy.
Re Pat B and Al
The term goyim is in fact a derogatory description of non-Jews when used in private conversations between Jews. I hate to agree with Pat B, who is perhaps Pat Buchanan, but he is correct in this instance, proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Loathe TAC and Buchanan all you want, but they were 110% correct about the Iraq War back in '02 when it started -- when even Matt Yglesias supported the war.
I agree--surprisingly thoughtful article. But then there is this line: "a great many people wouldn’t risk the opprobrium of the lobby for the sake of the Palestinians, who often wage their struggle far less impressively than one might wish." Not sure what the author means by that, but its lack of any normative judgment, its almost casual regard for the actions of the Palestinians over the last decade, certainly shifts critical attention away from them and places much of the culpability onto the Israelis.
And that's the problem with much of this discussion. The debate about the power of the Israel Lobby--a healthy one, I think--too often turns into an unbalanced attack on Isral's positions itself. It's as if critics of AIPAC feel they need to counterbalance the organization's influence by asserting an equally lopsided partisanship on the issue (or are motivated by darker issues). To some extent, Matt's blog is an example of this, and obviously, Carter's book even more so. The question is, how can one lament the power of AIPAC without parroting CAIR...
"Man, that's crazy talk! It's not like we had actual famous pundits calling for war with France in 2003 or anything..."
Mearsheimer was referring only to European states, not the U.S. And war did break out in Eastern Europe in the 90s, but a civil war in Yugoslavia followed by NATO intervention is different between France and Germany gearing up for the biggest bout since World War II.
Oh. My. God. I had not known that the Elders of Zion controlled the Confederacy and had Lincoln assassinated. But it all makes sense when you think about it.
Emerson, you've made a hash of the analysis. "Pitchfork Pat" is clearly a Booth partisan, and I think the Elders, on that reading, would have to be pro-Lincoln. I suspect Benjamin Judah was a a member of the now-forgotten "Youngers of Zion," though there is no mention of it at the linked article.
"Obviously, anti-semites are going to be critical of Israel and critical of America's relationship with Israel. Ergo, unless one wants to entirely exempt Israel from criticism, one is sometimes going to be agreeing with anti-semites"
Yes this was the exact same dynamic that faced early opponents of this war. Certain elements of the anti-war movement were against America on principle, others including some good hearted people like the Quakers were against war on principle. That you could be a pro-American, pro-military veteran and oppose the Iraq war on the operational argument that it was just going to get a bunch of people dead, the combat capacity of the United States degraded, and establish an Iranian friendly Shiite fundamentalist state just got lost in the same kind of kneejerk noise that AIPAC and rightwing radio is voicing today.
Yes on the specific question of going to war with Iraq I agreed with ANSWER and Chomsky. Doesn't and didn't make me unAmerican or an opponent of Israel.
We already had our taste of 'cakewalk'. Bombing Iran will not have the effect that neo-cons want. It won't work. They are still living in a fantasy world that brought us Iraq. Is Iran fundamentally a threat to Israel? IT DOESN"T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO A JUDGEMENT ABOUT BOMBING IRAN. First and foremost the question has to be: would it work anyway? And it won't. So lets not do it.
Saddam was a monster. Regime change was an official policy of the Clinton Administration. Fine, cool, we are all okay with that. The Iraqi invasion was a huge fucking blunder anyway. Because we didn't have the troops to do the job. Because the fricking head of the Army told us we didn't have the troops to do the job. And has been proven right.
Dunderheads who want to fantasize about Hope being a Plan and chastizing those of us who choose to live in the Reality Based Continuum need to wake up. Hitler was a monster. Why didn't we take him out on Dec 12, 1941? After all he declared war on us the day before?
Because we couldn't. We didn't have the resources at that time and place to accomplish that mission. It wasn't because we didn't want to accomplish it, or even that we were not prepared to accomplish it. But you have to understand that HOPE IS NOT A PLAN! No matter what Michael Ledeens sweaty fantasies would have you believe.
There is a whole Right Wing dream built around the concept that Something is always Better than Nothing. Well not always. The fact that you may have a real problem doesn't mean you always have a workable solution.
Matthew doesn't get any progressive points for pointing out the flaws or distortions in the arguments in the Walt & Mearshimer article or Carter book. Nor would Matt get credit for acknowledging that much of the AJC's paper discusses rampant anti-Zionism, not mere critiques of Israeli policy (then again Matthew's response to that controversy reads as if he wrote it without even looking at the AJC's paper.) Progressive Jews are welcomed into the fold only by showing distance from their Zionist brethren.
So, mazel tov Matthew, you are getting exactly what you want - getting lauded as "courageous" for providing "Jewish" political cover for Pat Buchanan and Co.'s attacks on Israel and American Jewish organizations. I'd buy Matthew's anguished progressive Jew schtick more if I saw any indication of anguish about the failings of Israel, or any public assertion of Jewish identity outside the context where it is rhetorically convenient. Yes, this is harsh, but Matthew is better than this.
I'd buy Matthew's anguished progressive Jew schtick more if I saw any indication of anguish about the failings of Israel, or any public assertion of Jewish identity outside the context where it is rhetorically convenient.
Is that fair? I seem to recall earlier MY posts as asserting a right to be...gawd knows what the right phrasing is here...a Jewish American in good standing despite a certain amount of disinterest in the future of Israel. I'm not sure if his schtick is "progressive Jew" so much as "progressive who is Jewish," if that.
Daniel:
You refer to the "Buchananite right on foreign policy issues" as some kind of epithet. Their foreign policy is essentially isolationism. Haven't the past six, or even sixteen, years rehabilitated this perspective?
Here we go again. The State of Israel postulated as the be all and end all of Jewish identity. Criticize Israeli policy and you're either an anti-Semite or a traitor. Criticized US support for said policies and you're either an anti-Semite or a traitor. Rinse, repeat. This holds true even if you are the man who brokered the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, giving the latter State its first measure of peace and security in its history.
Down the rabbit hole we go.
Matthew Struhar:
You are misrepresenting what happened with the Iran provision in that bill. You may not be a denier of the existence of the Israel lobby, but in this case you're implausibly denying its specific hand in a specific bill.
Let's put this AIPAC debate in a little perspective. When that fucking nut case Cheney spoke he got an ovation. When Pelosi spoke, she got booed. AIPAC is an extremist organization that cleaves to the Republican party, and as painful as it may be, the Democrats have to kill this serpent, legislatively, before they destroy the Democratic party with their unending wars. Strip them of their reporting loopholes and make them register as foreign lobbyists. This issue should not longer revolve around the personal anguishes of Jews and non-Jews in discussing "anti-Semitism". It's politics.
mhp:
Forgive me, if I'm stepping across the line as a non-Jew (thanks SLC for advocating we do away with "goyim"!), but you exhibit the shtetl mentality.
As I predicted, Israel-bashing has been a good career move for you, Matt.
sosk18 writes:
I agree--surprisingly thoughtful article. But then there is this line: "a great many people wouldn’t risk the opprobrium of the lobby for the sake of the Palestinians, who often wage their struggle far less impressively than one might wish." Not sure what the author means by that, but its lack of any normative judgment, its almost casual regard for the actions of the Palestinians over the last decade, certainly shifts critical attention away from them and places much of the culpability onto the Israelis.
The author is repeating the widely-held opinion that Palestinians would have benefited over the years from more effective leadership. If there is any lack of normative judgment it lies with those who ignore the fact that, as the occupying power, the Israelis are more culpable. This conflict could end tomorrow if Israel wanted but there is nothing the Palestinians can do to end this conflict tomorrow. And until it does end the Palestinians will continue to endure vastly more suffering than do Israelis.
The term goyim is in fact a derogatory description of non-Jews when used in private conversations between Jews.
Phew. Then I, as a non-Jew, am perfectly OK to use it. (In fact, since the blog is NOT in fact a "private conversation between Jews", it would be OK for Matthew to use here too.) Next up: shiksa - acceptable?
sosk18:
Here's a constructive answer to your question, "how can one lament the power of AIPAC without parroting CAIR..." (the question sounds like it's asked from a decidedly Jewish perspective, because I could care less if I "sound like CAIR"; indeed, it would only make me suspect CAIR is on to something).
Anyway, I offer an answer above. AIPAC attacks and undermines Democrats. It booed Pelosi and gave Cheney a standing ovation. It is the only constituency for war in the Democratic party and must therefore be cut out, no matter how much money in the short run it costs. Indeed, there will be an upside, as Democrats would be able to campaign openly against the war without them having a veto.
Al:
The point about "goyim" is that it's colloquial and usually inappropriate in a discussion, unless you're being tongue-in-cheek, or, unlikely in a forum like this, hostile or suspicious of any non-Jews. It's not neutral, and therefore just not appropriate.
Mr. Noah:
You say "As I predicted, Israel-bashing has been a good career move for you, Matt".
You kind of let the cat out of the bag with this comment. What got MY the kind words from the American Conservative (and correspondingly unkind words from The New Republic and others) was his criticism of AIPAC and its allies, not Israel. You conflate the two.
The thing that got this rolling was a question of political funding in domestic American politics. Yet, to you, and others having the discussion is "Israel bashing".
To repeat: to AIPAC Cheney=standing ovation, Pelosi=boos.
The isolationist right is full of creepy people who make Pat Buchanan look like Richard Holbrooke. It doesn't matter that the article was well written; on normative questions, the source always matters. Imagine if it had been authored by Louis Farrakhan or David Duke. An endorsement from American Conservative ought to be regarded no differently.
That some wacko endorses Matt's writing for his own twisted reasons doesn't invalidate Matt's own view in the slightest, needless to say, though that probably won't stop Marty Peretz from saying "see! Matt Yglesias on the same side as the late Samuel Francis!" But that's bullshit, too; the Palestinian intifada wasn't wrong or compromised just because David Duke was (no doubt) cheering for them for his own twisted reasons.
"Imagine if it had been authored by Louis Farrakhan or David Duke. An endorsement from American Conservative ought to be regarded no differently."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#The_Manichaean_cosmogony
I suspect Benjamin Judah was a a member of the now-forgotten "Youngers of Zion," though there is no mention of it at the linked article. - SomeCallMeTim
I thought according the TAC article, us liberal moon-bat Jewish bloggers were the "Youngers of Zion". Are you equating us with Judah Benjamin? ;)
*
Seriously, one thing I find funny about the whole "the US must align itself with Israel 100% and if you disagree with us, you are an anti-Semite" argument is how anti-Zionist it is (given that it is made by people who you'd think would agree with Zionism as an ideology): if the U.S. and Israel always have the same interests, what's the point in needing an independent Jewish state. Why not have the U.S. annex parts of Israel, give the rest to the Palestinians and be done with all the fuss? Make the U.S. the new Jewish homeland or something ...
The whole point of Zionism was that in no part of the Galuth could Jews really be secure and achieve normalcy (as if having a state in as tough of a neighborhood, that inevitably would serve as a lightening rod for anti-Semitism, would achieve that goal ...). But if the U.S. has such a strong alignment with Israel that our interests are supposed to be the same, aren't we Jews really then secure/politically normalized in the U.S.?
To me something doesn't add up if one claims to be both a Zionist and take the position that the U.S. and Israel have 100% the same interests, or at least ought to have the same interests, as you really don't think Israel needs to be independent then. And if you claim that, as a Jew, you should have a greater loyalty to Israel -- well, then you are being more anti-Semitic than us so-called self-hating Jews who may be less than enthusiastic about Zionism. By asserting (the old anti-Semitic canard of) dual loyalty is something a Jew ought to have, you make the anti-Semitic case, nu? And that's, if you'll pardon the Godwin's law violation here, giving Hitler a posthumous victory, nu?
BTW -- what does the Jews who are anti-Zionists must be self-hating Jews crowd say about the Satmar Hassidim? About Neturai Karta? Are all those frumies not real Jews 'cause of their opinions about Zionism?
DAS:
This kind of intra-Jewish examination of Zionism is kind of interesting, but mostly irrelevant.
AIPAC is a corrupt and extremist organization that is one of the last pillars of support for the war. It needs to be knocked out, especially as a rift is growing between it and the Democratic party. Its espionage activities and increasingly partisan support of Bush and Cheney should be enough to spur us to legislatively neuter it.
A couple years ago, when I waded into this dispute, I used to take it very personally. Now that I've seen that Israel and its influence can be intelligently and openly debated (even if this forum is unrepresentative) I am willing to look at this less dispassionately. It's just a lobby like any other, even if its effects are more dire. It needs to be broken. Israel is strong and can take care of itself without it.
Bendan,
You write: Here's a constructive answer to your question, "how can one lament the power of AIPAC without parroting CAIR..." (the question sounds like it's asked from a decidedly *Jewish* perspective, because I could care less if I "sound like CAIR"; indeed, it would only make me suspect CAIR is on to something).
As someone who frequently cautions others about conflating being anti-Israel and anti-Semetic, perhaps you should show some caution as well. Arguing that the interventions of CAIR, like those of AIPAC, are not necessarily in the interest of peace in the Middle East (as opposed to say, the interests of hawkish Israelis or hawkish Wahabbis), does not suggest a "Jewish" perspective. Then again, maybe you shouldnt show caution. After all, it's clear that your allegiences are much closer CAIR's than to AIPAC's. And that was my point. People like you ultimately enable AIPAC, allowing hawks to conflate legitmate criticism of Israel with an overwhelming, unreconciliable hatred of Israel.
sosk18:
I honestly don't know anything about CAIR. Are they an Arab lobbying group or something? I don't know, and my point was that I'm not going to tailor my arguments for fear of imaginary accusations or of being lumped in with them.
"It's clear that (my) allegiances are closer to CAIR's than AIPAC's". This accusation, aside from being vicious and unfounded, further demonstrates my point. You seem to see the argument as spanning a spectrum from AIPAC to CAIR. Neither represents my interests (that is, if CAIR is some Arab organization). I'm an American citizen opposed to getting into Middle East wars.
As for what I meant by "constructive", what I meant is that I think we can start viewing AIPAC in partisan terms when it offers ovations to Cheney and boos Pelosi. Talking about "Jews" or "Zionism" or "suffering Palestinians" can become less relevant to the practical problem of countering a constituency for this admistration's criminal foreign policy.
I think many commenters on this thread have a mistaken view of Buchanan, but more to the point, of the American Conservative as well. The magazine is edited by people (Scott McConnell and Kara Hopkins) who know, like and respect Pat B, but it is far from a uniformly Buchananite publication, and in fact has been from its inception.
Attached is a link to an article on CAIR which describes its links to Islamic terrorist organizations. Now the Israel bashers on this blog will, of course demand that the article be disregarded because it is co-authored by Daniel Pipes because he has the temerity to call 'em like he sees 'em, and who they consider the devil incarnate. In fact, as it states, its conclusions are supported by such Senate Democrats as Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer.
http://www.meforum.org/article/916
Mankind sure is tribal!
Daniel Pipes is the scum of the earth.
He is a man who opposes Muslim migration to America on the basis of inferior muslim hygiene standards.
That you quote his says volumes about your intellectual hygience.
Re brendan:
Why would I waste my time on this CAIR bullshit? I have to pick a team, AIPAC or CAIR? And saying the condemnation of this CAIR has the support of Democratic Senators is no better evidence as saying Pipes authored it; Congress voted 410-8 against a cease-fire in Lebanon last summer. Enough with this crap; I'm not going to spend a second dignifying you or CAIR by going to whatever website you're peddling.
I comment at length in a later Yglesias post about Obama. I suggest we take "Jews" and "Israel" out of the discussion about AIPAC, if you can believe that. It's distracting from the narrower issue of the political threat to the Democratic party that AIPAC represents.
Re adam
As expected and as I predicted, Mr. adam launched a personal attack on Dr. Pipes, rather then responding to the article the latter co-authored. With regard to the attack, I would appreciate it if Mr. adam would direct me to the article where Dr. Pipes said that Muslims should be denied entry to the US due to there alleged hygiene deficiencies.
What got MY the kind words from the American Conservative (and correspondingly unkind words from The New Republic and others) was his criticism of AIPAC and its allies, not Israel. You conflate the two.
The thing that got this rolling was a question of political funding in domestic American politics. Yet, to you, and others having the discussion is "Israel bashing".
You're right. "Israel lobby bashing", then.
Either way, it is pretty clear that this issue is generating a lot more buzz and popularity (and therefore, probably, future career success) for Matt than most of the other things he blogs about.
Bravo, Brendan, well said.
As noted "taking out Iran" is not a possibility - we just don't have the military capability to do it. A pre-emptive strike on Iran increases the danger for Israel, not decreases it. The Iranians are not suicidal; they know that 20 minutes after an attack on Israel large portions of Iran will cease to exist, and 25 minutes after that the U.S. ICBMs will come down. Attacking Israel is suicide for them, and the Iranians are well aware of that.
Sold a piece to AmCon a few years back. And, forgive the shameless namedropping but I email correspond a little with Mr. Buchanan and another odd bedfellow he's also in agreement with besides MY about the deplorable state of U.S. foreign policy. (Tom Hayden).
fjeyauwo ahsmwvlx yuprbksqc bins dvmrzoenh qbiuxr sdxhq
Comments closed March 27, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The problem with the discussion in tha article is the assumption that Jews that criticize the actions of the Government of Israel are anti-semitic. They're not anti-semitic, they're stupid. I find it amazing that people living safely in Washington, D.C. and New York City, and Los Angeles can, with a straight face tell people in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem not to worry about Irans' nuclear capability. It is quite unlikely that the Iranian bombs will fall on the former cities but guaranteed that they will fall on the latter cities, if Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. One only has to listen to Amadinejads' rhetoric to realize that. A mistake was made in the 1930s in assuming that Hitler was full of hot air. The attitude in Tel Aviv is, never again. If Mr. Amadinejad is full of hot air, too bad. No chances will be taken.
Posted by SLC | March 13, 2007 9:12 PM