I say right on to this. But what's more, there's something revealing about the sense of entitlement among Joe Klein's antagonists at Commentary. As he says "They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me." The people on the hawk side of this issue are used to getting their way through bullying, and to terrifying a large number of people who disagree with them out of ever saying so. One thing I think the blogosphere has been helpful in doing is opening up the conversation a little bit by giving some voice and prominence to people who didn't have much to lose or didn't necessarily know any better. Some of that spirit has trickled back into the MSM and it's a very good thing.
« Couch Guests | Main | Privacy for Me, But Not for Thee »
Klein versus the J-Pod Gang
30 Jul 2008 09:33 am
Comments (51)
The elements of the right who were ascendant in 2002-2003 came to believe that their situation was the "new normal," the natural state of American politics, and they haven't internalized the fact that the Corleone Family don't have that kind of pull anymore.
I think the people in question also recognize that if the public comes to understand that they speak neither for American Jews nor Israeli Jews, they are going to lose a lot of political clout. So, they need to try to squash people like Klein.
The problem is that Mr. Klein seems to buy into the conspiracy theory that the US invaded Iraq as a part of a strategy to protect the State of Israel. This, of course, is total crap. The invasion of Iraq was about oil. The proof is that the testimony of Messrs. Wilkerson, Kurtzer, and Feith indicates that the Government of Israel was dubious about the enterprise from the get go. Thus in this regard, Mr. Klein is no better then the nutcases like Mr. Williams and Mr. Hack who spread their lies on this board, neither of whom would be welcome as writers at Time or any other decent publications. Counterpunch and stormfront are their metier.
Joe Klein, really?
Good for him, it's like watching someone grow up before our eyes.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
The proof is that the testimony of Messrs. Wilkerson, Kurtzer, and Feith indicates that the Government of Israel was dubious about the enterprise from the get go
That's not proof of anything. American neoconservatives have never, from their nice safe stateside offices, had any problem breaking with the Israeli government when it doesn't conform to their plans.
See the Camp David/Wye River/Oslo negotiations. Or the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Or the decision to end the Lebanon War.
Saying that people like Richard Perle and Bill Kristol are acting to advance Israeli's interest as they see it is quite a different argument from saying that they are pushing the line of the Israeli government.
SLC,
But that is part of the point: these people don't really care what the government of Israel thinks. Rather, they believe they know what is best for Israel, and anyone who stands in their way is therefore de facto anti-Israel. And that includes Israelis themselves, whenever they dare to disagree with these people.
There is a complete disconnect between the actual needs of "Israel" and Israeli people and what crazy hawk right wing douchebags claim to want in "Israel's" interest.
The crazy hawks always claim the right to speak for Israel, both there and here.
From, the POV of one of its architects, the Iraq War was motivated by lots of interests. I'd say oil, Israeli security, American hegemony, Republican domestic political interests (not mentioned by Wolfowitz), vanity (not mentioned), appeasing bin Laden (by giving a face-saving pretext for removing American combat troops from Saudi Arabia; mentioned), and removing Saddam. Once it got underway, the vast amounts of money to be made also became a consideration.
synchronicity
I went trolling on the 'contentions' section of Commentary mostly out of a personal animus toward MaxBoot who is a champion to them. Very nasty bunch there. Every response I drew was personal. Interestingly, many of the commenters list their degrees with their names on their posts. Never saw that before; implication was that they had better political ideas because they could--anonymously--to be So-and-So MD. Very intolerant. They blackballed me pretty quickly.
I went trolling on the 'contentions' section of Commentary mostly out of a personal animus toward MaxBoot who is a champion to them. Very nasty bunch there. Every response I drew was personal. Interestingly, many of the commenters list their degrees with their names on their posts. Never saw that before; implication was that they had better political ideas because they could--anonymously--to be So-and-So MD. Very intolerant. They blackballed me pretty quickly.
"it's like watching someone grow up before our eyes."
Or like watching someone who knows which way the wind blows.
I wonder how Matt would react if someone wrote
"Obama's Muslim liberal advisors are advising him to leave Iraq in 16 months because they have divided loyalties between the United States and the Caliphate and see the US leaving Iraq as advancing the interests of the Caliphate."
It's interesting that Jamie Kirchick didn't at Joe Klein to the list of Matt, Ezra, Alterman, etc. in his attack on J street.
I agree with J street's take on things but I also think democracy promotion in the middle east is good for Israel and I think getting rid of psycho dictators is good for Israel.
My view of Iraq is that after 9-11 they said the Middle East needs to change and get better. It can't keep producing terrorists.
Maybe some felt we should have just closed up shop and left. I disagree. Bush did pack up the permanent bases in Saudi Arabia. He just moved them next door to Iraq.
Bob: The distinction here would your sentence is inaccurate, whereas what Klein wrote seems to be correct. I'm not sure if that's a distinction that matters to you, but I find it somewhat compelling.
Klein: I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek.
Then name some names, man! When I think of "Jewish intellectuals with divided loyalties who want to use U.S. power to get rid of Iran", I think of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and other Republican types. I want to know who Klein is thinking of...
Joe Klein said ->
"The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies. "
That is contemptible. The nastiness of the Democratic Underground bubbles up into the mainstream and your concerned people are outraged by it?
Lets leave aside casual accusations of mass murder for profit.
I'd be concerned be more concerned that Joe Klein’s bumbling attempts at ingratiating himself into the order of shrill involved classical anti-Semitic terminology.
No, he isn't in anyway anti-Semitic. He is just a nice and well meaning stenographer. He is just trying to talk like one of the boys.
I'd be insulted.
Leo,
The only reason that someone could say what you are saying is if
1) You read the mind of every neo-conservative to know their motivations
2) You ignore every single non-jewish neo conservative, absolve no jewish neoconservatives of saying the exact same thing as jewish neo-conservatives and then place all the blame for all neo conservatives on jewish neo-conservatives.
In my opinion, number 2 makes you an antisemite because you blame the jewish portion of a group and only the jewish portion of a group for something the entire group (jews and non jews) believes in.
You ignore every single non-jewish neo conservative
That would be who exactly?
Scratch that, I came up with Francis Fukuyama. Is there anyone else?
Dave: While I appreciate the object lesson in the tactics Joe describes, I'm not sure that your conclusions follow from what I've written.
"That would be who exactly?"
To name a few: Ambassador John Bolton, William Bennett, James Woolsey, Max Boot, Linda Chavez, Michael Novak, Christopher DeMuth, Gary Schmitt, Sean Hannity, and the now deceased Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Leo,
It flows from what Joe Klein wrote and that is what we are talking about.
What about Rumsfeld? What about McCain himself? Cheney?
I'll give you Kirkpatrick and Moynihan without argument. I thought about Kirkpatrick in the shower and was tried to figure out if Moynihan fit and it's close enough. Margeret Thatcher also at one time self-identified as a neoconservative.
No way on Sean Hannity. He's an orthodox republican stooge with no ideology whatsoever.
Michael Novak?!?! No way in hell.
Some of them you could make a case for, but if we are just using standard liberalism definition of neo-conservative as "bad people" this isn't going to go anywhere. Neo-conservatism is a very distinct ideology.
Really Dave? You think someone can only state that "what Klein wrote seems to be correct" if he has read every neoconservative's mind and absolves all non-Jewish neoconservatives of blame? That sounds like bullshit to me.
Explain why Klein only blames jewish neoconservatives and not all non-jewish neo-conservatives who believe the exact same thing.
Of course there are non-Jewish neocons. Heck, a lot of neocons are Christians whose views on Israel are being driven in part by their beliefs regarding the Second Coming and the Apocalypse.
Actually, "neocon" Jeanne Kirkpatrick was absolutely, totally, completely against the crazy Iraq War...but wanted to keep her lavish perch at AEI so kept publicly silent.
And Fukuyama published a big piece a couple of years ago denouncing the "neocons" for their crazy Mid East views...leading to a big rupture at National Interest and such.
As for Linda Chavez, her husband and children are Jewish and he was actually some big Jewish Lobby activist in DC before he lost some power struggle and got pushed out.
And Max Boot...well, you might want to check his "national origins"...
Most of the others are dimwits or winos employed by the neocons, who keep their liquor money flowing...
"As for Linda Chavez, her husband and children are Jewish and he was actually some big Jewish Lobby activist in DC before he lost some power struggle and got pushed out."
"And Max Boot...well, you might want to check his "national origins"..."
Thanks you so much for proving my point.
This post wasn't made by me; I assume it was meant to be addressed to me:
"Explain why Klein only blames jewish neoconservatives . . .."
He doesn't.
Does Bob win the Incoherent Straw Man Award?
Of course there are non-Jewish neocons. Heck, a lot of neocons are Christians whose views on Israel are being driven in part by their beliefs regarding the Second Coming and the Apocalypse.
I don't think those count as neo-cons. Neo-conservatism is actually neo-Trotskyism so Cheney and his thugs count as neo-cons. The force-God's-hand types don't.
I thought about Kirkpatrick in the shower
Too much information.
.
"He doesn't."
I seem to see the word JEWISH below. I guess Max Boot, for example, is off the hook?
"The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.
I thought about Kirkpatrick in the shower
Too much information.
.
Dave: Why not quote the entire paragraph?
"The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked--still smacks--of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies."
Does that sound like he blames only Jewish neoconservatives for the Iraq war?
Jeffrey Davis,
I define "neocons" broadly enough to encompass a diverse range of ideologies that happen to have come together on a similar set of views with respect to American foreign policy. But this is just semantics.
"Does that sound like he blames only Jewish neoconservatives for the Iraq war?"
It sounds like he says Jewish neoconservatives have dual loyalties to Israel, but other neoconservatives who views are identical don't.
"I am not going to make the same mistake twice. I don't think a war with Iran is coming, thank God, but this time I am not going to pull any punches. My voice isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, but I'm going to do my job--and that means letting you know exactly where I stand and what I believe. I believe there are a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who are pushing for war with Iran because they believe it is in America's long-term interests and because they believe Israel's existence is at stake. They are wrong and recent history tells us they are dangerous. They are also bullies and I'm not going to be intimidated by them."
This is Joe Klein saying this?!
What's next, Richard Cohen committing ritual seppuku?
Dave: He's not saying that any more than he's saying that all oil executives want to invade Iraq for oil, and no one but oil executives could want to invade Iraq for oil.
"One thing I think the blogosphere has been helpful in doing is opening up the conversation a little bit by giving some voice and prominence to people who didn't have much to lose"
That's right. If the blogosphere hadn't come along. Matt Y. would be a TNR staffer.
Dave,
It sounds like he says Jewish neoconservatives have dual loyalties to Israel, but other neoconservatives who views are identical don't.
And, oil-man neoconservatives have dual loyalties to oil companies, but other other neoconservatives whose views are identical do not.
Are you saying that Jewish neo-conservatives DON'T emphasize the well-being of Israel? This isn't some big secret, you know.
"Are you saying that Jewish neo-conservatives DON'T emphasize the well-being of Israel?"
You don't see the difference between "emphasizing the well being of Israel" and saying that a certain group of people are loyal to another country and use "U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel". That is basically acusing them of treason.
Neoconservatives, including Jewish neoconservatives also "emphasized the well being" of Bosnian Muslims more earlier and more strongly than anyone else. Does that make them have dual loyalties to Bosnian Muslims?
The entire dual loyalties canard is simply perverse and antisemitic to it's core as it has been for hundreds of years.
I think for a lot of people what appears to be some degree of loyalty to "Israel" is, more accurately, an enthusiasm for an entity, and so far Israel will do, which seems able to mete out deadly military force to Arabs & Muslims without regret.
You don't see the difference between "emphasizing the well being of Israel" and saying that a certain group of people are loyal to another country and use "U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel". That is basically acusing them of treason.
No it's not, certainly not by the standards espoused by the people in question. Have you ever read an issue of National Review or the Weekly Standard? They don't make any bones about it - Israel is us, we is Israel. Their interests are our interests, they're our "front line" in the "War on Terror." Doughy Pantload and the lot used to like to go on about Israel being "Gondor," standing on the front lines against "Mordor," and we're the "Shire."
No, Dave, by their own words, by their own standards, thinking Israel and United States have identical interests, and that this means the United States should put its blood and treasure into the fight against our "common foe" - the Islamonazis or whatever the hell the kids are saying now - is exactly what they believe. It's what they loudly proclaim. How can it possibly be slanderous to accuse them of believing in precisely the philosophy they evangelize for so loudly?
Neoconservatives, including Jewish neoconservatives also "emphasized the well being" of Bosnian Muslims more earlier and more strongly than anyone else. Does that make them have dual loyalties to Bosnian Muslims? It was never the same thing. They never declared the interests of Bosnia and the United States to be the same thing, they just supported military actions against a particular bad guy.
The entire dual loyalties canard is simply perverse and antisemitic to it's core as it has been for hundreds of years.
I understand what you're saying here, and it's an understandable question. Absolutely, there sure has been anti-semitism that's been expressed that way. It reminds me of the way the conservative argument about welfare creating perverse incentives kinda sorta sounds like the old racist canard about black people being lazy and wanting to live parasitically.
In both cases, there is a legitimate, if arguable, point; and then there's a nasty old racist smear that shares some superficial similarities. And then there are people (actually, Pat Buchanan in both cases!) who sort of conflate the two arguments together, use the decent argument as code to make the nasty one.
I'm pretty sure that Joke Line (whose last name is actually spelled "Klein") isn't using the argument about the neoconservative prostration before Israel (or, more accurately, Likudnik politics) as a screen for anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
Even if he could have used a better phrase than "divided loyalties." Joke Line has a remarkable tin ear for politics for someone in his position.
or, more accurately, Likudnik politics
The Likud barely exists as a political party now. If Labour made a comeback they would seek out a way to be more viscious than the Likud to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. That's the history of Israeli politics. The Likud (when they existed) felt more constrained by moral concerns (believe it or not), and Labour had to prove their zionist creds by being callous to the other. See Hero of Peace, Rabin's policy of directing soldiers to break the arms of Palestinian children throwing stones during the first intifada.
The neocons don't have any allegiances to an actual country called Israel populated by actual human beings. What they have allegiance to is an abstract idea called Israel that is on the front lines of an abstract idea called The West against an abstract enemy called Muslims aka Arabs aka Middle Easterners aka Brown People aka The Other. In the end, they only have allegiance to themselves and their intellectual movement's prominence in elite American political discourse. Talking about Israel is only useful in that wielding the anti-Semitism club is useful against anyone who dares question them. What neocons like Robert Kagan care about is using the US military as a tool of revolution to make themselves great men of history without ever having to have fired a gun. They just want to be more successful versions of Marx. If they really cared about fighting terrorism, they wouldn't pay homage to modern history's first self-described terrorist, Trotsky.
Besides, as Fukuyama pointed out, the main reason the neocons at the Weekly Standard started hyping the threat of Islam was that they felt that the GOP won more elections when foreign policy was a major concern. It's similar how Kristol said the GOP should make sure the Democrats don't pass universal health care because they Dems would then electorally benefit. They originally felt that China, as a state, was a better choice as a competitor, but 9/11 changed the equation.
Re Ed Marshall
Gee, Yitzak Rabin ordered his troops to break arms and legs. What a mean guy. Not at all like that great humanitarian, Hafaz Assad who surrounded the City of Hama with several hundred artillery pieces and subjected the inhabitants therein to 2 days of bombardment which resulted in the demise of in excess of 20,000. One only wonders at the outrage Mr. Marshall would have exhibited if Rabin had done the same to Gaza City.
Comments closed August 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Awesome.
Posted by Chris | July 30, 2008 9:43 AM