Ezra Klein: But Are The Jews Good For It?

January 27, 2007

But Are The Jews Good For It?

By Ezra

When the topics turns to Jews and their usury horns foreign policy clout,conversations become truly bizarre. Jonah:

one point that occurred to me afterwards is that Yglesias' position is very reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh's. Now, while no fan of Lindbergh's myself, I've nonetheless criticized the cartoonish demonization of the guy as well (see here and here for two recent examples). So, Yglesias shouldn't take too much offense, at least when I make the comparison. Regardless, Lindbergh believed Jews were pushing American foreign policy in an unhealthy direction, and so does Yglesias and, more significantly, so does Wes Clark. The merits and motives of the arguments surely differ in important respects, but they are similar in important respects too.

Jonah sort of tosses off that final aside about "the merits" differing, but isn't that rather important? Look, there are two claims here, either one of which can be argued with.

1) That Jews exert an outsized influence on American foreign policy. From AIPAC to The Weekly Standard to Karl Rove's admitted intent to siphon off donations from the Jewish community through unblinking support of Israel (which may also have been ideologically congruent for the administration), I tend to think this is a fairly obvious, even non-controversial point. Jews, after all, are rather overrepresented in the upper echelons of American politics. Take this conversation between such writers as Jon Chait, Matthew Yglesias, Jonah Goldberg, Ezra Klein, and Spencer Ackerman. Not a goy among them. In most contexts, this heavy representation in influential positions is something Jews are very proud of. Talk to my grandfather. Suggest that an effect of this political success is influence over foreign policy questions, however, and everyone blanches and calls for Abe Foxman.

2) That their influence is negative. This one's slightly more complicated. Depending on where you fall on the question of, say, invading Iran, you may think AIPAC's influence is just peachy. Or you may not. Or you may think it's unclear. Or you may think the Jewish community's influence lacks direction. But the merits are actually the point here, they're not just an interesting aside to be mentioned amid a lot of hand-wringing over the claim that Jews have a lot of foreign policy influence, hand-wringing being conducted largely by prominent Jews with outsized impact on the foreign policy debate.

On a somewhat related note, folks may be interested in this article I wrote on AIPAC's thuggish press control strategies and the outsized fear many in the journalistic community have of their reprisal powers.

January 27, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

What do you think would happen if we abandoned Israel?

Israel would be "wiped off the map".

I am sure that would please the Iranians, other Islamo-fascists, and most of the left, especially Jimma.

Did you all hear he supports terrorism against Israel until the Muslims get what they want? He only supports terrorism against Israel as a means for terrorists to get what they want from Israel, tho. He said so in his book.

Oh, and when he was president, Jimma Carter thought there were too many Jews on the Holocaust Memorial Commitee.

What happened to liberals? You used to support Jews. Now you don't care if Israel is obliterated. And as evident by your protest marches, liberals are firmly allied with those who want to kill Jews. Doesn't that bother you?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Jan 27, 2007 10:41:21 AM

So, Yglesias shouldn't take too much offense, at least when I make the comparison

A point that occurs to me now is that you have to be a blockhead to say something you know is offensive, then insist that noone take offense.

Posted by: Sandals | Jan 27, 2007 10:43:00 AM

Much to say, much to say. I'll say only some of it.

Point 1 concerns Jews. Point 2 concerns the Israel lobby. It's hard to gauge the net influence of the first since Jews are among the biggest critics of Israel.

I had a problem with what Clark said, and Ygelsias's defense of him, because Clark exagerrated the influence of the Israel lobby and their supporters. The problem is not that Clark pointed out that the Israel lobby was pushing for war with Iran, it's that he overstated their ability to succeed--a point that Yglesias acknowledges in the same breath that he defends him. Weird. If we shouldn't throw charges of antisemitism around, nor should we pretend that there's not a long dark history of imputing malign powers to Jews. Also, Clark called the Israel lobby the New York money people. Liberals, including me, are inclined to give Clark the benefit of the doubt because we think he's an enlightened guy, but I don't know that Yglesias would've had Pat Buchanan's back if he'd come under attack for talking about the New York Money's push for war with Iran.

AIPAC might be or might not be pushing for war with Iran, but it's silly and dangerous to think they are a force on par with the United States's perceived economic and strategic interests. Or even Bush's perceived political interests. People have an outsized interest in the influence of Jews, as opposed to, say, the influence of arms manufacturers. More than a few smart people think we went to war with Iraq to serve Israel, and such thinking denies the way the country works. The United States is an empire that serves itself, not a small country in the Middle East, which more than anything else is a strategic outpost.

Why it is that when a pol tries to rhetorically take on AIPAC he does it clumsily, in such a way that allows its defenders to accuse him of antisemitism. There's Clark, and before him Moran. Allah knows the AIPAC has a real and harmful influence; it's managed though money and PR to stifle debate to the point where not even a bold pol like Russ Feingold is willing to speak the truth about Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians. There's a much more lively and honest discussion of Israel's occupation in Israel. It's maddening. But we shouldn't mistake the capacity to influence debate for the capacity to control policy.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 27, 2007 11:04:50 AM

I'm sure someone else has said this, but the general objection to saying things like "Jews are X or Jews are doing Y" is not to pointing that Jews are in fact overrepresented in certain areas of politics, law, etc. As you say, that's an indisputable fact. People are unhappy with such terminology because it suggests that people doing Y because of their Jewishness, not that they happen to support Y and also happen to be Jews. If you say, "Jews are running the government," "Jews are influencing foreign policy," it suggests a nefarious conspiracy based on identity/religion, whereas if you say "Neoconservative thought is overrepresented in this government, and many neoconservatives are Jewish" it's pointing out the facts of the situation. "Jews are influencing foreign policy" is not accurate either- some are. Goldberg and Chait are, Klein, Yglesias, and Spackerman are sadly not, even though they're all Jewish.
Now, in the case of Israel-American relations, this is more complicated, because this is an instance where being Jewish may reasonably affect your point of view- you may be more likely to worry about guys who say they want to kill Jews just for being Jewish when you are yourself Jewish. Again, however, this causes some people (Goldberg) to lose their minds and talk about pre-emptive nukes, and some people (Yglesias) to suggest reasonable things that may actually improve the situation.

Posted by: SP | Jan 27, 2007 11:15:39 AM

With all do respect Ezra, I think you are being somewhat obtuse to the implications & ramifications of this discussion.

The question is rarely just whether Jews have an "outsized" influence on American foreign policy or any other policy aspect. "Outsized" can easily be reframed as "disproportionate" or "undue influence" and is generally cast as a tiny group of people who "control" policy. To plead ignorance at the potential anti-semitic implications of this is willful obtusion.

What does it mean to talk about the "Jewish" influence? To establish this, you've listed such names as Jonah Goldberg, Ezra Klein, Jon Chait & Matt Yglesias. Certainly the primary factors driving these people's diverse positions on policy, foreign & domestic alike is something more than their "Jewishness." So why the handwringing?

In identifying the "Jewish" influence you named the publication the Weekly Standard. Does the Weekly Standard have any goy editors or goy writers, or do they have to sign the pact before their published? Does the Weekly Standard, as a Jewish publication differ markedly from say, National Review via it's editorial stances on Foreign & Domestic affairs, or has NR been penetrated as well. What is the baseline of Jewry by which something is identified as "Jewish" or "Jewish controlled" and where along grid does say "The media" or "Hollywood" fall?

With such a disturbing over representation of Jews among the movers & shakers of the world, are you at all disturbed by the outsized influence they exert over our country? Isn't the ridiculously outsized influence of a tiny, politically homogeneous minority in proportion to other groups, including the white goy majority de facto a negative? Should we perhaps put a cap on the number of Jews we permit to make foreign & domestic policy decisions, lest risk such a tiny elite to drive our country off a cliff?

Posted by: potter | Jan 27, 2007 11:29:14 AM

I don't know that Yglesias would've had Pat Buchanan's back if he'd come under attack for talking about the New York Money's push for war with Iran.

I'm actually pretty sure he would. Remember Matt Y.'s defense of Bill Bennett's "abort every black baby" line as non-racist. I imagine Matt would say that yes, Pat Buchanan is an unpalatable character with a long history of anti-semitism, but that doesn't make this particular observation (that is, that wealthy Israel hawks, largely Jewish and many in NYC, are pushing for a military confrontation with Iran) untrue.

More than a few smart people think we went to war with Iraq to serve Israel, and such thinking denies the way the country works. The United States is an empire that serves itself, not a small country in the Middle East, which more than anything else is a strategic outpost.

But if US foreign policy was entirely directed by (perceived) self-interest and the logic of the military-industrial complex, we'd have something akin to brute Kissingerian realism, which wouldn't have landed us in a massive nation-building/region-resculpting project in Iraq. Indeed, recent US policy in the Mideast has been wildly at odds with American interests in the region. There were obviously other interests and influences at work, and it's natural for people to look for them - and while it's certainly simplistic to just point the finger at Israel, it's also certainly naive to pretend that the influence of prominent Israel hawks has had nothing or little to do with recent US policy.

Posted by: Christmas | Jan 27, 2007 11:47:25 AM

"it's also certainly naive to pretend that the influence of prominent Israel hawks has had nothing or little to do with recent US policy."

Of course. As I said, it's one factor among many. It's a matter of emphasis. And I said *perceived* US interests--that is, the imperatives of Empire. Wes Clark has condmemned the influence of Jewish American hawks--fair enough--but has he EVER condemned the notion of Empire? Has Yglesias, for that matter? Have they ever argued that it would better for us and the world if the United States was less powerful, not more? Can't we all agree that the War in Iraq had much less to do with protecting and expanding Israel power than protecting and expanding American power?

The war in Iraq and a potential war in Iran are the product of a bipartisan, Jew-Gentile consenus, to which Wes Clark belongs, that believes that American military might should be projected around the world. If you don't tell the whole story and focus on Jews, well..."

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 27, 2007 12:06:08 PM

Potter--
What's really going on here is the sort of "identity politics" people like Goldberg are very critical of in other contexts. It's not disturbing that Jews are disproportionately represented in foreign policy debates. But it is disturbing that some very potent members of this debate view everything through the prism of the question's Ezra's title was playing with: Is it good for the Jews? You wrote, "Certainly the primary factors driving these people's diverse positions on policy, foreign & domestic alike is something more than their 'Jewishness.'" But this is precisely what's at issue here. By their own admission, the most hawkish Jewish foreign policy pundits feel a stronger bond with Israel than, say, Irish American foreign policy pundits feel with Ireland. What Matt and Ezra are saying is that the manifestations of this bond may not always be what's best for America, and "the potential anti-Semitic implications" you refer to only make sense if you regard this concern as motivated by a suspicion of Jews in general as opposed to a suspicion of an expansionary tribalism that Matt and Ezra would probably be just as likely to harbor toward the larger America-Fuck-Yeah crowd.

So to review, here is the rough argument being made:

1. Making one's ethnic identity the primary basis for one's foreign policy views can easily lead one astray.
2. Some Jewish hawks form their foreign policy views primarily on the basis of their ethnic identity.
3. The mechanism by which some Jewish hawks form their foreign policy views can easily lead them astray.
4. These same Jewish hawks have a voice in the foreign policy debate that is much more prominent than it would be if it were proportioned to the percentage of the country who share their identification with Israel.
5. A prominent voice in the foreign policy debate offers judgments formed via a mechanism that can easily lead one astray.

Posted by: Ashish George | Jan 27, 2007 12:12:02 PM

Talking about Jews or anti-Semitism really misses the point.

The underlying problem here is that the American political system allows small, unrepresentative pressure groups to have outsized influence on our nation's foreign policy. During the Cold War, our Latin American policies were to a large extent dictated by large agricultural corporations. For half a century, our policy towards Cuba has been in the hands of the exile maniacs. And our policy towards Israel and the Arab world is so lopsided because of the influence of extremist Zionist groups (not all of which are even Jewish).

I don't know how to fix this. Ultimately, it would probably require both eliminating the electoral college and geographical representation in favor of a system of proportional representation, and full public financing of campaigns with a complete ban on private contributions. Of course, both of these provisions are politically impossible because they would require Constitutional amendments. This means that, for the forseeable future, our foreign policy is doomed to be an incoherent mess, run for the benefit of whatever groups can provide the biggest bribes to politicians or the most significant electoral contributions.

I suspect if the nation's largest Islamic community was located in Ohio or Florida instead of Michigan, our policy towards the Islamic world would be more even-handed. Call me cynical.

Posted by: Josh G. | Jan 27, 2007 12:12:29 PM

People have an outsized interest in the influence of Jews, as opposed to, say, the influence of arms manufacturers.

Not at all. In US policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians, Jews, as a group, have had a greater impact than any other group. And Jews are obviously disproportionately influential in more diffuse ways in many other areas, something that I don't see any downside to; on the contrary, it seems to me that's been a very good thing for all concerned. But in regard to Israel, the influence has been decidedly negative, on the whole, distorting policy and discouraging sufficient checks on Israeli policy for the decades since 1948 in a way that have made the entire region far more dangerous than it would probably be otherwise. And it isn't getting any safer. In indirect ways, our policies toward Israel have probably been as destructive to our interests and the Middle East as any other policies over the last 50 years. The only reason to doubt how terrible the effects are in comparison to the alternatives is that we might well have managed to screw things up almost as badly in some other way. But the actual effects of our actual policies have been terrible.

There is indeed a lively discussion among Jews, and within Israel, over Israeli policies, and many of Israel's harshest critics are Jews. However, the mainstream in Israel and among the hard core of US Israel supporters is still one based in the bad faith of willful blindness from the start, with a distorted mythology that passes for history, and an unwillingness to face the moral contradictions and hypocrisy inherent in Israel from the beginning to this moment. Sure there are Jews and Israelis who point these things out, but they're not calling the shots, literally or figuratively.

Just saying this, or far less, brings out the charges of anti-Semitism, something as useful to its makers as it is paranoid and in bad faith. In this thread it's already out, in subtle but still inexcusable forms.

Where does this lead? Younger Jews, it appears to me, are more and more aware of the things I'm talking about (whether they would ever see them quite as I do or not), and are, I hope, going to more and more argue for sane policies towards Israel and within Israel. Unfortunately, things have gotten so bad as a result of past policies, I'm not sure there is anything in the short term that can be done to greatly improve things. Any hope for stability surrounding Israel must be for the long term. But this is an area in which Jews who identify with Israel or with Jewish concerns more generally have taken and must bear a special responsibility. It's good to see increasing stirrings of that.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 12:46:15 PM

What do you think would happen if we abandoned Israel?
Israel would be "wiped off the map".

Riiiiiight. So there's absolutely no middle ground between supporting a client state to run roughshod over its neighbours and destabalise the whole region and abandoning it to be overrun by the screaming Berber hordes.

Idiot.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 27, 2007 1:07:27 PM

M. J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe had an interesting post yesterday on these same issues.

He reports on conversations he had with a group of friends that drifted from a discussion about the Carter book to the more general question of who can feel comfortable criticizing Israel. He says: If this sample of Americans is at all representative, non-Jewish Americans feel very inhibited about talking about Israel out of fear that any criticism will be labeled "anti-Semitism.

I think this is correct and that supporters of Israel are far, far too prone to brandish the anti-semitism charge. That will backfire when the more silent Americans who are more willing to be even-handed between the Israelis and Palestinians finally overcome their hesitations because they feel the US is being led astray in the mideast - likely after a big blowup that harms the US overtly. Iran could be that spark.

As to the present discussion here, I think too much is being made of a youngish group of writers (like Ezra and Matt Y) and too little of long-time entrenched policy activitists deeply embedded in both government institutions and media. Guys like Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, etc. Sometimes it is hard for me to distinguish AIPAC from PNAC because of seemingly overlapping people and policy.

For myself, I'm supportive of the US guaranteeing the existence of Israel from being attacked and subjugated, but unwilling to continue US support of the Israeli government pursuing land policy versus the Palestinians that is just naked aggression masked as security settlements.

Only when we distinguish general support for the country and people of Israel from support for particular policies of the Israeli government will I feel we are on the right course. The UN voted Israel into existence in 1948 (after they had de-facto established their country), but that did not include the right of Israel to dominate the entire land area of former colonial Palestine.

The US has lost its credibility (in my mind) to act as an honest broker of a settlement between the parties. Will any other power-group replace this role of mediator?

I see no solution to the land issues forthcoming in the next couple of decades. For now, I'm more concerned that some kind of Israeli-American collaboration will lead us into yet another mideast war with Iran. That's where my concern about Israeli influence in the media and government is focused. Guys like Marty Peretz make me very nervous solely because of that concern - otherwise I could easily ignore his racist ranting.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 27, 2007 2:04:52 PM

I find most of this argument very distasteful and offensive. Somehow I don't remember Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon as controlled by the Jewish lobby in establishing ME policy. I remember factors like oil and Soviet influence being important. I doubt that the shifting positions we took in the Iran/Iraq war or Afghanistan were dictated by AIPAC. Israel as Democracy and Israel as Christian Holy Site seem at least as politically important as Zionism.

This is the kind of discussion that said the Pan-Arabism of Nasser and the Baathists was a direct result and wholly determined of our support for Israel. It not only reeks of anti-Semitism, it also likely contains a some prejudice toward Arabs and Muslims as autonomous actors.

There are no easy or simple answers in the ME, and the solution oof the I/P territorial disputes will not instantly resolve Sunni/Shia disputes in Iraq or cause Mubarek to become a Democrat.

"Irish American foreign policy pundits feel with Ireland."

Too long have the Celtic peoples been separated from their brothers in Wales and Scotland and Normandy. Just sayin'

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 2:19:57 PM

To plead ignorance at the potential anti-semitic implications of this is willful obtusion.

My concern is with the nonchalance over Clark's choice of words: "rich Jews." Those are words that, within living memory, incited and preceded pogroms. Even if you agree with the "substance" of what Clark was supposed to have said, his choice of words should elicit more condemnation than it has here.

Imagine that a religious conservative said that "'secular Jews' are trying to drive religion from American public life." I suspect that Clark twenty-something apologists would (rightly) take offense and (rightly) dismiss the kind of parsing Ezra did here. No one would care about the composition of the ACLU (which is headed by a Puerto Rican) or Americans United (which is led by a Protestant minister) because the bigotry and potential harm in that statement is the kind of thing that isn't concerned with or counteracted by the facts. The same goes for throwing "rich Jews" around.

Posted by: Roberto | Jan 27, 2007 2:24:00 PM

"That's where my concern about Israeli influence in the media and government is focused. Guys like Marty Peretz make me very nervous solely because of that concern - otherwise I could easily ignore his racist ranting" JPO

Geez. I suppose I am to be accused of calling people anti-Semites, but there is no shortage of Americans who are Islamophobic, prejudiced against Arabs, and hawkish toward Iran. Why exactly do we find it so useful to ascribe these positions to Peretz's ethnicity in his case?

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 2:27:56 PM

Bob sez:Why exactly do we find it so useful to ascribe these positions to Peretz's ethnicity in his case?

Mostly because he has said it is so, and not just a few times.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 27, 2007 2:34:05 PM

last night, i rewatched "platoon"....
thinking of the "surge",the catastrophe in iraq, the escalation now with iran...the tragic situation between the israelis and palestinians...
bombs exploding in anciant universities, pet markets filled with people and animals...the trading of verbal and veiled insults that ignite ancient hatreds and strife......
what is the matter with us.....
why is peace so unattainable in light of the catastrophic suffering of war and hatred.
why do human beings sacrifice their humanity and walk down that path of horrors.
blessed are the peacemakers.
if only there were more of them/any of them, now.
the events of the day grow more and more upsetting.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jan 27, 2007 2:48:54 PM

"Mostly because he has said it is so, and not just a few times."

That Peretz and Charles Johnson (or Cheney) are both wrong on the Middle East for different, similar, or related reasons is not all that interesting to me. Nor honestly is the fact that Jonah Goldberg and Ezra Klein are both Jewish, in some sense, maybe the same way I am Irish-Catholic, which means not very.

For fifty years I have been hearing that everything between Morocco and the Hindu-Kush is determined by I/P; from fervent supporters of Israel, opponents, and everyone in between.

I am so frigging tired of it. It's bullshit.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 2:51:35 PM

Somehow I don't remember Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon as controlled by the Jewish lobby in establishing ME policy.

Bob, you just don't remember. Truman was moved by what he saw as humanitarian reasons, very much affected by influential Jewish arguments for a homeland, fueled with Holocaust-related guilt that distorted perceptions of how harebrained an idea it really was in the form it took. By the time of Nixon the Jewish lobby was already legendary in its influence over policy towards Israel. You try to make what is said in this thread seem unreasonable by associating it with exaggerated views, rather than by addressing the views actually expressed. I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but the effects of the policies involved are cause for far greater discomfort. These things need airing.

My concern is with the nonchalance over Clark's choice of words: "rich Jews." Those are words that, within living memory, incited and preceded pogroms.

So are you worried about pogroms, Roberto, or is there some other reason not to refer to rich Jews by those words? If I thought there was a danger to Jews from these words I might join you in your concern, but I don't.

Imagine that a religious conservative said that "'secular Jews' are trying to drive religion from American public life."

If it's true, then I wouldn't criticize it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 2:58:49 PM

regardless of the opinion one holds,i think the term "rich jews" carries a connotation that makes jewish people very nervous...and rightfully so.
there is an insidiousness that lies beneath using a phrase like that, and i think it is not responsible for people in position of leadership to use that kind of language.
phrases with those kinds of undertones are inciteful.
they do not further the discussion in a way that is helpful....it is the kind of phrase that re-opens old wounds and prejudices.
.....it is troubling.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jan 27, 2007 3:09:02 PM

For fifty years I have been hearing that everything between Morocco and the Hindu-Kush is determined by I/P; from fervent supporters of Israel, opponents, and everyone in between.

If that's true, that's obviously wrong. But I rarely hear people making that argument. Usually it's as someone has said above: (a) on most things, most people just don't care, (b) that leaves politicians available to suasion, of sorts good and bad, by small groups that actually have pretty limited agendas, (c) Israel policy, for a long time, was one of the things most people didn't really care about (and for all I know, that remains true). This isn't a critique that depends on someone being Jewish, except insofar as being Jewish makes someone more likely to care about Israel policy. As I think others have said, we did look the other way on IRA support for a long time--as far as I know, no one claims AIPAC wasn't behind that.

I agree that the tenor of these conversations can get creepy very quickly. It occasionally does sound like people are arguing about the existence of Seekrit Magic Jews who control the world. Some--I just saw someone at MY's place--are. Those people are complete loons, and pretty much every sane person recognizes that.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jan 27, 2007 3:28:09 PM

Even in light of Sanpete's two contributions, it's interesting to see how much more fundamentally decent the discussion over here is compared to Matt's, which over the last few days, seems to be a magnet for every reject off of David Duke's mailing list combing the internet.

Posted by: DRR | Jan 27, 2007 3:30:42 PM

the term "rich jews" carries a connotation that makes jewish people very nervous

It can, jacqueline, I'll grant you that. I don't see any reason to suspect such connotations from Clark. But you may be right that those in positions of leadership shouldn't speak quite that way, just to be safe. I'm not sure Clark qualifies for that, and will accept more casual speech from him in his current position.

DRR, I'm glad to see that I've passed to the left of David Duke. Matt gets a lot more exposure, so he attracts more of everything. But that's part of what I like about Ezra's discussions. Despite me, they tend to be more decent than many.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 3:51:38 PM

An example:George Bush, in IIRC his only overseas excursion before becoming President, has visited Israel and in his very limited way I suspect was aware of some of the I/P issues. But Bush was completely unaware of the Sunni/Shia division in Iraq.

The continued focus on the "Jewish Lobby" is counterproductive and dangerous, besides overstating their influence. I honestly worry more about Saudi/Carlyle influence than Jewish influence.

Was/is the Saud/Wahhabist takeover of Mecca/Medina, after centuries of traditional and religious sanctioned Hashemite responsibility a reason Heshemite Jordan is friendlier to the West than other Islamic Nations?

That Egypt has been the intellectual center of Islamic scholarship, both moderate and extremist, have to do with a political structure or being the most popular form of Sunni jurisprudence? By me.

How does the Old Ottoman Empire still manifest itself in Arabic geography? What does Osama's desire for a renewed Caliphate really mean?

We are so completely distracted, and I think the distraction is intentional, and not by Jews and Israelis. Abdullah of Saudi Arabia arabic title is Caliph, mistranslated for us as "King" and so is the title of the ruler of Jordan. But there can only be one Caliph at a time, being both political and religious leader of Arabic Islam. That the Caliphate was centered in Baghdad (Damascus?) probably has relevance for Saudi/Iraqi/Iranian relations.

All of the above might be completely wrong, I only dabble. But all the focus on I/P, AIPAC and the Jews means very few are even dabbling.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 4:07:41 PM

People who had a problem with what Clark said are the same people who always have a problem with this sort of thing. It's remarkable how unhinged the supporters of Israel are. Attacking anyone who criticizes them or their American lobby. they shriek and howl so often it's hard to take them seriously anymore.

Nothing makes you all special. You're not above criticism and you're not perfect. We can't be forced to see your favorite (or second favorite) nation as some bastion of civilization among the subhuman, barbarian hordes. And that's how you always sound when you describe it, so save your accusations of bigotry.
You're as bad as mac cultists. Only, you know, With them they just call stupid instead of racist. And Mac cultists can't get you fired or prevent people from being able to work in newsrooms. So I guess you're all a lot worse.

Posted by: soullite | Jan 27, 2007 4:16:10 PM

sanpete...

regarding the acceptance of what is said in "casual speech"....i think we have a responsibility for the things we say, even in the most casual conversation.
i have found that many prejudices and inflammatory unkindnesses, often begin in "casual speech" and ruthless humor, around the dinner table and family conversations....and often with children present.
.....i think that many dialogues and a myriad of other inflammatory remarks and aspersions are planted as subliminal seeds in "harmless and casual" conversation and ruthless humor, especially with children present.
...lethal conversations,that at their worst, often make bigotry a laughing matter, whether it is about sex, race,religion,occupation...and children retain it all.
the prejudices we learn in our early, casual encounters often leave the deepest and most dangerous imprints...and prejudice can be a hard thing to unlearn.
some of the most prejudical things i have ever heard, have come out of the mouths of young children...and it is surely no fault of their own.
....words surely take on a life of their own.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jan 27, 2007 4:18:37 PM

Ezra, while I agree with your assessment of Jews' disproportionate influence in journalism and politics (why not throw in Hollywood, while we're at it?), there's a reason why Jews get uneasy when the topic comes up. What coming from you passes for candor has historically been and continues to be couched language or preamble for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Which is why non-Jews who don't care to be identified as anti-Semites often tread lightly when discussing it. (M.J. Rosenberg just discussed this, among other things, over at TPMCafe.)

Posted by: Headline Junky | Jan 27, 2007 4:21:35 PM

The continued focus on the "Jewish Lobby" is counterproductive and dangerous

Why, Bob? There is also plenty of concern about the other pressure groups you've mentioned. Each deserves attention. I think some of your concerns about the Caliphate are based more on propaganda than reality, and to the extent there is cause for concern about the future of the region, it's been made worse by our policies towards Israel, sometimes in fairly remarkable ways.

I'm not among those who blame the pro-Israel lobby for Iraq, though they may have had some part, and am not especially concerned about their influence driving us into Iran. I'm not even sure Israel was/is convinced that either was/would be such a great thing. But the blind spot some key policy makers and pundits, including Jews who identify personally with Israeli goals, have towards Israel and its enemies has made the case for such things far easier than it should be.

Jacqueline, if I thought what Clark said was bigoted, I'd agree with you, but I don't see that.

HJ, you're right about the cause of reticence. We shouldn't let loonies control the discussion, though, even indirectly. In fact, the reticence probably ultimately leads to more loonies, as the repression suppresses more moderate views and attracts a certain kind of person to fill the void with extremism.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 4:36:40 PM

Up above, on John's thread, I posted a link to Steve Clemons. In the comments to that post, Dan Kervick explains that it is Saudi Arabia driving America to war with Iran, not Israel.

Now most of us remember the recent Cheney trip, and the threats Saudi Arabia made to keep the US in Iraq, and obvious sectarian motivations, yet all I read on the Webs, even the best blogs, is that AIPAC and Israel are pushing us toward war with Iran.

This is very very wrong.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 5:02:31 PM

So are you worried about pogroms, Roberto, or is there some other reason not to refer to rich Jews by those words?

Sanpete, there are approximately 2000 years worth of history behind phrases like that that warrants at least a little concern. The history of the Jewish people provides ample reason to suspect that "rich Jews" is more than an adjectival phrase.

Posted by: Roberto | Jan 27, 2007 5:23:44 PM

Bob, the connection between the I/P conflict and everything in the Muslim world is fairly simple--the Israeli oppression of Palestinians gives Muslim autocrats an issue they can use to distract attention from their own failings. The same was true with South Africa--so long as the apartheid regime was there the dictators in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa could breathe a little easier, knowing that their own crimes wouldn't receive as much attention. But no, Israel and South Africa were not responsible for the failings of other governments, though both countries did in fact cause a fair amount of suffering for some civilians in neighboring countries. South Africa more so, with its proxy wars in Angola and Mozambique (one of which we supported). Israel's chief external sins have been against Lebanon.

And the fact that there is also a pro-Saudi lobby with an unhealthy influence over American policy is no reason not to talk about the unhealthy influence of AIPAC. There's no stigma attached to criticism of the Saudi influence--apparently that was one of the themes of "Fahrenheit 9/11" (which I never saw) and the only criticism I remember seeing of that as showing anti-Arab racism was at the far left site "Counterpunch". Judging from what the critic said, he might have had a point about the movie, but in general I don't think too many people equate criticism of the Saudi lobby with anti-Arab racism, though I don't doubt that some of the criticism probably is tainted by anti-Arab racism, just as criticism of Israel brings out the antisemites.

As for which lobby is more dangerous, I don't know. There might be some danger in having the US continually revealed as hypocritical in our claim to stand for human rights--Muslims can look at how many American politicians in both parties refuse to criticize Israel when they bomb Lebanese civilians and oppress Palestinians and rightly conclude that we don't mean it. Not that the Muslim world is a model of moral consistency. But neither are we. And you don't get to tell the Muslim world what issues concern it --if they insist on caring about the Palestinians then how we act on the issue is going to matter. (It should matter anyway.)

As for the possible upcoming war on Iran, there's nothing that says there can't be more than one group pushing for war. If Democrats end up supporting Bush in bombing Iran, will that be because of the Saudi lobby? My impression is that the Saudi lobby is a largely Republican phenomenon, but I might be wrong.

Though that said, I don't think either lobby controls US policy--they just exert pressure. If there's a war on Iran, it'll be because Bush/Cheney want it.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | Jan 27, 2007 5:40:24 PM

Please keep in mind that Clark never said "rich Jews" - I'm not sure where that came from, but it's not what he said. He said "New York money people" which has been interpreted as "rich Jews."

Posted by: mexdem | Jan 27, 2007 6:18:51 PM

Thanks for the correction, mexdem. That may seem better to some. Maybe.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 6:25:34 PM

Have American Jews a great influence on the foreign politics of the U.S.A?
Not at all.
Have American Jews or more exactly certain lobby-groups a disproportionate influence on the american politics vis-a-vis Israel?
Yes, indeed. And anybody who denies this is a bit dishonest.
But why has one ethnic group such a great influence?
Because Israel is a small, unimportant country with a insignificant population.

Posted by: IM | Jan 27, 2007 7:01:42 PM

In the seventies american foreign politics were directed by a prominent Jew. But did Kissinger favor Israel? No. He was much more interested in drawing important Egypt from the russian into the american orbit of influence. His "shuttle diplomacy" was quite favorably to Egypt.
So AIPAC and other lobby-groups are only able to make american policy blindly favoring Israel in conflicts against other small people of no account: Palestinians, Lebanese and so on.
In any conflict between Israel and important arabic states like Saudi-Arabia or Egypt American foreign policy is pretty even-handed.
So being blindly pro Israel is just like the inexpensive vice of a rich man: wrong but affordable.

Posted by: IM | Jan 27, 2007 7:13:57 PM

Clark may or may not be a secret anti-Semite but most of the comments here are reinterpreting what he actually said. Clark never said rich Jews but instead New York money people. Maybe Sanpete is right and this actually means rich Jews but the phrase moneymen is widely understood to mean high end fundraisers. (TPM has had several recent posts about the battle to sign up Kerry's top moneymen)
Clark actually said "the Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." I assumed from this statement Clark didn't actually mean money people of any type are influencing the Bush administration but that they influencing the current crop of Democratic canidates for the presidency. I thought he was arguing none of the presidential candidates will take a strong stand against war with Iran because they don't want to upset some of their fundraisers and donors and therefore the chances for war are much greater. I think it is suspect to assume only Democratic presidential candidates are the only ones who can prevent war with Iran but this group will certainly dominate the media for the next year.

Next time Clark should just say Haim Saban will not fund Democrats if they come out strongly against war with Iran.(assuming this is actually true)

Posted by: Power Ranger | Jan 27, 2007 7:27:16 PM

bob:

yet all I read on the Webs, even the best blogs, is that AIPAC and Israel are pushing us toward war with Iran. seems contradicted by In the comments to that post, Dan Kervick explains that it is Saudi Arabia driving America to war with Iran, not Israel. Moreover, if you've never heard the "No Blood for Oil" argument, you need to turn in your hippie card. If you think we can go to war with Iran without hearing it again, you need to turn in your Cassandra card.

Everything I've seen relates to Yglesias's posts (which all relate to earlier claims about Clark), which would explain the focus of other posts. AFAIK, MY has focused on public justifications for a war on Iran among the fairly small subset of people who would know (or not know) enough about mags like TNR or WS or WP/NYT op-ed to attach some special credibility to their writings. I don't think that the relevant set of people is made up solely of Likudniks, but--setting aside everything else, including MY's right to write about whatever subset of issues he wants--I'm not aware of any Saudis or Saudi lobbying groups doing such work. But if there are some, it would be interesting to know about it, and someone should write about it.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jan 27, 2007 9:21:31 PM

"I'm not aware of any Saudis or Saudi lobbying groups doing such work"

Matt & Ezra & Spackerman aren't invited to go hunting on Bandar's English estate. Part of the problem is that the Israeli and Saudi lobbies work their wills in very different ways; the Israelis using the tools available, media and intellectual think tanks and public lobbying groups. This draws the attention of young defensive pundits like Matthew and Ackerman; I happen to think that is partly intentional; the forever I/P conflict serves many interests.

The Saudis have very different tools, which are intentionally kept much less public. But I definitely know that compared to oil prices and availability, trillions of dollars in Western companies, reserve dollar status and massive ownership of US bonds and dollar assets; and critical influence over world-wide Islamic opinion

compared to Marty Peretz & AIPAC

which of the two is likely to actually drive US foreign policy.

We could conceivably tell Israel to go to hell; we simply can no longer afford Saudi Arabia as an active enemy. SA could destroy us.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 27, 2007 9:36:29 PM

It shouldn't be hard to find out whether or not AIPAC and other Jewish funders are pressuring or planning to pressure Democratic presidential candidates and/or Congressional candidates not to oppose war with Iran. In any case, there's no chance that Democratic candidates would heed the wishes of the Israeli lobby against the wishes of voters, which would overwhelming oppose war with Iran. This is the problem with Clark's comment (for which he's apologized and for which he should be given a break). Anyone who thinks that Jewish funders can drag a country into war against the wishes of the population is gulity of, at the very least, poor political analysis. Call me a paranoid Jew, but it seems to me that several people in this comment thread probably agree with the sentiment expressed by Clark.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 27, 2007 9:41:32 PM

One more thing: this discussion, as well as the side discussion that McManus and friends are having, is symptomatic of an analytical sickness on the left called: find the one cause. It's laziness, a failure of imagination, a desire for the world to be simpler than it is. It's oil! It's the Jews! It's Empire! (That's the best one if you need just one; it's the one I usually go for). It's all those, of course, and several others. What we saw with the war in Iraq was the convergence of the political (Enron and the midterm elections), economic (oil, arms companies, potential profiteering), philisophical (neoconservatism, Zionism), personal (Bush and his daddy). Etc...

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 27, 2007 9:52:33 PM

One ironic thing here, at least from my perspective, is that Wes Clark's mom, Veneta, hid Clark's Jewish heritage from him after his father, Benjamin Kanne, died when Wesley was four, apparently fearing that Wesley being a known Jew would make him vulnerable to antisemitism of, for example, the contemporary Ku Klux Klan. The irony is that in obscuring Clark's Jewish ancestry (which most people don't seem to be conscious of, even if they've heard it at some point and it's in the public domain), she might have made him more vulnerable to [i]accusations[/i] of antisemitism.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Jan 27, 2007 10:35:28 PM

Another ironic thing is that Ezra Klein's comments are not a UBB-format bulletin board, and as such, greater than and less than signs, rather than square brackets, are needed for tags.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Jan 27, 2007 10:52:28 PM

Another ironic thing is that Ezra Klein's comments are not a UBB-format bulletin board, and as such, greater than and less than signs, rather than square brackets, are needed for tags.

I think I see the irony, in that Ezra favors a square deal rather than continuing inequalities.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 27, 2007 11:01:31 PM

In most contexts, this heavy representation in influential positions is something Jews are very proud of. Talk to my grandfather. Suggest that an effect of this political success is influence over foreign policy questions, however, and everyone blanches and calls for Abe Foxman.

Actually, the kind of person who "blanches and calls for Abe Foxman" is typically the kind of person that, at the beginning of the Iraq war was saying things like "isn't it just amazing how the U.S. is such a good friend to Israel that we're taking out one of Israel's enemies?" or in 2004 was saying things like "we Jews should vote for GW Bush because he's so good for Israel".

Seems to me when such people blanch and call Abe Foxman, they are doing a little but of projecting considering how they make the same kinds of statements and are very proud of the influence they think "the Jews" have on foreign policy. And they then accuse people like me of being self-hating Jews?

Posted by: DAS | Jan 28, 2007 12:38:53 PM

"Anyone who thinks that Jewish funders can drag a country into war against the wishes of the population is gulity of, at the very least, poor political analysis."

I don't know if that applies to anyone here. But a group lobbying for war will probably spend some time trying to persuade the population that there is a good reason for it. That's true whether we're talking about Saudi lobbies or Israel lobbies or any other sort of lobby someone wants to mention.

The most vehement Likudnik types I know personally are rightwing Christian evangelicals and to the extent the Israel lobby does have influence, I suspect that concern for the votes of Christians who think Israel can do no wrong plays a major role in it. John Edwards is from the South--he may be thinking of people like this. And to the extent that Bush still has support for further wars, a lot of it will be from his Christian evangelical base.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | Jan 28, 2007 1:03:21 PM

I was really intrigued by Noam Chomsky's take on the influence of the "Israel lobby" on US foreign policy: that if you look at the US policies in the Middle East, yeah they are a lot of the times fucked up and evil, but really, they look a lot like our policies in Central America, Southeast Asia, and pretty much anywhere else we've decided to stick our collective noses in. So why even look to assign blame for our Israel policy in the first place?

In fact, you could conceive of the presumed causal relationship Ezra cites being reversed: Jews are overrepresented in the upper echelons of political influence precisely because they give the Powers That Be a way of redirecting criticism of Middle East policy.

Posted by: tps12 | Jan 29, 2007 12:50:46 PM

I think I see the irony, in that Ezra favors a square deal rather than continuing inequalities.

Posted by: Sanpete

That pun is the most annoying thing I can remember reading on these comment threads, and yes, that's counting the turds Toke obsessively leaves in the metaphorical punchbowl every so often.

Congratulations, sir, I salute you, as a professional pest to an amateur of Olympic quality.

Posted by: Cyrus | Jan 29, 2007 1:49:52 PM

40% of Princeton's student body is Jewish. It's gone from "Gentleman's Agreement" outright discrimination to this. Does anybody see a problem in this? I mean, when you really think about it- is THAT "good for the Jews"? Obviously, there has never been a safer refuge for Jews than the U.S. But, times are bad now for a lot of people. There's human nature to consider. And, yet, by never hearing word 1 about that startling statistic- it can actually fuel significant anti-Semitism. If Princeton were 40% Italian or Irish now or let's say black- we would've all heard it by now. And yet, Jews are what? Less than 3% of America.?

Posted by: Devon | Jan 29, 2007 7:45:47 PM

40% of Princeton's student body is Jewish.

Really? Does Princeton track and publish that kind of thing?

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 29, 2007 8:23:05 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 3, 2007 6:57:46 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis cheap | Jul 3, 2007 9:18:38 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis soft | Jul 4, 2007 12:07:35 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: order levitra | Jul 4, 2007 10:51:04 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Eagles download | Jul 4, 2007 3:16:19 PM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Bob Seger download | Jul 4, 2007 10:32:55 PM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Deep Purple download | Jul 5, 2007 12:09:44 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Iron Maiden download | Jul 5, 2007 1:48:13 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Nickelback download | Jul 5, 2007 7:26:30 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Meat Loaf download | Jul 5, 2007 9:28:21 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Eagles mp3 | Jul 5, 2007 11:19:52 AM

sale@mp3.com

Posted by: Deep Purple mp3 | Jul 5, 2007 8:44:15 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis generic | Jul 13, 2007 4:04:58 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: buy levitra | Jul 13, 2007 6:38:24 AM

cheap@giag.com

Posted by: generic viagra | Jul 27, 2007 8:19:51 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: cheap viagra | Jul 27, 2007 10:01:57 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: discount viagra | Jul 27, 2007 11:43:59 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: buy generic viagra | Jul 28, 2007 1:34:01 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: purchase viagra | Jul 28, 2007 3:28:03 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: order online viagra | Jul 28, 2007 6:42:26 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: online viagra | Jul 28, 2007 8:26:53 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: prescription viagra | Jul 28, 2007 9:59:32 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra discount | Jul 28, 2007 11:43:38 AM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: buy cialis | Jul 28, 2007 2:59:03 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: generic cialis | Jul 28, 2007 4:48:48 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 28, 2007 10:20:35 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: buy online cialis | Jul 28, 2007 11:58:42 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis cheap | Jul 29, 2007 1:35:53 AM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cheapest cialis | Jul 29, 2007 3:10:55 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: buy levitra | Jul 29, 2007 6:23:41 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: cheap levitra | Jul 29, 2007 7:55:10 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: generic levitra | Jul 29, 2007 9:57:15 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: buy viagra | Jul 29, 2007 1:28:57 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: generic viagra | Jul 29, 2007 3:11:03 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: discount viagra | Jul 29, 2007 6:34:37 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: purchase viagra | Jul 29, 2007 10:03:48 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: online viagra | Jul 30, 2007 3:07:15 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: prescription viagra | Jul 30, 2007 4:39:58 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra discount | Jul 30, 2007 6:17:29 AM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: buy cialis | Jul 30, 2007 9:38:03 AM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cheap cialis | Jul 30, 2007 1:47:06 PM

cheap@cialis.com

Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 30, 2007 4:28:09 PM

Just by browsing http://www.4viagraonline.com , you can buy viagra to quickly combat erectile dysfunction.

Posted by: viagra | Aug 5, 2007 4:40:54 AM

Jonah sort of tosses off that final aside about "the merits" differing, but isn't that rather important? Look, there are two claims here, either one of which can be argued with.

Posted by: Daniel | Aug 5, 2007 4:48:46 AM

So, Yglesias shouldn't take too much offense, at least when I make the comparison

A point that occurs to me now is that you have to be a blockhead to say something you know is offensive, then insist that noone take offense.

Posted by: Sandals | Aug 5, 2007 4:50:50 AM

Another ironic thing is that Ezra Klein's comments are not a UBB-format bulletin board, and as such, greater than and less than signs, rather than square brackets, are needed for tags.

I think I see the irony, in that Ezra favors a square deal rather than continuing inequalities.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 5, 2007 5:00:12 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘