Ezra Klein: Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Semites

« The Super Army | Main | Cooking With Criticism »

February 15, 2007

Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Semites

Sort of without me noticing, TNR's various blogs, writers, and outlets have been hosting a rollicking debate on anti-semites. Bret Stephens, for instance, thinks what's really important is a finely tuned ant-semite-radar, because, "spotting an anti-Semite...requires forensic skills, interpretive wits, and moral judgment." That, I think, is among the most hilarious lines I've ever read, at least until we get to the totally earnest conclusion of, "still, were it up to me Judt, Mearsheimer, Carter et al would be run out of polite society. What's wrong with that?"

Alan Wolfe proceeds to inform Stephens of exactly what's wrong with that. David Greenberg timidly disagrees, and says, "I rather wish that the same outrage that attaches to using the term anti-Semite would attach to using words like "Nazi," "apartheid," and "war crimes" in reference to the Jewish state." Which is weird, because a few sentences earlier, he positively endorses the use of the term "anti-semite" "to shake the scales from the eyes of naifs" who believe words like "apartheid" and "war crimes" can be used in good faith. So it's really not clear what he thinks of any of these words. Alan Wolfe responds in his customarily graceful, devastating, fashion.

And elsewhere, Marty Peretz -- I swear to God -- criticizes George Soros for a spate of delayed JetBlue flights. Could The Spine even get more awesome? The answer is no, my friends. The answer is no.

February 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

This post of yours is worse than The Protocols of Zion, Ezra.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Feb 15, 2007 8:26:10 PM

Greenberg writes:

I think that at least some those who employ the anti-Semitic epithet ... are seeking to shake the scales from the eyes of naifs who imagine that ... singling out Israel as deserving of terms like "murderous" and "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity," might somehow be done in good faith and a spirit of honest intellectual exchange.

So if the Israeli government does, in fact, commit war crimes, all good and decent people are precluded from pointing that out?

This is, at bottom, what people like Greenberg are trying to establish: they're trying to inoculate Israel from criticism.

They fail to understand that accusing a country of war crimes isn't a slur, it's a factual accusation. Whether it's an accurate one is another question, but Greenberg wants to put debate about that question beyond the pale. Note that he's not saying that Israel is innocent of war crimes; he's saying that the question cannot even be discussed in good faith.

What other nation on Earth warrants this treatment? Is there any other nation with respect to which we cannot even talk about war crimes?

Posted by: Jason | Feb 15, 2007 8:46:52 PM

Is there any other nation with respect to which we cannot even talk about war crimes?

Sounds like a case for "Simple Answers to Simple Questions" by Atrios! Quick - somebody sound the Eschalarm!

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 15, 2007 9:07:07 PM

Is there any other nation with respect to which we cannot even talk about war crimes?

Hmmmm, there's one on the tip of my tongue....

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Feb 15, 2007 11:25:54 PM

Jason,
I had a post up at TPM that addressed just this issue. There is a distinct existential link between the USA and Israel that believes that our nations are never to be held to the same standards and limitations expected of other countries. We are good and clean and only kill for the best. We are the law.

The challenge of the next 50 years is for the voting public of both nations to move their national security elites away from this idea of 'the elect nations' and back towards the 1946 UN consensus.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Feb 15, 2007 11:30:37 PM

Is there any other nation with respect to which we cannot even talk about war crimes?

Hmmmm, there's one on the tip of my tongue....

Right, but what's weird is that for most of the center-left or whatever people like Greenberg who equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, accusing the Israeli government of criminal behavior is verboten in a way that making the same accusations against the U.S. isn't.

Talking about America's war crimes is always going to be met with outrage from the National Review, etc. But it doesn't tend to elicit the same reaction from The New Republic, Alan Dershowitz, etc., the way any similar discussion about Israel does.

Would Greenberg argue that one could not make a "good faith" charge that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law? I assume not. But for some reason Israel's attacks on Lebanon cannot be subject to the same charge.

This is just completely insane. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state does not make criticism of its actions tantamount to anti-Semitism any more than criticizing the government of Iran makes one anti-Muslim.

Greenberg, et al cannot really believe that Israel is completely innocent of war crimes. They simply can't. And they're not even saying that. They're saying that we can't even talk about whether Israel is guilty of war crimes. In fact, I assume they fully realize that the war crimes allegation is true -- that's what makes it so important that any talk of them be eliminated from polite society.

Posted by: Jason | Feb 16, 2007 2:03:48 AM

Northern Observer, that's a challenge that will fail. People will never stop looking at themselves as special. An Americans and Israeli's have for too long cast themselves as the noble defenders against the Muslim hordes.
No, the far more likely course of events in the next 50 years will be the rest of the world limiting us and probably allying itself behind China or a stronger EU. America's glory days are over.

Posted by: soullite | Feb 16, 2007 4:04:32 AM

Ezra, TNR is teh shit, so to speak. I know that, deep down inside, you still hope to write for it, and resent that a promising 'centrist' outlet has been denied to your career.

But it's been clear for a while that TNR is a Peretz brothel, and only two people work there - wh*res and pimps.

And there's only one pimp.

Posted by: Barry | Feb 16, 2007 4:06:12 AM

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, Caroline Glick wrote a particularly insipid screed complaining about why, oh, why, people take pro-Palestinian writers seriously.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 16, 2007 4:44:57 AM

Is there any other nation with respect to which we cannot even talk about war crimes?

Yes-Vatican City especially under the reign of Pius XII

As a representative of the Holy See we are willling to discuss a trade of Israel/war crimes for pope/Nazi lover.

Posted by: Msgr. Sarducci | Feb 16, 2007 5:59:37 AM

Outside of a proceeding in the Hague, we ought to stop wasting our time with these labels. While it's fun to point out the hypocrisy of those who once gave a forum to open intellectual debate, scale shaking doesn't advance such debate. Moreover, bloggers and commenters ought to know better than most the dangers of feeding trolls [disclosure - I'm anti-trolls]. If someone doesn't want to be labeled an anti-semite or a Nazi [disclosure - I'm pro-alphabetizers] we ought to encourage them to examine their own words and deeds to see if there are changes they can make to distinguish themselves from unthinking haters [final disclosure - I'm anti-dumbshits].

Posted by: Joel Rutstein | Feb 16, 2007 7:46:01 AM

"spotting an anti-Semite...requires forensic skills, interpretive wits, and moral judgment."

Can't you just ask, "Jeet yet?"

Posted by: Njorl | Feb 16, 2007 10:23:55 AM

"spotting an anti-Semite... requires forensic skills"? What's next, "CSI: AIPAC"?

(okay, so that doesn't exactly work because AIPAC isn't a *location* the way the CSI franchise uses city names to define its shows, and it's a focus but not a target. Also, I *know* "forensic" in the original piece refers to the "debate" sense of the word. Here's a meta question: does a joke have to be funny to be ruined by over-explanation? I could just go back to my initial thought, that TNR should just paraphrase the Chappelle Show sketch and let Marty end his columns with "I'm Marty Peretz, bitch!")

Posted by: Chris | Feb 16, 2007 12:05:57 PM

Because of hysterical and hidebound overuse- it's now far more defamatory to be called a "Sunday driver!" than an "anti-Semite!" Who isn't an anti-Semite today? If you haven't been called one- you're lacking passion, fortitude, character and guts. Israel is a neo-Nazi rogue regime that threatens Life as we know it on this planet. The entire Civilized World knows it. Many Jews know it. More and more Americans (thank you, Jimmy Carter) are coming to know it. The problem is- what can be done about it. Divestment by the world community should be step #1. Economic sanctions are long overdue. Military action by a consortium of powers (China, Russia, India, France, the U.S.) must be considered.

Posted by: David Swyer | Feb 16, 2007 6:15:43 PM

Jeepers, Peretz can't even spell.

Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2007 1:29:46 PM

The idea of an established religion is objectionable in itself and almost invariably leads to injustice. The idea of a 'Jewish state' is itself illegitimate.

Israel is more than simply a 'Jewish state' though, it is a 'state for the Jews'. This is an apatheid construction. It is an idea that should be considered with the same repugnance that Jews, Muslims, Aetheists and many Christians consider the idea that the United States should be a 'state for Christians'.

The rhetorical sleight of hand that is employed is a shell game in which the 'right of Israel to exist' is considered axiomatic, the fact that a majority of the current recognized citizens are Jewish is used to introduce a factual description as a 'Jewish state' which then segues seamlessly to the apartheid construction 'state for the Jews'.

US support for Israel is neither inevitable nor unconditional. The Iraq fiasco has in any case cost the US its position as the worlds sole unilateral power. If Israel gets into trouble in the future neither the willingness nor the ability of the US to provide support can be guaranteed.

For example, what if the recent incursion into Lebanon had been a worse fiasco for Israel? What if Israel were to attack Iran and receive exepectly effective retaliation? The US Israel lobby always poses the question in terms of the US comming to the aid of Israel as recipient of aggression, what if the aggression is clearly and unambiguously on the other side? Is the US automatically required to come to Israel's aid?

Posted by: PHB | Feb 18, 2007 10:50:21 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