Superb profile of John Mearsheimer in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/8839/?single_page=true
goes into depth about his theories of “offshore balancing” and “passing the buck” in realist foreign policy, touches on the Israeli Lobby controversy, and goes into much needed detail about his seminal work, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
shams, 
Arwi and one other person are discussing.
Matthew 8:31 am on January 11, 2012 Permalink |
And an important rejoinder on “Lame ‘Atlantic’ Apologies for Mearsheimer.” Especially after his endorsement of Gilad Atzmon’s book, Mearsheimer’s work related to Israel or Jews just cannot be taken as anything but bigotry, however good his work on other subjects.
Arwi 11:56 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink |
I clicked your link. I am not familiar with this site, but I clicked one of the internal links to another posting criticizing Mearsheimer, in which there is this line — “and as for Righteous Jew Norman Finkelstein (!!), he is also David Duke’s favorite Jew.”
At that point, I closed the tab.
Matthew 1:11 am on January 12, 2012 Permalink |
Arwi, for you to find that, you must have read over quite a bit. Either you were only reading for a reason to dismiss something you disagree with, or you must have something more pertinent to say.
And I’d suggest the reason you’re not familiar with the site is because you are disengaged from Jewish communities, which puts you in a rather poor position to suggest anything about whether someone like Finkelstein is antisemitic.
Unlike most antisemites, Atzmon explicitly denies that his problem is only with Zionists. He is very clear that his problem is with Jews. In fact, he particularly goes after secular, Jewish anti-Zionists who continue to call themselves Jews. He offers a traditionally antisemitic approach of decrying the “rootless cosmopolitan” (Stalin’s term) or “wandering Jew.” In fact, the book, in which Atzmon suggested that Hitler would eventually be proven right, was called “The Wandering Who?” in reference to the classic slur. This is what Mearsheimer endorsed.
As Tracy points out, this is what Kaplan, in his not so superb profile, fails to adequately deal with.
And, Aziz, While Mearsheimer does have important things to say about other topics, as a realist, he’s coming from the same perspective as someone like Henry Kissinger. Far too many of his supporters don’t agree with him on anything except Israel.
aziz 6:58 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink |
I’m not sure how the Atlantic piece qualifies as an “Apology” for Mearsheimer, since it quite explicitly was critical of him in that regard.
It’s rather ironic you dismiss the body of Mearsheimer’s work – most of which is not related to Israel – on the basis of one decision, and yet are lamasting Arwi downthread for dismissing some much less important author at a frankly minor media outlet (however important it might be to the “Jewish American world”) on the basis of one rather understandable assessment.
As far as I’m concerned, the piece isn’t worth reading, because the title reveals itself to be part of the kneejerk scalper crowd rather than interested in a dispassionate analysis. Quelle surprise, it finds that Mearsheimer is anti-semitic by association! Hey, Mear. endorsed a book by a guy who is an anti-Semite so Q.E.D.
Guilt by association is possibly the weakest argument you can make against someone, and reveals more about teh weakness of your own argument rather than theirs. I don’t play that game and I think Arwi is justified to dismiss Tracy (whoever that is) on that basis.
aziz 7:58 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink |
ok, I just read every link you sent out Matthew. To be honest the Atzmon thing never really hit my radar before, but I found Mears’ explanation compelling:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbergs_latest_smear
Since you’re the one insisting (as does Tracy) that the Atlantic is somehow trying to “apologize” for the Atzmon endorsement, I think that the link to Mears’ actual defense is necessary in this thread for documentation purposes.
Since neither you nor Tracy are interested in the actual subject of the Atlantic article, namely, realism in foreign policy and offshore balancing, I will comply with the threadjack.
Having not read Atzmon’s book, and being rather reluctant to let you define Atzmon for me, I was glad to see Mears explicitly addressed the question of whether Atzmon is a holocaust denier. He clearly isn’t, as a quote from Atzmon’s book proves (hit the link I provided).
So the issue is, is Atzmon an anti-semite? You argue yes because of some other stuff he wrote. That stuff however was not endorsed by Mears. So is anyone blurbing a book obligated to have read every book and essay ever written by the author prior to blurbing? Does blurbing functionally equate to full and complete endorsement of every idea in the book itself?
Lets see your position on those questions before we continue further.
Matthew 12:07 am on January 14, 2012 Permalink |
Aziz, there’s just so much inaccurate here.
First off, you suggest that maybe Atzmon isn’t an antisemite. It’s actually really offensive that I have to jump through so many hoops to get someone to admit that it might be so. Atzmon: “It is very tragic to say, but I can see it. And the only thing that can save the Jews from themselves is if we, the goyim, let’s say — Yes — if the goyim, the gentiles, basically — find within ourselves the powers to contain this sinister ideological collective.” Note in the very quite you implore me to read (though I do fear it’s out of context), Atzmon describes himself — and this very much is in the book Mearsheimer endorsed — as “a strong opponent of .. Jewish-ness.” I do take offense that you are willing to let Mearsheimer “define Atzmon” for you, but you’re incredibly skeptical of anything I say. Or, I suppose, anyone you disagree with.
“As far as I’m concerned, the piece isn’t worth reading, because the title reveals itself to be part of the kneejerk scalper crowd.” Irony much?
And that skepticism is part of the problem with the piece on Mearsheimer. When it comes to antisemitism, everything is tempered and moderated. The idea that anything is antisemitic is treated with a level of skepticism way out of line with anything else. The basic facts become merely “suggested by some,” as if they are really in dispute. It’s as if, short of a genocide for proof (and, of course, some people will deny that), everything is always just circumstantial evidence. Seriously, what standard of proof would actually qualify?
Basically, as far as a lot of people are concerned, there is no such thing as antisemitism until the genocide starts. And to be so blatantly dismissed by people who simply refuse to see antisemitism is really offensive.
Now, as several people pointed out, Mearsheimer wasn’t being truthful when he said those things weren’t in the book. The passages cited in the criticism are in fact in the book. (Click through, and you can read Atzmon saying of the Holocaust, “In my formative years, I blindly accepted everything they told me about our ‘collective’ Jewish past: The Kingdom of David, Masada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade, the death march, and the six million.” It goes on to ask, “Why were the Jews hated?” with the intention of showing that Jews deserved to be hated.) In fact, the very title of the book was intentionally rhymed with an antisemitic motif! “The Wandering Who?” And while the excerpts are taken for their explicitness, the underlying thesis is that same classic antisemitism motif of the wandering Jew. This is Atzmon’s raison d’etre: The Jewish ethnicity must cease to be, because it is “inauthentic” and therefore dangerous. It’s one thing for Mearsheimer to say that his blurb shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of every little thing in the book, but it’s another to claim that his endorsement had nothing whatsoever to do with the book.
And, btw, contrary to your claim, criticizing someone for an endorsement is not “guilt by association,” as if they were merely cordial neighbors. The endorsement of a book is an endorsement of ideas, and when those ideas are ugly, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to criticize the endorsement for promoting those ideas.
But, of course, this is a pattern of Mearsheimer writing something, getting criticized for it, and you disregarding the criticism. Each time with a skepticism that surely must be getting harder and harder to maintain. At what point does it become possible to even consider that when Mearsheimer wrote, “a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress” (in the very first Lobby paper) this was actually the antisemitic charge that Jews are too powerful and manipulate governments for their own ends? At what point is it possible to entertain such a straightforward proposition?
aziz 8:15 am on January 17, 2012 Permalink
I do take offense that you are willing to let Mearsheimer “define Atzmon” for you, but you’re incredibly skeptical of anything I say. Or, I suppose, anyone you disagree with.
Look, I haven’t let Mears “define” Atsmon either – i dont care about Atzmon.
But neither do I think that the statement abolut containing an ideological collective was necessarily aimed at all Jews as a group. It seems from the limited context you are providing that he is talking about the identity-partisans. But I could be wrong. I certainly can see that theres room for debate here and thats why again Mears’ blurbing doesnt seem like an open endorsement of anti-semitism here.
Youre blaming Mears ecause of Atzmon. Thats just wrong. He just blurbed a book, he explicitly said he doesnt agree with everything in it, so even if Atz thinks ALL jews are part of a sinisster collective, well does that follow that Mears thinks so?
Matthew 10:17 am on January 18, 2012 Permalink
No. No, there isn’t room for debate. Did you even think about what you said? (And, if you note, the context *I provided*, a source for your skepticism, was the quote you urged me to read.) Identity partisans? So people for whom being Jewish is important? Keep in mind, Atzmon particularly targets Jewish anti-Zionists. (It would be no better if he targeted Zionists, but I think it’s more obvious.) What’s wrong with that, exactly? Why shouldn’t Jewish people be Jewish?
And at what point does a book become so awful that endorsing it actually is a bad thing in your view? Does every individual sentence have to be overwhelmingly and explicitly racist? The very core of that book is racist, and there’s no way to endorse it without endorsing racism.
Your willful and absurd skepticism (though you gladly take Mearsheimer’s word that Atzmon is not a Holocaust denier, although Atzmon is) is frightening and obnoxious.
Matthew 10:49 am on January 18, 2012 Permalink
Btw, it’s really obnoxious to refer to Jews as an “ideological collective.” And it’s absurd to think that it has to refer to all Jews to be racist. I can guarantee you wouldn’t make the same exceptions for Islamophobia.
aziz 8:15 am on January 21, 2012 Permalink
thanks for linking the Ibish argument downthread – that’s much more rigorous an analysis and I am satisfied that Atzmon is a self-hating jew by any reasonable definition.
To answer your question of what would be “enough” – no, not every line needs to be dripping with antisemitism, but not having read Atzmon’s book I can’t comment as to whether that was the “core” of his argument. So, I don’t really know.
And this is the core of why I discount your analysis – you refuse to permit any debate and insist that I accept your perspective on what constitutes valid critique and what doesn’t. You insist Atzmon is an anti-semite – fine, I think I agree, based on Ibish’s more reasoned analysis. You insist he is a Holocaust denier, but thats cleary untrue, based on what Atzmon himself has written (and which Mears quotes in his defense). Its the classic kitchen sink strategy – trow everyting at someone and see what sticks. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who uses this strategy.
The debate (yes, there is one, and its valid) over the idea of “Israel Firsters” is a great example. But that deserves a separate post.
Matthew 11:37 am on January 21, 2012 Permalink
http://volokh.com/2012/01/13/israel-firster/
Apparently, there’s room for debate on neo-Nazi memes now!
The term “Israel Firster” is very much meant to suggest that Jews are disloyal to the countries in which they live. That is a standard trope of antisemitism. Now, which of those statements do you disagree with? Or do you think it’s acceptable to recite standard tropes of antisemitism? You keep insisting there’s room for debate, but you never deal with the central arguments. You demand there’s room for debate without providing any argument! All you do is dismiss those who have a definition of antisemitism that (while being better motivated by a more knowledge of the history of Jews) doesn’t jibe with yours.
But no, it’s you and Mearsheimer who refuse to permit debate.
http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2008/06/the-end-of-anti-semitism-and-other-tales/
You refuse to accept the most obvious as “evidence.” You claim Ibish is more rigorous, but I think the problem is you’re too quick to dismiss Jews as “kneejerk,” as if we haven’t thought about things. How much more rigorous can it get than quoting Atzmon describe himself as a strong opponent of Jewishness?
By that standard, there are no Holocaust deniers. Apparently, you know nothing of the tropes of antisemitism or Holocaust denial. Jeffrey Goldberg described Atzmon as a “Holocaust revisionist,” but even that spurred criticism by those who argue that there is no such thing as that even.
aziz 7:14 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
well, the term “anti-semitism” itself was coined by a Nazi too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr
My problem isn’t with Israel, it’s with people who wrap themselves in Israel’s flag, the same exact problem I have with people who wrap themselves in pages of the Qur’an or the Constitution for that matter. They do more harm than good. And yes I’d lump Tracy into that category, though I think Goldberg is just shy of it. I don’t have any opinion on where you stand, because theonly data I have is this thread, where you seem to have got a maor snit going on and are saying things you;ll likely regret later (the reference to me and Shoebat being just one, but I don’t fault you for it)
Once self-styled defenders of Israel get over their righteous pedantic crusade about language, we can start having a rational discussion. In the meantime, scalp hunting and declaring minor things like blurbing a book as “beyond the pale” don’t help. Some of us are actually serious about trying to reform and combat the negative sentiment and rampant anti-semitism in the muslim world, and I get enough shit for being a crypto Zionist that I just don’t have patience for silly nonsense anymore.
As far as I am concerned, the controversy over Mears is as respectable as the cartoon stupidstorm over Mohammed cartoons. In other words, not at all.
And you may have last word on the matter, and my offer for frontpaging still stands.
Matthew 12:00 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink
Seems so.. scholarly. Except,
You have a completely different standard here.
aziz 6:33 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
did you miss the comment afterwards where i said, fine, I read Tracy’s piece anyway? You’re in such a rush to condemn you arent reading carefully enough
aziz 3:00 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink
not really. I’ve zero interest in reading Atzmon’s book, too. Of course, I can’t comment on what I haven’t read. The title of the essay presumably has some relevance to the subject matter, so I actually know more about that essay than I do about Atzmon or his subject.
Matthew 7:15 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink
You have no interest in reading anything that would make it harder for you to ignore the criticisms of Mearsheimer. But, while you’re gladly ignorant of what’s actually being debated, you’ll simply accuse others of being kneejerk scalpers whenever they challenge you.
By the way, equating Tracy and Atzmon — shockingly offensive. You’re going from bad to worse here.
aziz 6:31 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
actually I’ve read every critique of Mears and Atzmon you’ve provided, and I even endorsed the ibish post. i’ve agreed with you on Atz once you gave me some actual argument rather than assertions.
the only thing I refuse to do is castigate mears as a crypto anti semite and dismiss his body of work outright (most of which is unrelated to anything israel or whatever)
this makes me the functional equivalent of walid shoebat in your eyes? I’ll accept that. i’m not going to chase your approval. What you want is for me to condemn Mears and I just dont have any reason or evidence to do that. Even ibish din’t go that far, why arent you hounding him about it?
Matthew 8:13 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
He’s not a crypto antisemite. The Israel Lobby is blatantly antisemitic. But you refuse to engage with that argument, castigating anyone who holds it as a “kneejerk scalper.” As for evidence, you ignore it then accuse me of not providing any.
(Walid Shoebat? You’re not reading. You get your information on antisemitism from marginal Jewish figures, as some people get their info in Islamophobia solely from marginal Muslim figures.)
aziz 10:22 pm on January 14, 2012 Permalink |
I said it was obvious Atzmon isnt a olocaust denier. I am not disputing that he may be an anti-semite, I just said, I don’t know, I havent read anything of his. And I think your assumption that Mears endorses everything Atzmon ever wrote just because he blurbed that particular book is classic guilt y association.
I havent read your whole comment but will do so later and reply in more detail.
shams 7:32 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
WTF is an “anti-semite”?
surely both you and Matthew are aware the Arabs and genetic jews are BOTH racial semites.
Matthew 8:17 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
shams, that’s just a useless side issue. In fact, Semitic is a linguistic category, not a racial category. But the term antisemite has always referred to a prejudice against Jews. Sometimes, it refers to a specific sort of prejudice that was named around 1890, with the primary feature of accusing Jews of having too much power. Sometimes it refers to any prejudice against Jews.
Or do you prefer that October be the eighth month, september the seventh, that we park on parkways and drive on driveways?
shams 8:43 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
nah. i just prefer that Words Have Meaning.
i think anti-semite is a riddickulous term.
why not just say anti-jew if that is what you mean?
Scientifically, Arabs are also semites.
Do you deny that?
Matthew 10:47 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
Some people do say “anti-Jewish,” but it’s a meaningless distraction. (On the other hand, I don’t capitalize or hyphenate, which is the preferred spelling among most who study antisemitism.) You can read “anti-Jewish” if you like, but words acquire meaning through usage. If you insist otherwise, you can go talk to yourself.
And, as I already said, “Semitic” is a language group, not a racial group. No person is a Semite.
Arwi 11:09 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
The term “Israel Firster” is very much meant to suggest that Jews are disloyal to the countries in which they live.
It is meant to describe specific Jews whose public statements and actions demonstrate their prioritization of Israel over the US.
When, for example, Eric Alterman himself says that he would prioritize Israel, how is it anti-Semetic to call him an “Israel-Firster”?
Matthew 9:43 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…
Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman? Because that doesn’t sound like “specific Jews.” That sounds a lot more like, “most.” And that’s exactly how stereotypes tend to work, with a little slippage about who exactly is being described. It’s like people who say, “I don’t hate Blacks, I just hate n****rs.”
Arwi 4:50 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink |
And I’d suggest the reason you’re not familiar with the site is because you are disengaged from Jewish communities, which puts you in a rather poor position to suggest anything about whether someone like Finkelstein is antisemitic.
You really think that the right way to discuss whether Finkelstein’s positions count as anti-Semetism is to call him “David Duke’s favorite Jew”? Really? I don’t have any engagement with Jewish communities, I clicked over just to see what the discussion was about, but when I come across such rhetorical errors, I conclude that a source is not reliable and I close tab.
Matthew 5:52 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink |
As far as I’m concerned, this is really, really tangential, and I’m getting pretty frustrated that you want to focus on this instead of Mearsheimer. Attack the messenger! For a single line in a different article! Tablet Magazine happens to be one of the most important media outlets in the Jewish American world right now, and dismissing Tracy, one of the editors, you might as well dismiss American Jewry!
But, Tracy did actually link to David Duke offering high praise for Finkelstein. The reason he offers that praise is because Duke recognizes in Finkelstein’s work exactly what Duke likes to say about Jews. “He has also been one of the most ardent Jewish critics of Israel… as well as Israel’s blatant manipulation of the American governmental and media establishment” (emphasis mine). Now, do you want to deny that Duke said that, that it’s a fair way to characterize Finkelstein’s claims, or that “blatant manipulation of the American government and media establishment” is antisemitic? Because, given those things, I don’t see any reason to fault Tracy for anything more than slight exaggeration. As I said, Atzmon, not Finkelstein, is surely Duke’s favorite Jew! But that’s quite a bit worse for Mearsheimer.
aziz 8:03 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink |
what is really tangential is a debate over Mears blurbing a book by Atzmon in a thread devoted to a profile of Mears’ seminal work on foreign policy realism.
Though I think that the whole Atzmon thing read like a smear attempt on Mears to tar him with the overused antisemite brush by any means necessary, since his critics were unable to make a substantive critique of his book on the Israel Lobby. In fact the attacks on Mears over Atzmon arguably are evidence of the central argument in Lobby itself.
aziz 8:04 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink |
my mistake – now we are debating Duke’s opnion of Finkelstein in a debate about Tracy who thinks the Atlantic is apologizing for Mears about Atzmon. whew!
tangential, indeed. But thats what threads do, so I dont mind the jack of the jack of the threadjack at all.
Arwi 6:35 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink |
dismissing Tracy, one of the editors, you might as well dismiss American Jewry!
“………….”
Anyway, yes, my comment was tangential to Mearsheimer, but it was relevant to the orientation and reliabilty of Tablet Magazine. While several responses to your own rhetoric leap to my mind, they would be even more tangential to the original topic, and are perhaps best expressed by closing tab again.
Matthew 8:14 am on January 20, 2012 Permalink |
“Yet again, Prof. Mearsheimer gets a well-deserved F. With this latest blunder, he has finally and permanently flunked out of the respectable conversation about the Middle East and anything related to it.”
-Hussein Ibish on Mearsheimer
http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2011/10/01/gilad_atzmon_and_john_mearsheimer_self_criticism_self_hate_and_hate
aziz 8:17 am on January 21, 2012 Permalink |
great link.
BTW, I do value your perspective. To prove it, I’d like to offer you frontpage privileges. Email me apoonawa dash blog atyahoo
shams 1:28 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink |
wallah….OF COURSE you should front page Matthew.
He OFFENDS me, Aziz.
Actually….. there are loose women everywhere in the world.
Matthew 9:26 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink |
If by loose women, one means there are women with healthy sexual appetites, then, yes, there are loose women everywhere. If one means women who’s position in a patriarchal society is predicated on being sexually desirable, who then pretend to have a stronger or less specific desire for sex than is actually so, then I’m afraid it’s probably also true that there are loose women everywhere.
If one means to imply that all people named Matthew are the same, then I’m afraid that’s not the case. I’ve worked for two companies with 15,000 people, and found that not only has each had people with my first name, but each has had people who shared my first, last, and middle names. I’d figure the internet has at least 15,000 people.
aziz 6:37 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
I think there’s at least 20,000 people on here. Or maybe there’s actually 15,000 uniques and 5,000 pseudonyms of shams’ ?
shams 7:30 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink
that isnt your comment?
mybad.
i was talking about how there is no prostitute class in islamic cultures.
i thot you replied to my no-more-madama-butterflies meme with a comment on loose women in every culture.
shams 1:29 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink |
if you make Matthew a frontpager and do not restore my FP privs, i shall declare a kanly on him.
Actually….. there are loose women everywhere in the world.
shams 4:34 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink |
give him a sideblog where he can expound on his theory of Loose Women.
Arwi 9:53 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink |
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman?
Arwi 10:02 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink |
Yes, and the term “terrorist sympathizer” is used to describe specific Muslims whose…Have you put much thought into how stereotypes work? Do you really want to say it’s about “specific Jews” and then suggest that it’s everyone to the right of Eric Alterman?
I did not say anything about anyone to the right of Eric Alterman, I asked you how it is anti-Semetic to describe Eric Alterman himself as an Israel Firster when he himself says he is.
I don’t think “terrorist sympathizer” is anti-Muslim when it is applied to specific Muslims who are in fact sympathetic to terrorists. They do exist, just as Israel First Jews exist.
Matt 10:59 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink |
But surely you know the term is (at best) widely misused.
As for Alterman, I won’t speak for him, but surely if you think it’s appropriate to call him such, then anyone to his right, who would voice more strident support for Israel or would argue more vociferously against antisemitism, would be as well, no?
And if not, if it really is the rare bird, then what’s the political use of the phrase, anyway?
Btw, psychologists have studied whether identification with a homeland among immigrants is correlated with disidentification with the new country. It’s not. It’s no different for Jews.
shams 5:27 am on January 24, 2012 Permalink |
but Matt….all american conservos are quasi-Jews.
Nobel prize winner Johan Galtung says that American exceptionalism is just re-imaged Chosen People doctrine.
Matt 9:12 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink
shams, that’s really a lot of disturbing packed into a few short words.
Let me start by pointing out how absurdly wrong it is: Jews are, on the whole quite liberal. Whether it’s presidential elections, abortion politics, civil rights, whatever. In particular, the vast majority of American Jews were opposed to the war in Iraq. So if American conservatives were quasi-Jews, they wouldn’t be conservatives. It’s a really flawed syllogism to say that some Jews are conservatives, so all conservatives are (sort of) Jews.
Also, I think you misunderstand – or Galtung misunderstands – what chosenness means. Often ideas from the Jewish Bible are re-interpreted in Christianity or Islam. It’s not unusual for Christians and Muslims (I’m not sure quite how often for Muslims) to think they know a lot about some bit of Judaism when they couldn’t be more wrong. This is how a lot of antisemitism is justified. I suppose one could read American exceptionalism as informed by a misguided understanding of what chosenness is, but it’s certainly very different. Let me tell you one story of how Jews were “chosen.” In this story, G-d went to 12 different tribes who all turned him down. Finally, he came to the Jews and held a mountain over their heads when he offered them the chance to be his chosen. Being chosen is about taking on additional burdens to serve as an example for others. Isn’t that what Muslims do as well?
Further, let me suggest you do some research into the ways that Britain was described as allied with Jews in the early part of the 20th century. Some Jews were British or promoted “Manchester Capitalism” (which is now known as laissez faire or free market capitalism) because the guild systems and such were unkind to minorities, so it was taken that Britain (and “Manchester Capitalism,” in particular) was somehow Jewish. It didn’t work out so well.
That, by the way, is why a lot of conspiracy theories still floating around out there describe the Queen of England as a major drug runner. But you also see it in places like Lindbergh’s speech when he came out as a supporter of the “America First Committee,” right-wing isolationists who pretty much supported Hitler. (Hey — that’s an interesting phrasing, isn’t it, using “First” like that?). According to Lindbergh, “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war [entering WWII] are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.” Yet, in each of these, he implied a unified, Jewish configuration.
shams 4:54 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
so what matt? american exceptionalism is just repackeged chosen people bulshytt.
the idea that americans get to tell the rest of the world how to live.
becuz we are special.
Matt 5:58 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
So what? Look, criticize the US all you want, but leave Jews out of that.
It’s not because the US is too Jewish, not because there are too many many Jews in the US, not because of any Jewish ideas. That way lies the worst sort of antisemitism. If you need me to elaborate, just reread my last comment, because I thought I was pretty clear.
shams 9:46 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
leave the jews out of it? i just want to leave Israelis out of it.
The creation of Israel was unjust. the continued American support of Israel with force of arms and bullying is unjust.
Cut Israel loose.
Does that make me an anti-semite?
shams 9:49 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
and Matt…..its gunna happen anyways.
American blacks and browns and american youth dont give a shit about Israel.
Only the greys care. When the demographic timer goes off, my generation is gunna kick Bibi and AIPAC to the kerb.
Matt 10:29 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
“The creation of Israel was unjust.”
I disagree. And if you can’t understand why Jews care, then that is a problem.
Aziz 10:33 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
I disagree also. I think that teh creation of Israel was valid, though Israel’s founding was not as free of injustice in the execution as its hagiographers would have you believe. In that respect, Israel is thoroughly typical of most nations.
I believe teh founding of america was just as well, despite the absolute truth of the injustice against the native americans. Thats a intellectual dissonance that isn’t easily resolved, unless you accept that human history operates this way repeatedly.
No group or nation or people is free of blood on their hands. Not even aboriginals or natives. Certainly Jews and Americans alike have their own sordid baggage that should (but doesn’t) restrain their/our self-promotion.
shams 10:05 am on January 31, 2012 Permalink
look Matt.
the creation of Israel was unjust. it should have been made in Europe or America. Not on muslim lands.
however, the past is dust.
Israel EXISTS naow.
an admission that the creation of Israel was unjust, and against the self-determination of the people living there, could go go a long ways to healing the breach.
shams 10:06 am on January 31, 2012 Permalink
“I believe teh founding of america was just as well, despite the absolute truth of the injustice against the native americans.”
wallah.
are you a mormon now Aziz?
Matt 9:51 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink
Well, surely putting “unjust” in italics is exactly what is needed to convince me.
I know you think it was unjust. I’m pretty sure I’m very familiar with your reasoning. And yet, I still disagree. You remind me of white people who rail against affirmative action, claiming “I believe in equality, and that’s why I can’t support that they should have what I’m entitled to.”
Like Aziz, though I disagree with him on the founding of the US, I can recognize some nuance in the founding of Israel. Clearly Deir Yassin was unjust, and we could name any number of events even as I continue to say the Zionist project was just.
But an admission that the Hebron Massacre, Jaffa Riots, and other events were unjust and played an important part in shaping the history of the region, could go a long way toward healing and peace. And if people like you would actually bother to find out what Zionism was about instead of ignorantly wailing about “Israel Firsters,” that too would do a great deal to bring peace. Frankly, I don’t think any of you in this conversation know the first thing about Zionism.
Arwi 9:49 am on January 24, 2012 Permalink |
As for Alterman, I won’t speak for him
I did not ask you to speak “for” him. I asked you, given that he himself has described himself as prioritizing Israel’s needs over the US if they conflict, how is it anti-Semetic to call him an Israel Firster?
Is it anti-Semetic to call Eric Alterman — not nameless groups of strident or vociferous people but this one specific individual — an Israel Firster? If yes, how?
Matt 8:41 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink |
Didn’t mean to sidestep your question. Yes, it is racist to invoke stereotypes, even when they seem to fit. There are about a billion reasons for that, so let me give you just one: what if it’s true of everyone in society, but only criticized in members of a specific minority group?
More than that, though, Alterman doesn’t say he’s an “Israel-firster” in the quote. He says that sometimes he thinks the US can take a hit that Israel can’t. If there were actually something bad happening to the US, perhaps his answer would be different. But “Israel-firster,” among other things, suggests that someone is a traitor and should be dismissed from reasonable discourse. (And, no, you cannot say “I don’t care how it’s otherwise used, this is what I mean.” Words and phrases have meaning by consensus.) Is that how you feel about Alterman? And what about every Jew to his right?
Now, it’s not at all surprising when stereotypes are internalized by members of minority groups. And it isn’t surprising, either, when members of minortity groups espouse stereotypes because it helps them to seem “reasonable” and worthy of engaging in debate. It happens all the time with all sorts of groups. Sometimes we call it colonialism. So I don’t think your question is even reasonable, but there you have it. No.
Arwi 3:08 pm on January 28, 2012 Permalink |
Yes, it is racist to invoke stereotypes, even when they seem to fit.
Legally speaking, you cannot claim defamation if something is true. Yes, Israel First can be used to dismiss people unfairly, so can “marginal” or “___’s favorite”. The fairness or unfairness is in the context of the application and not in the words themselves.
Personally speaking, I think what makes someone worth reasonable debate is their way of argumentation.. Eric Alterman saying he is willing to see the US “take a hit” for the benefit of another country is of course defining himself as a traitor but that doesn’t make him beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. On the contrary, I would say his honesty makes him more worth engaging than someone who is being disingenuous.
You apparently consider me an anti-Semite, yet are willing to discuss with me. Similarly, I don’t have any prima facie issue with discussing with Israel Firster, even Jonathan Pollard or Richard Perle.
Matt 9:55 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink |
Frankly, you’re being incoherent.
And you don’t seem to realize that different people get involved in conversations with different motivations. Maybe my “willingness” stems from being deathly afraid of not doing anything to fight antisemitism. Maybe my “willingness” is biting my tongue because the alternative is worse.
shams 3:47 am on February 3, 2012 Permalink
meanwhile, while y’all argue about stereotypes and play who is the anti-semite, Israel is preparing to kick off WWIII.
what do you think guys? will a strike on Qom do it?
Matt 12:56 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink |
And here, naturally, as this is the way these things always work, you have Spencer Ackerman being attacked for opposing the term “Israel Firster.” For some people, it’s apparently not possible that a Jew can have a position against antisemitism without there being an alternative motive.
shams 4:58 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink |
why not jus’ say Zionist?
Matt 8:26 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink |
Are they the same to you?
shams 9:55 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
yes.
let me repeat. American blacks, browns and youth dont give a sh*t about israel. the holocaust guilt card has expired with us. Palestine and Gaza are more relevant to us than the six days war.
when the demographic timer goes off the GOP will become a rump party forevah, and my generation will kick Bibi and AIPAC to the kerb.
My advice is cut Israel loose naow and let her adapt or go extinct.
Matt 10:30 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
If you think “Zionist” and “Israel Firster” are the same, then that’s a problem. And it’s a good reason why nobody should use the term Israel Firster.
Aziz 10:34 am on January 28, 2012 Permalink
zionists are good. Firsters aren’t. Firsters are a subset of zionists. Zionists I understand and can engage with and agree with. Firsters, I cant and wont.
shams 3:21 pm on January 28, 2012 Permalink
oh, firsters are a SUBSET…….big whup…..i simply dont care enough to differentiate. and i highly doubt anyone in my demographic does either.
toutes les chat sont gris dans la nuit.