June 24, 2008 10:35
Surge Protection
Posted by Joe Klein
The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked--still smacks--of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.
UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, Jennifer Rubin at Commentary thinks Klein is being anti-Semitic.
UPDATE II: I suspect this will get a lot of traction in Wingnut War Whore World, so here's the link to the Memeo entry and a response by Peter Wehner at the NRO.
Posts
19 comments:
Let me frame this comment with my political position: I'm very against the war, the surge, the administration. For all intents and purposes, I'm party-line blue, even though I think there's an unfortunate number of democrats that are deeply conservative. I happen to be Jewish. In fact, I probably align very closely with Mr. Klein on all policy matters.
Now: Joe Klein's comments are anti-semitic. To suggest as he does that the religious background of a political commentator is grounds enough to question the legitimacy of his/her policy position, and what's more: to question his/her loyalty to this country -- that is anti-semitic.
It's actually an old antisemitic position: dating back to Germany circa 1840. Marx commented on it (On the Jewish Question -- he discusses the racism of the prevailing sentiment that the Jewishness of German Jews makes their allegiance to Germany insufficient.) Hitler also used this idea. Even the newly apprehended chief of deportation in Croatia used this logic when he said recently about his deportation of Croatian Jews to death camps: you are not Croat, you do not like my country, please leave.
It's exceptionally unfortunate that a bunch of Jews are so misguided "over at Commentary" and like Joe I feel a little angry that they get to hijack the perception of my ethnicity as being neo-con. You might even, purely from a logical perspective, argue that Iraq was about Israel (although you would probably be hard-pressed to do so without implicitly using the jewishness of the neocons to back up your explicit argument).
Let's say, instead of what he said, he said that Goldman Sach's bankers are Jewish, and that explains their wealth, that would be clearly anti-semitic. Let's say, he said like Imus that some football player is black and that explains the fact that he was arrested: that would be clearly anti-semitic. Both of these are clear because they work on old stereotypes. But the stereotype of the Jew as not patriotic or without appropriate allegiance to his country is just as old, as you can see.
And in fact, to raise someone's ethnic or religious background as explanatory of his or her other traits is racist by the definition of racism.
Before this comment becomes too tangential: what Joe Klein said was, in effect, that the Jewishness of these pundits is enough to call into question their allegiance to this country. That is simply anti-semitic, and it is racist anti-semitic in a very basic and historical sense.
What Klein said was in some ways more forthright than people who insinuate the Jewishness of the neocons when they bring up Israel w/Iraq. The truth is any straight-thinking Israeli knows that Iraq has created a massive massive problem for Israel. We will leave in the next administration but Israel will have to deal with our mess for generations, and it already is.
oops!
"Let's say, he said like Imus that some football player is black and that explains the fact that he was arrested: that would be clearly anti-semitic.*"
*RACIST! not anti-semitic!
To suggest as he does that the religious background of a political commentator is grounds enough to question the legitimacy of his/her policy position
It's the American Jews who support the Likud Party, not ALL Jews. This is the same observation Russell Kirk made almost 20 years ago at the Heritage Foundation.
Oren is a typical Zionist dissembler--the Israeli government directly and indirectly provided some of the false intelligence and generally supported the war.Read Buchanan's "Whose War?" pre-war expose.Polls of world citizens show Israelis and American majorities, pre-war, (the latter due to unchallenged WMD fale intel) supported the war,alone of all peoples. It didn't turn out as planned due to the Iraqi resistance and of course some wish to re-write history because of that. You have to go way "left"
in Israeli politics to find those, like Avraham Burg, who want to rid Israeli law of all ethnic chauvinism and redress Palestinian grievances by the way.
@ steve j: Some American Jews, some Jews, support Likud. Even if all Jews supported Likud, I don't understand what that has to with my point: Joe Klein pointed to people's religion to imply they were disloyal, and that their pro-war arguments were really just Israeli arguments for the war. Despite the Israeli political party American Jews may support (I suspect most don't really know anything about Likud actually, but I have no idea), Joe Klein's argument is antisemitic. Your comment is a non-sequeter (sp?) or maybe I'm not getting it. -- I'm not sure I care to look into anything anyone at Heritage has to say! hehe.
@ken hoop. My point isn't a zionist anything. I'll look into Buchanan's book (is it Pat!?) but I don't think you're understanding my point: my political position is probably Joe Klein's. Still, his comment was out of line: you can't make that jump -- that the neo-cons are Jewish and therefore their policies were designed with Israeli loyalties -- it's antisemitic.
Is that clear?
Norman Finkelstein nails it here:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/1557
"Israel would have preferred to attack Iran. However, once those in our government, maybe for misguided reasons for all I know, decided to fasten on to Iraq - that is to attack Iraq - Israel was of course 'gung ho' because Israel is always 'gung ho' about smashing up this or that Arab country."
By the way, the descendant of rabbis,Marx, wrote on the "Jewish question" himself in ways that the prototype modern Jewish neocon would maintain consigned him to the charge of being "anti-semitic" as well, if you wish to delve deeply into the subject. Frankly, I consider Prof. Israel Shahak's works on Jewish history very concise on the subject and he naturally was a champion of the Palestinians.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Borer-Petras-Finkelstein17.htm
Having praised Finklestein, whom Israel just deported, I must caveat however that Jim Petras bested him in this debate, which deals with issues related to your Klein comments.
I think actually most people who read "On the Jewish Question" don't read it in context. The reason I brought it up in my previous post was because Marx addresses roughly the same criticism Klein himself is now leveling: that Jews are not German enough because they have dual allegiance. The response by Marx is that the Jew may have dual allegiance, but so does the capitalist, the worker, etc. etc. -- everyone is forced into dual allegiances. You may or may not give M. the benefit of the doubt. I would say he's way too smart to be doing the same thing he's criticizing, by Bruno Bauer.
But he's certainly being snarky -- and it's probably not too hard to misread comments about the "jewification" of Europe as antisemitic.
To beat the dead horse: it actually doesn't apply, what "Israel" wanted -- ps note you're dehumanizing your [enemy?] by referring to it and not to specific people, which would make your argument a lot stronger -- what matters is what Mr. Klein said, which is NOT about what ISRAEL or the NEOCONS want, it's about damming a group of people based on their religion as the sole piece of evidence. Do you read me Mr. Hoop?
As for Mr. Petras, I haven't read his stuff, just his wiki entry just now. I have to say that arguments about how Jews are wealthy make me cringe a little -- they're not obviously or immediately problematic but I'm a little skeptical of where they're coming from.
Oren writes "oe Klein pointed to people's religion to imply they were disloyal, and that their pro-war arguments were really just Israeli arguments for the war."
You left out a KEY adjective used by Klein: neo-conservative. It's not about Judaism, it's about politics!
You may recall that some neo-cons helped write one version of the 1992 defense posture document and in it, there was only one country that was mentioned as essential to the U.S. - Israel.
@steve j: you don't have to say "All ___s are x" to be racist. If you just say, as Joe Klein did, "____ is like this because he is ____" you are being racist.
You're right -- IT is about politics, but Joe Klein tried to make it about religion.
Ostensibly the idea that Israel is important to American interests doesn't mean Israeli interests come before American interests -- and that's what Joe Klein accused these people of.
Now, I would agree with you that Israel is probably not such an important asset for American interests, but that's because I'm not a neocon. A tenant of Neocon philosophy as I understand it is that democracies help democracies. In that case Israel, neocons at least ostensibly value Israel for its political institutions.
You might think their theory is crap. But to bring in their religion as proof of that, as proof of that their argument is disingenuous or that their loyalties are split -- that is at least ad hominem and at worst antisemitic. Do you understand? Bringing their religion into this is what I'm having an issue with. It just doesn't add anything that's not anti-semitic.
I fail to see what deeper truth you would be trying to get at which can't just be said by calling out the theories as bogus and the history as a failure.
Oren writes "Ostensibly the idea that Israel is important to American interests doesn't mean Israeli interests come before American interests -- and that's what Joe Klein accused these people of."
I think for some neo-conservatives and probably for some Armageddon Christians (e.g. Hagee), Israel's interests do come before America's.
As for personal backgrounds, I can't see why they can't be taken into account. Take a look at Feith's:
"Feith is well-known for his support of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. In 1997, Feith was honored along with his father Dalck Feith, who was active in a Zionist youth movement in his native Poland, for their "service to Israel and the Jewish people" by pro-Likud Zionist Organization of America at its 100th anniversary banquet. In 1992, he was vice president of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs."
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/06/few-of-traitors.html
But to bring in their religion as proof of that, as proof of that their argument is disingenuous or that their loyalties are split -- that is at least ad hominem and at worst antisemitic. Do you understand?
I agree that if one ONLY points to religion, then one is coming close to anti-Semitism but I don't think that's the case here.
Israel has rabbinical law, meaning whatever "democratic institutions" it has are comparatively tentative.
Jews who marry Palestinians (and not doable within Israel's borders civilly/religiously)are deported to the West Bank. Large tracts of real estate are set aside for exclusive Jewish owner/renter usage.
When Oren calls on Israel to secularize into a democratic state devoid of religious law with equal rights and the right of return for all Palestinians, I'll take his
"ant-semitic" charges more seriously. That means ultimately a one-state solution, Oren,although I don't dispute a two-state solution could be a temporary
transitional form. Anything short is excusing Jewish racism or ethnic chauvinism made de jure, if you prefer. Fine, just don't criticise any other form of racism if you excuse this.
Moreover, historian Shahak shows mainstream rabbinicism since the 14th century was significantly responsible for "antisemitism" being actively anti-Christian. Read "Jewish History, Jewish Religion."
I believe Professor Petras' debate comments that owning the shortcomings of one's own ethnicity at times, might well apply to Oren here.
And yes, rapture-evanglicals
say that if America abandons alliance witth Israel it is rightly cursed and doomed by God.
That's clear prime Israel loyalty and its why even many Jewish "liberals" tolerate the erstwhile conservative social politicking of Hagee-ites, priortizing Israel's continuing oppression.
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/joe-klein-piece-on-war-for-israel-stirs-more-debate.html
Klein controversy spreads and plainspoken Weiss puts it in plainspoken perspective.
Ken, I just don't get it. From the start you called me Zionist when I haven't said one thing in support of the state of Israel.
You're accusing me of arguments I never made. I never defended the state of Israel here. If you read my comment carefully, I didn't even myself CALL Israel a democracy, I said that Neocons perceive it as one.
Ultimately you're appearing foolish here for insisting that I'm a Zionist when all you have to go on is 1) I don't like it when people ascribe traits to groups based on their identity 2) I believe Mr. Klein did just that 3) I agree with Mr. Klein's position on conservatism and 4) I'm Jewish, as it happens.
I merely, in a "vacuum" if you like, discussed Mr. Klein's comments.
Why do you ask me to specifically denounce Israel in order to call Mr. Klein's comments what they are, racist?
Since I never defended a single Israeli action in my comments, but you're trying to excuse Mr Klein without addressing the points I'm raising, I would accuse you of not "owning the shortcomings" of your own side's view (part of that same side, I own up to the shortcomings of Mr. Klein's argument).
Can you explain to me exactly how my accusation of Mr. Klein is in any way a defense of the state of Israel or Israeli policy when I specifically side with Mr. Klein's policy prescriptions? Can you point to anywhere where I'm siding with the state of Israel or Israeli policy in my comments?
Can you separate, for a moment, Mr. Klein's rhetoric from his position and analyze the two like someone who is at least ostensibly acquainted with early Marx?
Do you see this as some sort of game where I call Mr Klein names and you call me names? I defended my position regarding Mr. Klein's comments. Why don't you take a minute to go through my comments and support your claim that I'm a zionist.
Then why don't you show me through the logical steps you took to invalidate my argument regarding Mr. Klein's rhetoric because of my supposed position on the state of israel -- because unless I'm missing something here, Mr. Klein's words are what they are regardless of what I happen to believe regarding the state of Israel.
I'm afraid, Oren, that Israel's conduct has been so "bad for the Jews" (see Tony Judt's essay in the New York Review of Books)worldwide that a Jew is almost obliged to frame any comments about modern "anti-semitism" in an anti-Zionist ambiance. Since I said "almost" I'll also proceed to tell you, that applies to all the Jews Klein addresses,all of whom are demonstrably pro-Israel, and they, like you, as far as I am aware of your stands, fail to do so. For you to believe e.g.that Doug Feith betrayed his country out of any other motive than Zionist racism is to, as Petras said, have difficulty owning your own ethnic group's shortcomings.
Haha! Are you serious? I have to be *explicitly* anti-zionist to credibly raise any question at all of antisemitism? That is supposed to be a rational position?
I am not Zionist -- you have assumed my position on Israel without a single shred of evidence save my own declaration of my ethnicity!
Pretty twisted.
Quoting another not explicitly anti-zionist Jew who nonetheless was not a zionist:
Don't use reason like an umbrella: don't leave it at the door when you come in to talk.
I think my position is final here, I'll be sure to meditate at length on all your wisdom.
It is a real-politick position which is even more important than
being a "rational" position. If you can substantiate that any of the objects of Klein's remarks
have ever called, as an ultimate goal, for the right of return to all Palestinians expelled in 1948,after which for a general plebiscite to be held which will decide how Palestine is to be governed, you may call Klein's remark's in that subject's regard,
"anti-semitic."
@steveJ: If you're still listening: in Ken's post's, your post regarding Mr Feih were lost -- sorry I didn't see them -- you might be right about Mr. Feih. All that stuff you mention, though, is dramatically different from just talking about his religion! -- or the religion of a whole bunch of people. It's not politically expedient, but it's correct to go as you have into each individual's history and call allegiances into quesiton.
But hey, why start with Jews? (For Mr. Hoop: just as Marx would...) Let's see if the political and economic affiliations of every neocon lead to dual allegiances. Behind most unreasonable positions (ehem, Mr. Hoop) usually lie a mixed bag of dual allegiances, as a rule of thumb, so sourcing them is a necessary and important task -- but assuming them, especially based on identity characteristics, is obviously wrong and unhelpful.
Anyway, I'm mostly struck at what a reasonable post that is relative to Mr. Hoop's, so thank you for reasonable conversation!!
Post a Comment