Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2035 of them)

http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/books/88397/framed-2/

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

Complementary anti-semitism?

After all, I grew up masturbating at my parents' house (Michael White), Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

what do you mean?

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

Complimetary/complementary

After all, I grew up masturbating at my parents' house (Michael White), Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

i have mixed opinions on mearsheimer (and not read "the israel lobby") but that article is kind of a mess, and it refers approvingly to this one, which is even worse

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

I remember listening to 'Talk of the Nation' or something on the subject of that book and having to turn the radio off.

After all, I grew up masturbating at my parents' house (Michael White), Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Putting side the question of whether it is anti-Semitism or not, I think that Joe Klein and Thomas Friedman's comments (in Time and the NYT respectively) indicate that being critical of Israel in America is safe and mainstream. I really never want to hear again about how brave someone is for criticizing the settlements or whatever (unless it is accompanied by the first comment in history to apply that adjective to Friedman).

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

xpost In the scheme of anti-Semitism, depicting all Jews as successful/rich/Hollywood/lawyers/whatever is a better broad brush bad prejudice than saying, say, claiming that Jews run the world and eat babies. And yes, I meant complementary, not complimetary or whatever.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

(Still bad, of course)

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think the whole "rich hollywood jews" thing ties in w/ and stems from the whole "jews run the world" thing a bit

omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

The problem with depicting all Jews as successful/rich/Hollywood/whatever is that it's really just a skip away from saying that Jews are behind powerful conspiracies or have unrepresentative influence on politics, or any number of claims that seem cribbed from the Protocols. Also, it's one thing to say, "many famous actors are Jewish," or "There are many Jewish lawyers" and another to say that Hollywood is controlled by the Jews.

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

xp what omar said

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

All bad slurs. But, you know, Jews do have a big presence in both Hollywood and the legal profession. Was it Louis CK (probably) who had the bit about how "Jew" is one of the only legit descriptions that's also a slur? Only in the world of anti-semitism can success be a failure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh to be aryan and be successful (but not *that* successful)

omar little, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think that Joe Klein and Thomas Friedman's comments (in Time and the NYT respectively) indicate that being critical of Israel in America is safe and mainstream.

i dunno if i'd go that far.

if anything my big problem with the argument of "the israel lobby" (as far as i understand it secondhand) is that, in an american context, the window of conversation is not really driven by the influential jews in american political life, so much as huge chunks of the american public having generally warm feelings toward israel for various cultural and religious reasons, and generally cold feelings toward all of israel's antagonists likewise.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think that's otm, goole, in that the support for Israel in Congress is not from some magical AIPAC powers but more from the fact that Congress' constituents tend to be pro-Israel, often Evangelical Christians. At the same time though, there has been this self-congratulatory thing that American critics of Israel have where they pat each other on the back to be so brave as to go up against the Israel Lobby (tm). I think that when Thomas Friedman is parroting some of your talking points, there's nothing edgy or dangerous left to stating those positions. And claiming that Americans soldiers have died for Israeli interests is a huge (and self-evidently false) talking point from critics like Stephen Walt.

Mordy, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

I read the Walt Mearshimer piece in the NYRB (LRB?) way back when, and at the time I felt like it just slightly crossed into paranoia, as sophisticated as it was. E.g. I remember there was an example or two of AIPAC allegedly torpedoing a candidate for criticism of Israel. Political campaigns are pretty complex things and I think it's often difficult to prove that a single factor is solely responsible for a campaign's death, but even if that's the case, it's then extrapolated that AIPAC has the power to do this to any candidate any time. As big as the Israel lobby is, it so happens to not be the only powerful lobby in this country and I find that picture a bit unbelievably simplistic.

I also think there's a lot of assumption to the effect that Jewish politicians who consider themselves Zionists are somehow singlemindedly focused on Israel and indifferent to American interests, which is itself an assumption tinged with anti-semitism imo.

frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

i never think i could possibly like glenn greenwald less but he constantly finds new ways to make me dislike him
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/a-question-from-glenn-greenwald-updated/251705/

Mordy, Friday, 20 January 2012 18:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

greenwald demonstrates well why the discussion often goes to shit and makes no progress.

bnw, Friday, 20 January 2012 18:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

wonder if greenwald ever had to say the pledge of allegiance in class

iatee, Friday, 20 January 2012 19:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally.

Wait, what? Does this mean I can't loathe Likud anymore?

After all, I grew up masturbating at my parents' house (Michael White), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

"A Question From Glenn Greenwald" is a hilarious title for a post

tyga mother (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

"do these jeans make my ass look anti-Semitic?"

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 20 January 2012 19:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

shit abe foxman says ^

Mordy, Friday, 20 January 2012 19:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

still like jeffrey goldberg less i must say

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 20 January 2012 20:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-big-lie-returns/

In our own time, these ownership rights have become largely uncontroversial, insofar as most minorities can expect a respectful hearing when it comes to claims of racism. With the Jews, however, the reverse is now true: Claims of anti-Semitism are so often disputed, scorned, and denied outright. This state of affairs faithfully reflects the perception of the Jews as socially privileged, disproportionately represented in the fields of glamour, intellect, and finance, and—crucially—as the agency behind the dispossession of Palestine’s native Arab inhabitants.

This perception is not limited to the extreme left (nor, for that matter, to the far right, which thinks in near-identical terms). It now sits as comfortably with a traditional conservative realist like Mearsheimer as it does with many others who have had little interaction with the New Left or the Chomskyite school of international relations. It leads, furthermore, to a conclusion with a distinctly postmodern twist: Those who truly suffer from anti-Semitism today are not Jews, but those who are accused of being anti-Semitic. Those mere speakers of truth, so the thinking goes, are being made to pay for centuries of hateful prejudice.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

Are you asking if that's anti-semitism?

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

No.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

most minorities can expect a respectful hearing when it comes to claims of racism

I can't speak for the US but this seems to be not entirely true. Don't disagree with the rest of the piece tho.

summer sun, something's begun, but uh-oh those tumblr whites (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's not remotely true in the US (and probably not true anywhere else.)

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think it is true of the groups he is primarily discussing in this piece (the far left and 'traditional conservative realists').

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

Also, despite the title of this thread, I figure discussions about anti-Semitism are appropriate here. Silly to start an entirely new thread for them.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

The origin of this warped thinking lies in the left’s commitment to anticolonialism following the Second World War.

o i c

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think the piece is pretty silly myself. Gilad Atzmon is an anti-semite, John Mearsheimer blurbed his book, therefore Mearsheimer's book is anti-semitic, also Mearsheimer's not true because other prominent journalists are now saying the same thing and getting away with it.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Gilad Atzmon is an anti-semite, John Mearsheimer blurbed his book, therefore Mearsheimer's book is anti-semitic

Yeah, this is not his argument.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

The modification rests upon a distinction between what I call bierkeller and bistro anti-Semitism. Bierkeller anti-Semitism—named for the beer halls frequented by the German Nazis—employs such means as violence, verbal abuse, commercial harassment, and advocacy of anti-Jewish legal measures. Certainly, the first and second generations of modern anti-Semitic publicists and intellectuals had no qualms about this sort of thuggery. Since the Second World War, though, this mode of anti-Semitism has waned sharply, along with the tendency to use the word anti-Semite as a positive means of political identification.

Bistro anti-Semitism, on the other hand, sits in a higher and outwardly more civilized realm, providing what left-wing activists would call a “safe space” to critically assess the global impact of Jewish cabals from Washington, D.C., to Jerusalem. Anyone who enters the bistro will encounter common themes. These include the depiction of Palestinians as the victims of a second Holocaust, the breaking of the silence supposedly imposed upon honest discussions of Jewish political and economic power, and the contention—offered by, among others, Mearsheimer’s co-author, Stephen Walt, of Harvard—that American Jewish government officials are more suspect than others because of a potential second loyalty to Israel.

beer-track and wine-track! lol strauss

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

The man whose book Mearsheimer called “fascinating and provocative,” a work that “should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike,” is an anti-Semite, pure and simple. A saxophone player by trade, Atzmon was born and raised in Israel but subsequently moved to London. He proclaims himself either an “ex-Jew” or a “proud self-hating Jew” and was quoted approvingly by Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at the Davos conference in 2009: Denouncing Israel in vociferous terms before a horrified Shimon Peres, Erdogan quoted Atzmon as saying, “Israeli barbarity is far beyond even ordinary cruelty.”

Atzmon fixates upon the irredeemably tribal and racist identity he calls “Jewishness.” The anti-Gentile separatism that compels Jews to amass greater power and influence is manifested, he preaches, in any context where Jews come together as a group. The Wandering Who finds Atzmon on territory well-trodden by anti-Semites past and present: Holocaust revisionism (one chapter is entitled “Swindler’s List”), the rehabilitation of Hitler (he argues that Israel’s behavior makes all the more tempting the conclusion that the Führer was right about the Jews), the separation of Jesus from Judaism (Christ was the original proud, self-hating Jew, whose example Spinoza, Marx, and now, Atzmon himself, have followed).

One would think this was categorically indefensible stuff. Yet, when the blogger Adam Holland e-mailed Mearsheimer to ask whether he was aware of Atzmon’s flirtation with Holocaust denial, as well as his recital of telltale anti-Semitic provocations, Mearsheimer stood by his endorsement of the book. Holland duly published Mearsheimer’s response: “The blurb below is the one I wrote for The Wandering Who and I have no reason to amend it or embellish it, as it accurately reflects my view of the book.”

Mearsheimer positively blurbed a book that promotes Holocaust revisionism, argues that Hitler was justified in killing Jews, and considers anti-Semitism an appropriate reaction to Jewish behavior. When he was asked why he blurbed this book considering what appears to be explicit anti-Semitic tropes throughout, he merely reaffirmed his blurb, that the material was "fascinating and provocative."

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

"Yeah, this is not his argument."

Really? Coulda fooled me.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

Mearsheimer's book isn't anti-Semitic bc he blurbed this other book. His book may be anti-Semitic bc it traffics in classical anti-Semitic tropes. Also, the fact that he blurbed this other book certainly indicates that he himself may be anti-Semitic. You're just reading the causality incorrectly.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

when this thread got bumped i thought i might be about this, blogger IOZ, today, writing about the NYPD using anti-muslim "training" videos put together by a right-wing Clarion Fund:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2012/01/to-be-or-maccabee.html

Having been raised in the Jewish faith, I retain a sentimental soft spot for the religion . . . if you can get over The Prayer for the State of Israel that's wormed its way into the service, the high holy day liturgies are really quite lovely . . . my long-lapsed Catholic father even enjoys them, in keeping with his dictum that he enjoys all religions carried out in languages he can't understand. Saturday mornings still recall for me pretty fond memories of preparing for my own Bar Mitzvah, and I do still celebrate a raucous Passover; you can't beat the Seder as a festival meal.

But good god, I hate Jews. I hate this Israel shit. It drives me absolutely batty. This preening, violent desire for a damned national identity, this ragged, atavistic, vicious rejection of exile, and the unforgivable, unspeakable treatment of the Holocaust not so much as a sorrow but as a collective embarrassment . . . oh, watch us pay lip service to the magnitude of our catastrophe while uttering a pugilistic "never again" like a skinny kid who got knocked down by a bully at recess. Well the bully got killed when he was run over by a drunk Russian, so let's pick on some even smaller kid, some little faggot, in a demonstration of compensatory toughness. Oh, and it helps that our big brother is the biggest kid in school.

Anyway, there is a majestically kooky symmetry to the whole thing: a bunch of Israeli nuts producing cryptoeugenic hit job videos which are in turn aired as continuing ed for a gang of New York cops who aspire to get out of the frisking random nigger business and in on the next bad action movie plot.

apologies for that last line, yeesh

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

this piece would be more convincing if all the anti-semites he found in american society weren't jews

Detrius "The-Dream" Nash (symsymsym), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

"One would think this was categorically indefensible stuff."

But amazingly he defends it pretty handily. But he's clearly an anti-semite because there is no other explanation for blurbing a book which I have summarized in likely the most oversimplified fashion above. But he hasn't been tarred and feathered yet so clearly no one can anti-semitic anymore in this awful new post-The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy world. Also poor Josh Block.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

ioz is great on some things and reallllllllly iffy on everything else

max, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

whoa

xxxp to that ioz blog post

horseshoe, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

Oh, how does he defend it? xxp

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

IOZ seems like a charming young man

Chaka Collar, lemme rock you (DJP), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

Mearsheimer positively blurbed a book that promotes Holocaust revisionism, argues that Hitler was justified in killing Jews, and considers anti-Semitism an appropriate reaction to Jewish behavior.

Without knowing anything about Atzmon beyond what's in this thread I would like to express very great confidence that his book is

a) bad and wrong and depressing;
b) not accurately paraphrased by Commentary.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

Mearsheimer vs Commentary-type orthodoxy is annoying and I frankly wish a pox on both houses.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

Time and again, this strategy of deflecting and denying anti-Semitism has proved reliable. Following the recent controversy over claims by Josh Block, a former AIPAC spokesman, that left-wing outfits like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress are pushing the dual-loyalty canard with growing brashness, the commentator David Frum wondered “whether it is more unacceptable inside today’s liberal Washington to use the language of anti-Semitism—or to protest the language of anti-Semitism.” Frum got his answer when Block was relieved of his title at the progressive Truman National Security project for issuing group e-mails citing Jew-baiters in the left-wing media.

this is, as i understand it, not an accurate gloss of what happened!

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Justifying Hitler is for amateurs! Rabbi Nachman Kahane (Meir's brother!) explains why Pharaoh had no choice but to enslave the Jews.

http://nachmankahana.com/?p=648#more-648

Paro was indeed evil, but in the name of truthful objectivity, one must agree that the Jews themselves could not “wash their hands in innocence”.... The situation became so chaotic that Paro had no choice but to convene his inner cabinet and enslave the Jews in order to prevent social and political unrest, and by then it was too late for the Jews to escape to Eretz Yisrael.

Fast forward 3000+ years to today. The social unrest, unemployment, animosity towards those who “have,” and the ostentatious lifestyle of very many Jews – it’s all there today in the US. As King Shlomo says in Kohelet, “There is nothing new under the sun”.

But it is still not too late for the Jews of America to escape. The clock on the wall is ticking ever faster, and when the guillotine of history begins to fall, no one will be able to alter the outcome.

Things are going to change drastically beginning in November. If Hussein Obama will be re-elected, they will come about quickly and dramatically; if another candidate will be elected the downhill change will come about but a bit less quickly.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:25 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.