Yes, how great it is to have Jews like Ruth Wisse who decry anything related to Israel as anti-semitic. With friends like these...

I do admire there discipline. In fact, it reminds me of the good old days of stalinism.

Daniel, you did not read the piece. MJR is right. And you are lying too? Where does W and M or Carter say Jews or Jewish cabal?

Daniel G, your ad hominem attacks on TPM regulars are unwelcome here. If you can prove MJ wrong, cite chapter and verse. Otherwise, beat it.

MJ, after reading her article, I don't have the faintest idea how you could have come up with your inflammatory title for this thread, however, it is in line with other comments you have made here in the past.

Ruth R. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature

The New Republic demonstrates in minature M.J. Rosenberg's thesis on cricitizing Israel. TNR publishes many articles criticizing American policies. Yet it is utterly unthinkable that TNR would publish even a single article critical of Israeli policies.

As a gentile, I can tell you there IS a problem of conflating the Israeli Lobby and Jews in general. But, I maintain, there is nothing unusual about that. Conflation of Germans and Nazis is common. Conflation of Russians with Communist was at one time common.

Moreover, this conflation usually manifests itself in the less reflective segments of the population.

Still, this conflation must have a certain basis of some sort. Why does it happen so universally? Think of the stereotyping of blacks, gays, Jews, etc. Why does it happen?

Let me suggest perhaps some preliminary observations.

First members of a group do not want to criticize others in their groups even when criticism is warranted.

The complement population of the given group, sees that as "cabal type" behavior.

Why is there so little criticism among prominent Blacks of the more objectionable behavior of say gangster rap groups? Or why is there not more criticism amongst Italians of Mafia organizations? Why is there not more self-policing within affinity groups in general?

. This needs to be looked into and a book written about.

The fact that Jews have suffered the Holocaust has made all decent people react with horror and deep sympathy. That perhaps is one reason why there is such a reluctance to be critical of Israeli policy in the Middle East. It is not logical, it is psychological.
The Israeli Lobby uses this to its advantage. Gentiles feel manipulated and anti-Semitism grows

She says it because she wants to stop all discussion of the lobby and all criticism of Israel. Period.

And that is the rub! One cannot stop the above without suppressing a broad range of new thinking by Americans of any religion.

I miss the 60's where an author was not published because of the subject area he or she represented, or to fill a pre-determined point but was writing on the edge or beyond of public discussion for the opportunity of the view to be included in our reality if it sparked in the Gestalt .

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Ask Feingold or Franken if they agree with Carter or W & M.
On second thought, don't ask, you'll be disappointed.

That perhaps is one reason why there is such a reluctance to be critical of Israeli policy in the Middle East.

and anti-Semitism grows

I agree there is no such reluctance in the Middle East to criticize Israeli policy in the region. I was referring the reluctance in Western countries to be critical OF Israeli policy in the Middle East. Especially in the media.

MJ:

This is the title of your piece:

"Harvard Prof Says All Criticsm of Lobby Is Anti-Semitism"

I have read the op-ed piece by Professor Wisse that you link to, and she just doesn't write that all criticism of the Lobby is anti-semitism. I do agree that she is critical of W&M, and in a sloppy sense, but I don't read what she writes as comporting with the title of your piece.

But fwiw, I submit that most W&M supporters at the TPM Cafe are equally sloppy in terms of what they support in the book. When we speak of W&M's thesis, are we not speaking of theses? That is to say, isn't their principal argument that the many different Jewish and non-Jewish groups who make up the so-called Israel Lobby exercise extraordinary influence in Washington? I believe that is correct. But, as I understand things, W&M also assert something far more sinister in my view, and that is that, but for the influence of the Israel Lobby, American boys and girls would not be dying in Iraq.

Should anyone choose to respond to this comment I pose, please note that I am not convinced by references to the number of footnotes in their book, because even right wing maniacs like Ann Coulter have lots of footnotes, as did Professor Leonard Jeffries when he asserted that the European slave trade could not have occurred but for Jewish financing. Succinctly stated, counting footnotes is not a scholarly exercise; it is, at most, a political statement in this instance.

I would be more interested in someone explaining to me what is in those footnotes, i.e, what is the evidence put forward by W&M that we would not have been in Iraq but for the extraordinary influence of the so-called Israel Lobby. It's this premise, if I understand W&M correctly, that I take issue with, and serious issue with, both from an historical perspective and a realist assessment of what makes George Bush et al. tick.

I think it is fair to ask the foregoing questions, because so many of our fellow posters have embraced W&M, and a few may have even read the book. Embracing W&M, without explaining what one embraces, is an ambiguous and undefined embrace at best.

Finally, MJ, I don't condone davai's ongoing and obsessive personal assaults on you at all and I wish he would stop, but his question to you in this thread is a fair one, one that I have for you as well, and that is, what is it about W&M's book that you find objectionable? You are the principal moderator about I-P issues at the Cafe, an unenviable position perhaps, but that's why you get paid the big bucks. :) I think it's fair for you to elaborate on the flaws you see in W&M's thesis, or more accurately, theses. Thanks.

Bruce

Finally, MJ, I don't condone davai's ongoing and obsessive personal assaults on you at all

davai:

I don't like to gang up on anybody, ever, and maybe that's why I don't criticize you that much since you get plenty of zeroes and stuff from the rest of the gang. But you don't help your arguments, or those on whose behalf you argue, by engaging in personal attacks on MJ.

I promise you this: I will defend you and vigorously so when you make substantive argument and still are personally attacked by folks on here, and I will upgrade your zero ratings when I think they are politically motivated. But I have to tell you that I think it's wrong for you to keep insulting MJ, and I cannot defend you with credibility if that's the approach you continue to take.

Bruce

Well for starters, two wrongs don't make a right davai. You know that.

I never even thought about Kristol's religion

For example, it was in the last day or two that Davai brought up, in the context of the 2003 invasion of Iraq [Note 1], Bill Kristol, a list of Administration people he influenced to launch the Iraq operation. Davai said this was anti-semitic because Kristol is Jewish

To me, this is an example of Davai's constant playing of the anti-semitism card, in a case where Jewish identity was not part of the discussion.

As far as Davai's constant complaining about MJ, conflated with said card, I picture Davai as a little boy jumping up and down

Bruce,

I think it's fair for you to elaborate on the flaws you see in W&M's thesis, or more accurately, theses.

MJ, Howard and others, here is your moment.
Let's forget about W&M.
Would you at least condemn this guy is antisemite. If he is not antisemite, who is ?

Ruth Wisse and others like her can say what they want, but an accurate reading of history reveals that the Palestinians were made into a bulls eye by the Balfore agreement.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Wordie,
You, MJ, W&M and the rest of the gang allege that AIPAC dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping Israeli interests and hurting U.S. ones.
You guys also argue that AIPCAC is using it's infuence on American media to prevent American people to know the truth. People who are trying to tell the truth like W&M Carter, Finkelstein, MJ and other are subjected to persecutions.
AIPAC is a Jewish organization.
Your understanding of AIPAC can be fairly summarized as "Jewish cabal".
It doesn't mean and nobody allege that every single American Jew is a member of a Jewish cabal.
Authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
never alledged that ALL Jews were part of that Jewish cabal.

If he had changed one reference from "Jews" to "Israelis" in

The Jews are stealing orange groves and land from Palestinians

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Bush/Cheney would have gone to war if there was no lobby, but the lobby allows itself to be used for their interests. That's not only a risk to the lobby, it's a risk to other Jews might well become scapegoats in the future. The war profiteers have no friends or allies and no morals either. They serve only themselves. They will throw the lobby (and Israel) to the wolves when it's no longer useful.

Why didn't you attack them when they did that?
I do, I've said several time sin tmpcafe that US
is not Nazi Germany or USSR.
US are still one of the most free country in the world. I agree that many leftwingers are crazy morons not only about Jews but also about
my adopted country, US.
BTW, it makes me feel better to know that left winger anti-semites who also say crazy things about US are reallly, really a very small minority in US and have no chances to get any support.

No, I didn't say make a statement that the US is not Nazi Germany or the USSR. I said that when someone we both may consider crazy such as Clark and Chomsky says anything, I don't see you condemning on threads dealing with their comments. I do, however, see you calling things that criticize Israeli actions, questions if Israel and the US have always-parallel seurity interests, or criticize an ideological figure that happens to be Jewish, you go off about antisemitism.

So no, I don't consider the statement made especially anti-semitic, and I don't consider criticizing Kristol's acolytes remotely anti-semitic.

It really puzzles me, seriously, if Israel's fate is so important to you, why did you not adopt Israel as your country, not the US? I see you terribly concerned about Israel's security interests, but can't remember you commenting about a US security interest where Israel was not involved. Where are you, for example, on threads dealing with East Asian issues? Why are you extremely concerned with the potential of Iran having nuclear weapons, when I haven't seen much from you about North Korea?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Looks like MJ has his very own obsessive-compulsive stalker, at least on the subject of Israel.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the US District Court subpoena of Condoleezza Rice and other US foreign policy officials to testify at the trial of the two AIPAC lobbyists on charges of passing classified information to Israel. Smart legal move by the lobbyists attorneys, but the Administration will likely fight it. This Administration would rather drop the case than reveal any of their so called "secrets", really just embarrassments.

I don't remember any post on tpmcafe about North Korea. People don't care about North Korea and the rest of the world.

People only care about Israel.

Well I don't remember a thread about Chomsky

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

One might observe the similarities between conflation and inflation, and marvel that only one specifically deals with expanding an object with gas.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." [Winston Churchill]

MJ wrote:
NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece attacking criticism of the lobby in the past six weeks.

Correction_1:

NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece
CRITICIZING ATTACKS on the lobby in the past six weeks.

Correction_2:
NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece
CRITICIZING CRITICISM of the lobby in the past six weeks.

FAQ:
1.Can you critize the lobby?
Yes, if you can clearly define who is and who is not a member of the lobby.
2. Can you critize the criticism the lobby?
Yes.
3. Can you attack the criticism the lobby?
What's the difference compare #2?

BevD:

I think that Bar-K has in fact read that letter and you are seeing how he interprets it.

Looking at Nazi Germany after the fact Bar-K equates the Jews trying to practice Satyagraha towards the Nazis as producing the same result of just letting themselves be killed.

Ghandi then compounds his offense: he 'understands' the Muslim violence but when it comes to the Jews going to Palestine "it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun." This looks remarkably like a double standard.

I always find it amusing that to be a true friend of Israel in these arguments, one must agree with Likud. If you agree with the position of the Labor party, you're an anti-semite.

It's just the same old crap that goes back to McCarthy, Huey Long, Chauvin, Savanorola, an endless list of those who cannot defend their actions and must therefore attack those who dare raise questions.

If he had read the letter, he wouldn't have interpreted it that way. Ghandi didn't ask the Jewish people to do anything more or less than he was doing himself. He said the Jews must stand their ground, not as Jews, but as Germans, and fight the German government as he did in South Africa and was doing in India - passive resistance in all things. Satyagraha is a system of non violent protest which combines passive resistance to any law or laws which are immoral with daily, visible sit downs. (This is the method employed by Poland in its only successful revolution of the 20th C.) Under no circumstances do you surrender or stop or by any means compromise your position, even if it takes years.

If you had read the letter, you would know that there was no double standard there at all. He specifically states that all of sympathies lay with the Jews, that if any war could be just it would be a war to fight this persecution (and this was in 1938) but no wars can ever be just and the only way to real peace is through the practice of non-violence.

Ghandi fully understood why the Jews wanted Palestine, but taking the land from the Arabs by means of violence and with the protection of the British government was inherently unfair to the Arabs and would be a source of ceaseless conflict. How right he was, too.

Thanks for replying to my post MJ.
Bruce

AJM, I don't understand your metaphor. You're saying the Israeli Lobby is a dead 1920's black rapist dredged from a river? How did he/it end up dead in the river? What is the counterpart to the raped Southern belle--U.S. foreign policy?

In any case, discrimination and prejudice against blacks in the Jim Crow South did not come from reportage of actual crimes committed by actual black criminals against actual white victims, but from refusal of white juries and white law enforcement agencies to take seriously actual crimes committed by actual white criminals AGAINST actual blacks victims.

Kinda ironic, in a post where you warn against encouraging the world's prejudice that you would gratuitiously conjure a symbolic black rapist, symbolically kill him and dump his symbolic body in a Southern river.

Bruce: I appreciated your willingness to speak to davai about the problem of his constant attacks earlier, and I appreciate this stronger statement. I applaud your willingness to recognize that insults have no place here at TPM Cafe. You needn't worry about uprating davai's zeros though; he does that himself with his sockpuppet, secretweapon. His doing so only confirms that he is a troll.

Because you were so forthcoming in taking this step, I'll issue my own mea culpa. In an earlier discussion (not with you), I said that another poster, hass, was attacked on the basis of his views about a one state solution (note that I personally do not support a one state solution). But I spoke too soon, and realized as I rethought it sometime later that Hass is also attacked because of the way he argues (insults, rants), much as with davai. I spoke to Hass in the past about this, to little avail; I strongly suspect your comments to davai will have no effect either. I've been meaning to go back and say something about this in the thread where my comment occurred, but it's long since buried, so thanks for opening the door.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

You and MJ, at least, bring up points worth discussing. Davai mostly whines and throws out irrelevant questions, which add nothing to the discussion.

You have the integrity to live in Israel, and take risks. You've earned a degree of respect from me that Davai has not.

Charles Krauthammer many years ago wrote a piece in Time Magazine that said that those who say they hold Israel to "higher standards" than their own or other countries are antisemitic.

I disagree, I don't think it's anti-anything to
ask WHY our CONGRESS has now, for all intents
and purposes, become the United Nations. It
also unfortunately makes plain and clear why
the UN has been allowed to go to hell, because
no one respects it as a venue anymore.

People want money. Specifically, people in
other countries want our tax money. Every
nickel they can grab. Matter of fact, just
shorten that to 'they want our money'. Period.
And, I don't think that their lobby, or any
foreign interest lobby for that matter, should be taking it personally or as an ethnic/racial affront to be asked, politely, to put down our congresscritters, and slowly back away.
You read a lot of this hyphenated-americanism
stuff anymore, these people and those people
and the other people claim basically some
other nationality first, and their american
citizenship SECOND. I say 'take the first one,
and pretty please get the hell OUT. If it's
so great that you just can't bear to let go
of it when you moved to the USA, well, then
by all means, go back there. And, solve your OWN
problems.

I leave it to you to figure out why this has
all come about, my opinion is it's all about
the $$$$, corruption gone corporate, gone
global, and Certain Parties just standing back
and letting it all happen. Meanwhile, it
all largely goes unreported on CNN. Hmmm....

Well, if I was king for a day, I'd go before
Congress and ask that they police themselves
both individually, and as a body, for undue
foreign influence, and go ahead and burn
another quart of the old midnight oil to
help define and mutually understand what that
is. I think America spread thin the world over
is America dissolved, and I don't think it's
quite gonna work out. At least, not for
americans, maybe it'll be ok for all the folks
demanding money and getting it, but not for
americans themselves. Couple that with the
runaway immigration thing, and you've got a
recipe for a Big Problem...O Brave New World
of Globalizationer...

I strongly suspect your comments to davai will have no effect either

Correct, because I’m a wrong target. The problem is hateful inflammatory writing by MJ. He calls religious people crazy, he calls Brooklyn Jews nuts, He blames Russian Jews for all problem in Israel, he accuses Harvard professor in lying, he call every Jew with who he disagrees about anything, neocon, jewish neocon or a member of the Israel lobby and on and on and on. There is nobody else among tpmcafe contributors practice such hate speech.

Viewed from where I sit, the discussions about the Lobby, which began quite some time ago here at TPM Cafe (to my knowledge, they started in March 2006) have been accompanied by so much acrimony and angry charges and counter-charges that it may be hard to know what anyone really thinks at this point. I do know that in the beginning, there were many loud claims that either W&M themselves were antisemitic, or that they had written an antisemitic paper. Even when quotes from the W&M paper were offered that directly contradicted some of these claims, the claims continued, much as they are continuing now with this new article from Wisse (sorry for the earlier misspelling). Even way back then, I personally said I didn't agree with all of what they wrote, but at that time, it was impossible to begin a substantive discussion of the issues raised in the paper, as there was so much disruption of any attempt to do so, and twisting of what they actually had said. It's getting better now, but it may be that people who remember what was said back then are less likely to bring up their reservations, for fear that those who are absolutely certain that W&M represent evil incarnate will sieze on those reservations and miss the larger (and more nuanced) points. (Watch what davai will do to this post for an example of this point in action.)

I do happen to think that "the Israel Lobby" can be a difficult term, as it may be too broad to be useful in many situations. I think that W&M, as I understand it, tried to refine and narrow the term a bit in their book (which I have not yet read, so don't quote me on this). A term that distinguished those rightwing Jewish supporters of Israel who are so prominent in AIPAC, and/or who are neocons, or support the neocon approach to the ME, or who are too willing to go along with either of these, might be far more useful way of describing where many of us feel the problem lies.

As far as the responsibility for the Iraq war is concerned, I think the description of some Jews in both Israel and the U.S. as being co-opted is probably accurate, but at the same time I think there were other Jewish-Americans who did play a more active role, and W&M rightly point that out. I think that an article I read some time ago on the Jewish Voice for Peace site describes it best:

Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?

By Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy, Jewish Voice for Peace; Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University; and Cecilie Surasky, Director of Communications, Jewish Voice for Peace

As the war on Iraq rages on with no end in sight, the scandals around its beginnings continue to proliferate. Because of these scandals, one question now being revisited is the role the state of Israel may have played in initiating the invasion of Iraq.

Israel's role is debated whenever American policy in the Middle East is discussed. This is inevitable, because Israel is America’s key ally in the region and because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast.  Some critics of the war on Iraq maintain that the decision to go to war was made largely to advance Israeli interests. Others maintain that Israel had nothing to do with it. The evidence suggests, however, that neither of these views is accurate.

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq.

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

They go on to describe the competing reasons - those elements that also led to war that had nothing to do with "pro"-Israel influence. So this article has one view of the mix of influences that led to war, W&M have another perhaps slightly different one, and probably everyone who has thought seriously about the issue has yet another slightly different take on it. It seems to me that it may be really impossible to know in exactly what proportion the differing elements that resulted in war all came together in the ultimate decision to act. But it's undeniable that there were a number of influential neocons both in and outside of the Bush administration who had been pushing for "regime change" in Iraq since the middle of the 90s, some of whom (but not all) were hawkish Israelphiles, and so it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude, as W&M do, that they had a defin