The New McCarthyism: Peretz Goes After Jim Lehrer, Nick Kristof and Juan Cole
I have taken it on as a mission to expose neo-McCarthyist attempts to squelch dissenting (i.e., non-Likud) voices on the Middle East.
McCarthyism did not start with the firing of liberals, lefties, Commies, socialists and anyone who ever met one. It started with lists. Black lists.
Before hiring someone, universities, Hollywood studios, publishers, school systems would check various black lists to make sure that the potential hiree was in no way, associated with the left. In one famous case, actress Nancy Davis (who later became Nancy Reagan) was blacklisted because she had the same name as some liberal. Jobs were lost. Lives were destroyed. People committed suicide.
Just having one's name on such a list was often a life destroyer.
Today, two of the biggest blacklisters are Martin Peretz and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz famously succeeded in getting Norman Finkelstein (who I can't stand) denied tenure at a small Midwestern school because he is anti-Israel. (On the other hand, he is currently fighting to help John Yoo keep his job at UC). Peretz is a full-time listmaker. If it was up to these guys, neither Jimmy Carter, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer, Steven Walt, Howard Dean, anyone associated with J Street, etc, would be out on the street.
There is no other issue like this. (Chas Freeman was the tip of the iceberg).
This is serious stuff. And it is why mainstream types (especially ambitious young people) are wise never, ever to criticize Israel about anything. As I often say, if I was younger, and still needed to look for work on the Hill (where I worked for 20 years), I'd never be as ballsy about this issue as I am now. I'm not crazy. The kids have got to eat (and my grandkids don't depend on me for their eating).
MJ:
Criticism of other writers is not McCarthyism. It's the kind of thing that opponents of Senator McCarthy fought to preserve. Oftentimes you seem more inclined to settle scores with your political opponents, even self-righteous ninnies like Instructor Marty Peretz, then you do with setting the record straight. It is the epitome of parlor game play, but it serves no productive purpose except to the extent that it serves lions craving red meat.
I know it's the internet. Here's what Leonard Fein of Americans for Peace Now, the Forward and Moment Magazine, whom I would hope you continue to respect, had to say recently about what is going on on the internet:
"The blogosphere: When it’s good, it is very good; when it’s bad, which is often, it is quite horrid, a culture of grudge, a place for malcontents to broadcast their resentments and fleetingly fantasize potency. That is why what follows is not about the blogosphere. It is, rather, about the difficulty of conducting a reasonably calm and thoughtful conversation about the Middle East without opening the door to the rabble of resentment that apparently lurks in wait for every opportunity to demonstrate that evolution can reverse direction, that pounces into frenetic action whenever it finds an opportunity to fulminate."
http://forward.com/articles/104052/
You have a following MJ. When you are quoted in national and international media you are referred to as a representative of the Israel Policy Forum. Please don't lose sight of how important that is.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
March 24, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there's no McCarthyist blacklisting going on regarding speaking up on behalf of evenhandedness in Israeli and Palestinian policy!
Just ask the McCarthyites! They'll tell you.
March 24, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bruce, don't you just love the level of discourse in MJ's little "following"? You, a McCarthyite! And no MJ at your back. How does that feel?
What does it say about the Israel Policy Forum that they give a demagogue like MJ a job as their policy guru, anyway? If you want some unsolicited advice, there are plenty other outfits on the landscape. Your efforts would do alot more good behind a serious and effective organization like APN, Ameinu or J Street.
March 24, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you and bslev are very advanced. Your afterglow is enough to illuminate the rest of us.
March 24, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contentless snark. How cute.
March 25, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the quality of my opponents, I gotta dumb it down.
March 25, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka and Bruce,
Another interesting factoid to increase your bemusement about MJ's shouting "McCarthy", while shouting down everyone whose opinions he doesn't like, is that one of the founders of the House Committee on Un-American Activities was Samuel Dickstein - a liberal NY Dem, NY State Court Justice, and onetime Soviet spy. Its also one of the favorite examples of the ACLU crowd, when they argue absolute value of free speech - the committee spent a few hours investigating Nazis, and then 15 years investigating liberals. Lets all repeat after Bruce:
March 24, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
anatol:
I've been meaning to write to you after your excellent comment about Mr. Cohen and his inability to distinguish between favoring peace overtures with Iran on the one hand and, on the other hand, recognizing that there is a reason that 3/4 of the ancient Persian Jewish community has left the land of their ancestors in the last three decades. I appreciate your perspective as someone who grew up in a totalitarian state, and unfortunately I'm not surprised that alleged faux progressives fail to appreciate your perspective and sit silently while you are mocked in a racist way because of your Russian background by the moderator. What patent hypocrisy, and I guess I should have spoken out in your defense. Forgive me. I am a fan of yours, regardless of the failure of management to understand that even people with Russian roots deserve to be treated with dignity on a progressive website. Anatol, like few others, you know what the intellectual bullying of the kind we witness day in and day out on this website can lead to. So many on here are the mirror image of the folks they so love to condemn in their petty little circle jerk. My sense is that we should stay away from these threads; without us, the circle jerk is no fun, and why should we provide the entertainment. It is no coincidence that the comments on these threads have been so drastically reduced over the past year. People are tired of this garbage, and I don't blame them, and in the end that's a good thing.
Respectfully,
Bruce
March 24, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce:
Thanks, but come on - there are more fun and useful things to do than defend me from MJ. Guess who was demeaned by his attempts at humor.A more important and ominous point to make is that MJ’s sense of superiority over me is not racism (he knows that I’m just as much of an American Jew as he is), but well known to me from what little I know about Russian history neophyte’s ardor to proclaim his new faith and to smite the Faith’s opponents. We’re at war, and I’m right, so everything goes. If the enemy doesn’t surrender, it’s destroyed. You’re with us, or you’re against us. This is very close stylistically to writings of Soviet propagandists of the 1920-es and 1930-es. Of course a lot of these hapless barkers (many of them Jewish) were shot or thrown into Gulag by the regime they helped to create, but that’s no consolation.
Indeed I do, so did Orwell, Camus, Solzhenitsyn, Berlin, Brodsky to name but a few. That’s why I disagree that Sure, true believers are hopeless, but this site is good, informative and popular, and I guess there are enough lurkers to justify a post or two. I personally learned quite a bit from posts to these threads, on either side of the issue. Besides, we met in this corner of cyberspace.I will never know of course why would an otherwise reasonable person like Josh Marshall appoint MJ Chief Rabbi of Chelm on all matters Middle Eastern, and why isn’t there any other reasonable person with headline posting rights dealing with these issues on a day to day basis. The problem is that “Hamas good, Israel bad” is quickly becoming a progressive fad, and sometimes a battle cry. We know of course that when and if such progressives win, MJ will share the fate of his Soviet predecessors of last century, but it will be too late by then. I’m afraid this is more serious than it seems, and if the bottom completely falls out of the economy, things might get very ugly. In the mean time, fighting what Dostoyevsky called "slavery of petty progressive ideas" is a good thing (sorry MJ, yet another Fyodor).
Warm regards,
--Anatol
March 24, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
tovarich!
March 25, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another small irony: MJ apparently banned YBD from the site, his prerogative, of course, but a bit hypocritical it would seem from such a champion of the right to air dissenting views. I understand that the ban was in response to alleged racist or disrespectful remarks, but in my experience, YBD, while often verbose and prone to egregious errors of punctuation, was not a purveyor of hate; rather, MJ's complaint seems to be that his existence as a pro-settler Israeli was itself a racist provocation. YBD also, apparently, placed quotation marks around some sentiments he attributed to MJ which may not have been accurate. Seems kind of small bore compared to some of the really extreme anti-Israel invective I read here every day. I feel compelled to add here that I do not share YBD's views. Still, he has as much right as anyone to air his views.
I agree that the site would become a circle jerk without some of the dissenting (I would say reasonably dissenting) voices. In the end, it would be a big disappointment. I look forward to reading the opposition far more than MJ's blog.
Finally, I am consistently puzzled that MJ reserves his wrath for those who would seem to share his views on Israel, while giving a pass, indeed egging on, the virulent Israel haters. While he calls himself pro-Israel, pro-peace, it's hard to find where the pro-Israel parts come in. From his blog alone, it would seem Israel's place in the moral universe falls somewhere between Sudan and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Taking what he writes at face value, one would logically conclude that the freedom fighters of Hamas desperately need our support.
March 24, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you even read M.J.'s posts?
This statement is bizarre: "While he calls himself pro-Israel, pro-peace, it's hard to find where the pro-Israel parts come in."
March 25, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What part is unclear?
I've been reading MJ's posts for several months now and while I've seen countless allegations of Israeli atrocities and manipulation of the US political system and media by its supporters, I have a hard time recalling anything really positive - except perhaps some fond reminiscence of the halycyon days of Rabin. Hence, MJ finds an admiring fan base primarily among those who focus blame exclusively Israel for its and the region's problems. Meanwhile, those who support a two state solution and are critical of the righward shift in Israeli politics and even might have opposed the war in Gaza (in other words, pro-Israel, pro-peace) who try to fill out the caricature that MJ presents, are met with snark and derided as neocons.
I understand that MJ sees his role as saving Israel from itself, but I wonder sometimes if he takes his comments seriously what he thinks is worth saving.
March 25, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
On further reflection. MJ obviously has a great deal of affection for Israel evidenced by his lifelong commitment to it. But it's hardly apparent from his relentless criticism. But what strikes me as particularly odd are his one-sided denunciation of the commenters in his own camp. I guess it's just what Bruce referred to as the parlor game.
Anyway, I'm done once again trying to figure out MJR.
March 25, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair,
I used to go in an AOL chat room called From the Left. This particular place attracted, among others, many right wingers, Rush Limbaugh dittoheads and Bush sycophants. I found myself often offering criticism of present day and historic United State's policies abroad.
For this, I was labeled unAmerican, unpatriotic, a terrorist lover, a traitor, someone who "never" sees the good we do, always happy to criticize the country, and a few other charges.
I was neither.
March 26, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anatol, a little misleading to call Samuel Dickstein a Soviet Spy. Yes -- he took a little Moscow Gold in his day, but you might want to check work done by Scholars in recent years who have had access to records in Moscow, and in fact what he did was teach some of the Soviet types all about the Congressional and US Government Process. Complicated now, complicated back in the 1930's, and the Soviet trade types at Amtorg needed to comprehend how things worked. That is hardly the nuts and bolts of spying, even if they did pay for lessons.
March 25, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar:
Please consider your advice to me to be on permanent solicitation status. This is another very odd thread, with very odd indictments, by some very odd alleged progressives. Thank heavens for the real world. And the reality is, of course, that folks like us support the agendas propounded by J Street, APN, and IPF. Unfortunately, how long does one see a basis for working with folks who believe you to be a neocon, or a McCarthyite, or I forgot what you were called several weeks back, which was just absolutely astonishing. Unfortunately, this stuff is going to catch up with MJ, and that's bad for him and for the IPF. This is not how coalitions are built; this is how factionalism over petty bullshit leads to parlor play and nothing more. This is why the Alan Dershowitzes and Marty Peretzes of the world wind up on top when it comes to matters pertaining to Israel and Palestine. I am, indeed, doing some soul-searching. So much to do and too little time. Ciao Bar.
Bruce
March 24, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
UC Berkeley, not Stanford.
March 24, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finkelstein denied tenure because Dershowitz organized against him. McCarthyism. Juan Cole, hired and then un-hired, by Yale because of pressure from the Likud crowd. (McCarthyism). Walt and Mearsheimer denied one speaking venue after another due to organized pressure (McCarthyism). PBS pressured to dump Moyers after Gaza comment (McCarthyism). Jewish org stop Polish embassy for allowing Tony Judt to speak at a building it owns.
I love Leibel Fein. And he and I are in total agreement on this. But, if we weren't, that would be okay. I am my own guy.
For more examples, see Muzzlewatch. http://www.muzzlewatch.com/
March 24, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you overstate the case.
The organized attempts to silence other voices, such as pressuring the Polish consulate not to allow Tony Judt to speak, is indeed an unfortunate development.
The Juan Cole case is interesting because it appears to be a Rashomon-like case of different interpretations based on different perspectives. Here's the wikipedia description of the issue:
I understand there was pressure by some to keep Cole out of Yale. What sort of pressure is unclear. I remember a few people writing about it and stating an opinion, but I don't remember hearing about an organized campaign. In any case, it certainly doesn't smell like McCarthyism to me.
And as for Peretz, the notion that he is part of the McCarthyite attempts to muzzle dissent is ridiculous. He's a cranky commentator and name-dropping Cambridge dinner-party host. That's all. And last I read, all he did was comment approvingly about Yale's decision about Cole, not lead the pressure.
March 24, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
poor brad, everything to him is unclear.
except when it supports his view of no critism of israel.
March 24, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole, hired and then un-hired, by Yale because of pressure from the Likud crowd. (McCarthyism)
Not according to Juan Cole:
Wikipedia: Juan Cole/Yale appointment
Footnote 11 = "Hundreds of Thousands Rally in Iraq Against the War in Lebanon: Middle East Analyst Juan Cole on War in the Middle East - from Baghdad to Beirut", Democracy Now, August 4, 2006
March 24, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, BSlev, it is precisely because I have a following that I spread the word about these McCarthyist tactics. What is the whole point of having a following if not to use it to tell the truth.
If I had time, I could prepare long lists of examples of this endless pressure. Some is quite bizarre as when Martin Peretz goes after Jon Stewart. Why? Stewart is a Jew who openly opposes Israeli policies and ridicules AIPAC. But Stewart is untouchable.
The new McCarthyites tend to go after those they can take out.
March 24, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your critics don't understand the concept of "chilling debate."
Robert Baer has a great chapter in his book "Sleeping with Devil" about Saudi Arabia's influence in D.C. The Saudis let Washington bureaucrats know that they will take care of them after they leave office. And the bureaucrats notice.
Similarly, Dershy is going after the outliers of the herd. He wants people who lack a following (and a committed sponsor) to get the message: Don't criticize Israel. And people notice.
Apparently, this concept is too subtle for your critics.
March 24, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out, Mythbuster. He who alleges that there is a "chilling effect" can find themselves deep in the chiller.
March 24, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm already there.
March 24, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Stewart works for Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom. Ask Dan Rather how untouchable that is. Maybe there is no "there" here after all.
BTW, all Chas Freeman had to do was not quit. I'm pretty sure the likes of Damon Runyon would have loved to be up against that kind of blacklist.
March 24, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike Dan Rather, Jon Stewart's show would be picked up by a host of networks if someone tried to cancel it. He is untouchable. And a great national treasure.
March 24, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damon Runyon? What. What blacklist was he on? Dalton Trumbo, perhaps.
I have upset the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd. No one has ever been blacklisted or anything like it for their Middle Eastern views.
The loud protests here prove it.
March 24, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My boner, MJ, thanks for the correction. I'm here to please, and I'm sure it lifted your spirits at this dark time of persecution. Meanwhile, your Lonesome Rhodes schtick is getting fabulous reviews. You owe alot to Elia Kazan.
March 24, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Zionista. Mich obliged.
March 24, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I appreciate the nod to the old nick, sir!
March 24, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved Ole Nick
March 24, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Infringements of academic freedom are a serious concern, but so is perversion of political democracy. And Congress is much more corruptible than the universities are. The best time to work against organized political intimidation serving foreign fanatics is now, e.g. not during campaign season. Of course it would be better still if we could finally do something about the corrupting and growing influence of money and lobbyists generally, but one could at least aim for drawing the line at lobbyists for foreign terrorist-settlers. In any case, please keep up the ongoing reporting and naming of names.
March 24, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're ballsy?
March 24, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCarthyism was the creation of congressional committees to pry into people's political views.
McCarthyism was people being denied work as actors, journalists, and general business people because of allegations about their political views.
This is the rejection of someone's ideas by the academic elite to the point that they do not wish to invite him into their institution. It is a far cry from McCarthyism and it is childish to claim that it is. I've heard a lot of vague allegations about this "almighty Israel lobby" but never anything that comes close to a standard of proof.
March 24, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that McCarthy is dead, so how can it be McCarthyism>
March 24, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took a "Modern Scholar" course on McCarthyism. The professsor noted that the real driver of McCarthyism was the desire of Mid-Western and Western Republicans (McCarthy and Nixon) to topple the Eastern Knickerbocker elite of the GOP.
If we tone down the religious debate and focus on the nation-state state debate, the actions of the "Chillers" makes a lot of sense: Any rational discussion of Israel will be detrimental to the knee-jerk, End-Timer support Israel gets. And the "new" guys, Rep. Pence and Rep. Kirk, get to topple the "eggheads" at Foggy Bottom who stand in the way of their worldview.
America never misses an opportunity to let the anti-intellectuals graze on the public lawn.
March 24, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it wasn't easy for you to come to this point of view. And you are pretty well convinced of it, that Israel supporters routinely try to stifle debate.
March 24, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last sentence, fifth block of type, get rid of the word "neither". Reverses meaning of sentence.
March 24, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pissed off at you, MJ, for making me go read Marty Peretz. I was hoping to see an actual list.
But no, it's just standard Peretz: "I don't like X because he cites Y, and I blame Z for giving Y a platform, whereas W says Y is biased ..."
Absolutely content-free!
Are there still people who think what Peretz has to say has any influence or importance? Stop reading him, and he'll blow away.
March 24, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. He's senile to boot.
March 24, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he invested with Madoff, right. There is a God.
March 24, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he just bought the magazine back. There is a God but he's a neocon
March 24, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always look forward to hearing from the usual suspects after you write a piece MJ.
They don't realize how they always make your point for you.
The arrogance of being able to deny what is obvious .
But I sense you getting under their skin.
I wonder who they believe they are influencing?
Maybe its not arrogance but delusion.
Like they see themselves as part of the greater good.
March 24, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade7, yes, they are amusing. And under siege. Their good old days are over.
March 24, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Barak just joined Netanyahu's coalition. I think Labour's days are over.
March 24, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I might add: The neo-con nutters are getting nuttier:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/zuckerman/index.html?page=0
March 24, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will Obama be the nutcracker or will he have his own nuts cracked?
March 24, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In passing, Juan Cole does a fine job of countering Peretz's attack on his own blog:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/03/defending-jim-lehrer-and-nicholas.html
March 24, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Today, two of the biggest blacklisters are Martin Peretz and...."
ME: I call him Marty "Macho Man" Peretz! Don't f*** with him!
March 24, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave up on the "New Republic" several decades ago. But be careful: Peretz's 'trust fund baby' wife has plenty of money for the 'Macho Man' to throw around.
March 24, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Macho he ain't.
March 25, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not one of the most memorable exchanges.
MJ uses McCarthyism in passing while attacking the usual suspects.
To which a number of people respond he's wrong to attribute that meaning to McCarthism.
Send out for the Red Queen for enlightenment on what words mean.
Well actually we don't need her. What the lexicographers mean is they don't like MJ's criticism's of Israel. So if he says the sun rises in the East ,they reply there's a strong argument for its' emerging from the Pacific and heading towards Brandeis.
So argue that point already instead of this sort of displacement.
OBTW I'm sorry MJ has banned YBD.
I won't claim that seems like McCarthyism to me- old Latin debate ploy prateritio "I won't mention that Cato's been seen sleeping with Seneca's wife (or son or donkey) whatever".
But personally I'm actually against banning just about anybody from YBD to Juan Cole.. Haunted by senile memories of missed chances at adolescent enjoyment because
March 24, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Bruce is right. I am alleging McCarthyism. McCarthyism means, to me anyway, not losing one's right to publish but to earn a living. The neocons specifically go after the livelihood of people they perceive as anti-Israel, whether its suppressing book revuews ofWalt-Mearsheimer (yup, they did), blocking Finkelstein's tenure, going after Moyers' job, trying to block Carter lectures (for which he's paid), banning politicians from holding office if they don't toe the line.
Luckily, it doesn't work all the time. But it works enough so that most people (especially in government and media) NEVER say what they think about the Middle East and often say what they DO NOT THINK just to ingratiate themselves with potential troublemakers.
This is not unique to this issue. The gun lobby and the religious right also do it but are far less good at it.
March 25, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully flavius, this whole post was about McCarthyism. You are the one who apparently seeks to ignore the express language of MJ's post, and his subsequent defense of his McCarthyite references, and posit that MJ's detractors, including yours truly presumably, are motivated only by disagreeing with MJ on Israel. Nonsense. Indeed, my point is that many of us are marginalized by MJ, and now by you, even though we favor the positions articulated by the very organziation that employs him. There is a fundamental disconnect in these discussions, and it's a mean and nasty and unproductive one. Your clever literary references don't change this "debate" into MJ on one side and a bunch of Israel right or wronger Hebes on the other. You can do better; indeed there was a time when I commended you for the manner in which your posts fostered productive discussions on these issues. And now, for whatever reason, you claim we imagine McCarthyism allegations when that's precisely what is presented to us in plain english. Strange comment.
March 24, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might have got lumped in there a bit accidentally, although perhaps not. You don't strike me as a hopeless apologist for Likud and her American patrons, although your apparent denial of McCarthyism is a bit troubling.
Jews as an ethnic group have done very well financially in America, and a few exceedingly wealthy ones have chosen to use their collective wealth and influence to passionately promote a shared agenda.
When a collection of extremely wealthy people are passionate about anything, they will usually succeed, and they will usually have droves of minions willing to work for them.
I'm very grateful that it is becoming slightly less taboo to criticize Israel, but at this early stage I think a certain brazen attitude accompanies the criticism, and I'm very guilty of this.
I don't think it's a coincidence that trailblazer Finkelstein had a confrontational personality. Less courageous scholars had the same views but lacked the courage.
As criticism of Israel becomes less chained to antisemitism and other stifling accusations, you'll notice the tone of Israel's critics become more civil and less defensive.
Jimmy Carter might be a good example. He knew his book would be greeted with abuse, so he probably named it something intentionally provocative in anticipation for the fight.
Just my two cents after 24 oz of Labatt Blue Light.
March 24, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I do indeed allege McCarthyism. I'll say it again: anyone in public life who strongly criticizes Israeli policies does so at their own risk.
The fact that some of us do, and get away with it, is only testament to (1) job security (2) independent wealth (3) tenure or (4) a "safe seat."
That is the way it is. But it's getting better thanks to a whole bunch of us here, who are unintimidated, and a free media in Israel which gives us the info and the cred we need,
March 25, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree, and have supported your efforts to highlight the McCarthyism all the way.
March 25, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or 'defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on." Peter Glover over at Real Clear Politics.
How's this for McCarthyism?
March 25, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do they mean by "defame"? That's important.
Europe has laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and people who incite racial hatred. Do you oppose those?
March 25, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they mean by "Defame" would be things like printing cartoons about Mohammed, as you well know.
It's stunning that a putative progressive could defend such concepts.
March 25, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do oppose such laws, as far as Holocaust denial is concerned. (Incitement, as far as I can understand, is a separate legal issue). Freedom of speech is an absolute value. As a former ACLU chairman (forgot his name) once said: "Speech restrictions are like poison gasses - seem like a powerful weapon, but the wind has a way of changing".
Freedom of speech is exactly what the Islamists are against, see e.g. the Rushdie fatwa or Danish cartoons, or the latest draft resolution for Durban 2. Call it McCarthyism, or call it cultural differences, but e.g. a Rushdie translator or a Dutch journalist that were killed no longer care about the terminology.
March 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of interest right now, one might follow the NATO debate as to who should be the next General Secretary of NATO. The top candidate appears to be Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark, but there is a huge campaign against him because he didn't prevent publication of the Danish Cartoons, and because when Ambassadors to Denmark from Muslim States tried to get appointments with them regarding the cartoons -- he referred them to the Foreign Minister, the normal channel for making complaints in the Diplomatic World. Rasmussen told them, through the press, precisely what the Danish Law was regarding censorship, free speech and the like -- so now they are raising a storm about his potential NATO appointment.
March 25, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCarthyism is not a term one applies to 57 Islamic states, the Soviet Union, or whatever.
Call that what you like.
This is a democracy; none of those are.
McCarthyism is here, not there. In other words, Saudis, Germans or Italians cannot violate the First Amendment.
March 25, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot another list-maker: Daniel Pipes and his Campus Watch program.
March 25, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Pipes, CAMERA, ZOA, Flame, American Jewish Committee all name names. The American Jewish Committee put out an extensive volume on liberal enemies of Israel which I can't find on their website anymore. But it was a honey!
March 25, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that they don't name names on conservative enemies of Israel?
Isn't consistency a good thing? Or do you view it as a hobgoblin of little minds?
March 25, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss YBD/bar_kochba132/Iforgothisotherinterimnic, too.
His content on this site consisted of attacks and lectures and his factual inaccuracies were legion. Unlike other sites, YBD rarely engaged in "conversations" although he and I did agree on some things such as the idiocy of Dan Halutz and ridiculous convention of calling the Saudis and Mubarak's Egypt "moderates".
BTW, AG newbie, when MJ first arrived here, he called the TPMCafe community a bunch of anti-semites. MJ has changed his viewpoints over the years.
Make that MJ's viewpoints have EVOLVED over the years....;~{)
March 25, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did MJ call the TPMCafe Community a bunch of anti-Semites? What was he responding to?
March 26, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seriously interested? You can judge for yourself by going to his archive, but I can point to them for you. (Note that comments in old posts lost the reply formatting with software transfer, so discussions are harder to follow)
His first post on this site was as an invited book club guest reviewer on March 8, 2006 and only had 9 comments on it. I won't link to it because I can only put two links here.
His first post as a contributor/columnist was this one, July 14, 2006: Gaza, Lebanon: Two Entirely Different Wars
which had 76 comments on it including this one not that far down from the top:
His second post as a contributor here was the next day, July 15, 2006,
basically addressed the entire TPMCafe audience as anti-semites,
with a follow-up on that comment:
Anti-Semitisim Lives
which has 271 comments on it and sums up with this after similar rants:
But I disagree with lally that he has changed his views; they seem pretty much the same, as do many of the views of commmenters. If you check his posts soon after that, he just hides some of them in order to quickly adjust to a different blogger-to-audience modus operandi.
March 26, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. It was amusing looking at those old threads. If you check out the last one you will see some comments by me on it (as well as by Josh Marshall.) I was oh so very concerned that Rosenberg was offended and tried to enter into the disucssion with mediation type language aimed at cutting down the animosity and vitriol. I really fell for the parlor game hook, line and sinker. But just now I ran across this old comment by member Ellen, she had him all figured out way back then:
March 26, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
aa.
MJ's views have changed...er....EVOLVED, but you have to be a real obsessive on the region and issues (which you aren't) to have noticed. It's all about nuance.
;~{)
March 26, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still gotta be ballsy though but one can be brave and smart too.
March 26, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink