In the last few hours I’ve watched two remarkable conversations about race on television. Last night on CBS Evening News, national correspondent Byron Pitts asked black leaders in Philadelphia whether the high murder rate there wasn’t a black problem. They agreed it was. Fine journalism–and yes, probably only a black guy could do it. Then this morning on ESPN’s First Down, Skip Bayless and a black reporter whose name I missed talked about the racial angle of the Michael Vick story: whether Vick’s alleged dogfighting activities have a black cultural component, whether the affluent black fan base in Atlanta is behind Vick, and whether blacks countenance dogfighting (Bayless’s line).
Urban dysfunction is the dark side of black culture in America, and Bill Cosby did everyone a favor by breaking the taboo on the issue some years ago. Being a progressive, I think talking about it may actually change things.
I bring the race talk up, as I have before, because the dark side of Jewish achievement/intelligence/family life (all those great positives of the Jewish experience) is the Israel lobby, the use of Jewish social power to effect ends that are not necessarily in the national interest. This dark side is not openly discussed, though it is at the heart of our problems in the Middle East. Why did none of the Democratic presidential candidates in last night’s debate talk about Israel/Palestine? Because they are all dependent on Jewish giving, and the issue is just too hot to handle.
Exhibit A today is A Tragic Legacy, the fine book that came out in June about the self-destruction of the Bush Administration, by the leftlib blogger Glenn Greenwald. I praised this book a month back for fingering the neocons as Israel-centric. A notable achievement. Today I’m going to focus on the taboo the book upholds, by failing to identify the neocons as an intellectual movement with a strong Jewish component.
Greenwald’s theme is that Bush destroyed his administration by accepting a manichean view of the world, good versus evil. Some of that stupid moralism came from his evangelical Christian background. Some of it came from the neocons, in Greenwald’s view. And it has hurt the country by turning the Middle East into an us-against-them struggle, with us on Israel’s side, rather than approaching the Middle East as a highly complex diplomatic and strategic balancing act. So far so good. In his best analysis, Greenwald shows how Iranian and American interests have actually converged on several occasions over the last few years; and therefore how dangerous it is to our statecraft to give any credence to Marty Peretz when he attempts to smear James Baker, who would have us talk to Iran, as a war criminal and antisemite.
The failure here is that Greenwald can never bring himself to broach an issue that he knows to be a factor: the Jewishness of the neocons. As I have reported here, though it is now widely obfuscated in the wake of the Iraq debacle, the Jewishness of the neocon movement was openly acknowledged in years gone by, including in two leading volumes by fellow travelers: Benjamin Ginsberg’s The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, and Murray Friedman’s The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Recognizing neocons as Jewish is also common sense (which used to be an important part of news judgment). Smart leftie Jews who hate the Iraq war keep dancing up to this line and backing away. Jerrold Nadler did so at Columbia a few months ago, when he brilliantly explained how the neocons had gathered at the gates over 20 years then captured the Bush administration with an arrogant theory–but claimed it wasn’t about Israel. Greenwald goes further, by saying, Yes, for the neocons, it’s all about Israel.
The failure on Greenwald’s part is in refusing to talk about religion as a motivator. Oh, he is happy to talk about the Christian religion as a cause of the Iraq debacle, but he immunizes rightwing Jews from such analysis. When he knows as well as I do that Israel is central to American Jewish considerations. Israel is the "secular religion" of American Jews, per Dershowitz (1997). Israel must be "an extension of [the] life and consciousness" of American Jewry, per the Forward’s Hillel Halkin (1977).
Greenwald’s self-censorship is a significant failure for a number of reasons: Because Greenwald is generally a brave writer (justly garlanded by Markos as "one of the smartest and most important new voices to emerge in politics in years") and if he shies away, you can just imagine how more timid analysts feel; because Iraq is a disaster that is hurting our country and that demands the sharpest, most searching analyses that writers are capable of; and, maybe most important, because we as Jews understand these issues in a way that others don’t, we are empowered in the media, and we owe it to America and to any ideal of democracy that we still have inside us to deal openly with Our Religious Question.
It took great bravery for Byron Pitts to go to Philly and broach the black-crime issue before a national audience. He did it because he wants to heal that community, and he trusts America enough to help him. Leftleaning Jewish writers owe the country the same kind of soulsearching.
Related posts:
- Liberal Jews’ Inability to Denounce Neocons Is Like Blacks’ Embrace of Michael Vick
- Before He Gained Power, Khalilzad Said Israel Lobby “Paralyzed” Our Foreign Policy
- ‘Dissent’ Editor Smears Soul-Searching Over Jewish Identity and Foreign Policy as ‘Anti-Semitic’
- Cable News Uses Assimilating Blacks to Paint Rev. Wright as Nuts. When Do Assimilating Jews Get Their Turn Re Israel?
- Does Israel’s Former Foreign Minister Regard the U.S. Lobby as a Pillar of His Country’s Foreign Policy?
{ 12 comments }
Jews should wear Yellow Stars and when written about have Yellow Stars printed next to their names.
That's odd I have had similar feelings about Mr. Greenwald. His writing I actually follow closely. I wrote him not long ago as follows;
Many of us are beginning to wonder about the deafening silence of our main stream media concerning the espionage trial of two former AIPAC employees. As you know I’m sure, the trial was continued from June until September. I’ll bet that most in the main stream media are aware of this also. Yet nothing. I would think this event would be newsworthy. A government employee now imprisoned, gives classified documents concerning Iran to two high ranking AIPAC officials who in turn provide these documents to our goodiest and bestest friends at the Israeli embassy. A case loaded with first amendment issues that the media is usually all over. I would think that those media giants Mathews, Blitzer, Hannity, Oberman and all the rest would be blathering about this for months. This is the Scooter trial and Abramoff scandal rolled into one. Yet nothing.
This almost looks as if it must be the work of cabal or something. Now I know cabals don’t actually exist because that is what we are told. But who should we believe, Alan Dershowitz or our own lying eyes.
If I have missed a prior post on this topic let me know. You did say there would be no restrictions on what you do here at Salon didn’t you?
Mr. Greenwald responded as follows;
"I've written several times about the AIPAC espionage trial. I've written even more times about the influence of AIPAC. If you're actually interested in that, you can Google it, rather than coming here and implying – based on nothing – that some secret cabal is effectively intimidating me from writing about what I want."
I guess Glenn is a little touchy about this issue. But actually it wasn't based on nothing, my concern was that Salon was now censoring the content of his articles. A valid point considering the fact that Christopher Ketcham's article about Israel's possible advance knowledge of the 9/11 hijackers was dropped by Salon within hours of its scheduled publication.
Very good points here. It should be pointed out, though, that one of the most cherished beliefs-or should one say shibboleths-is being touched-namely, that minorities-particularly those that have been, or can claim, persecution and discrimination-are always morally superior and deserving of more attention than the majority. One could extend the point and speak of Hispanic, female, homosexual pathology.
This in turn has stood in the way of social justice, as well as a sound foreign policy. For a mixed economy-socialism, even-and a welfare state can only be built upon a commitment to all people, not just some of them.
Phil – Can you tell me all about Leandro Aragoncillo? That is before you go and google him.
How about the issue of spies from China?
My point is that there are a lot of stories that don't get major play for various reasons, even if they are really important. Jewish influence is reported on quite a bit by Leftist publication and all the time in the Arab and Islamic media. It gets some attention in Western media, but understandably is approached cautiously since the last time it was made a big deal about a few million of your fellow tribesmen were killed.
Greenwald is a serious mind that deals with this issue in a serious manner. Liberal White Boy is likely a representative of a large contingent of yahoos that can't wait to roast as many jews as possible (figuratively speaking…I hope). I agree that it is high time we have frank conversations about a range of topics including black crime, latino birthrates, and pro-Israeli bias in American Zionists, but I think it is important to do so intelligently and carefully so as not to set ourselves back another 50 years. Do it, but do it carefully.
In the old fairy tale Rumpelstitskin, the power of this dwarf is based on the fact that nobody knows his name. As soon as it is pronounced by the King's beautiful bride, who is threatened with being transformed from the dwarf's beneficiary into his victim, his power evaporates and he tears himself apart in rage.
The absolute taboo on discussing the power of Jewry, and any attempt thereto being branded as anti-Semitism, might have to do with the feeling, rather akin to that of the malicious dwarf, that power named and indentified though it doesn't magically evaporate can yet be more effectively dealt with.
A way around this taboo for historians was the one taken by the British historian Alan Taylor and his Israeli colleague Tom Segev in their respective discussions of the British cabinet's reasons for issuing the Balfour declaration. It was, they say, the PERCEPTION of or the BELIEF in the power of world jewry to influence the course of the war (viz.specifically by its supposed ability to substantially assist in bringing the Americans into it) that was at the bottom of this piece of statesmanship.
Was this "perception", this "belief", misplaced? If any one was going to disabuse these political leaders of their belief it was certainly not Chaim Weizmann who, rather, did his level best to encourage it. And perhaps the question is moot anyway because as Thomas & Thomas once famously observed: "What men define as real, is real in its consequences".
Taylor's and Segev's way out was, however, not open to Greenwald. The neocons' hands on the levers of powers are too visible to vaguely speak of a "belief" or a mere "perception" of jewish-power-in-the-background, however much this may play a role in other sectors of American political life. Thus the only way to avoid an unpleasant rumpus here was to retain a discrete silence about the neocons' jewish background.
The US declared war on Germany in April 1917 and the Balfour-declaration dates from November of that year. Rather than "bringing" the US into the war it was supposed that American jewry "could influence the US to intensify their involvement in the war…" as the then British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, put it in his memoirs.
Ah yes, here we go Poastal. Questioning the dearth of news coverage on AIPAC espionage trial=Jew roasting(figuratively). How unpredictible your comments here. You have thrown me for a loop.
Just a friendly recommendation to the followers of Barack Obama:
Do not follow him!
His intelligence is not qualifying him to be in the US Senate or in the White House.
We do not need more Clarence Thomas' on either sides.
Just a friendly recommendation to the followers of Barack Obama:
Do not follow him!
His intelligence is not qualifying him to be in the US Senate or in the White House.
We do not need more Clarence Thomas' on either sides.
Why do I feel,I should read Avi Shlaim's book (link below to come to a more balanced view on matters? What are American interests in the larger gamble?
http://tinyurl.com/2rwlkk
War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History, Revised and Updated, Avi Shlaim, 1995
Problem, I am a slow and careful reader and constantly books are piling up AND concerning Avi Shlaim, I decided to start with his "Iron Wall".
I find this somewhat comical. I distinctly recall neocon becoming a code name for "jews" soon after 9/11 and much being written about it. One could argue that not enough is written about Oprah's weight, but it has been written about and it is largely a non-issue when you get right down to it. Everyone knows that Jews are disproportionately represented in politics, law, finance, and education. We used to celebrate them for being so. Any person with common sense knows that the vast majority of these jews have a connection to Israel in much the same way that many Indian-Americans and Mexican-Americans have connections to India and Mexico. Are individual jews more inclined to place the interests of Israel above that of the USA? I would wager yes, in the same way that any individual ethnic American may have the inclination to do so with their country of birth. Are they in general inclined to put Israel before the USA. From the Jewish people I know I would wager this is not likely at all.
Tomer wrote: "Jews should wear Yellow Stars and when written about have Yellow Stars printed next to their names."
No need for yellow stars. That punishes the the guilty with the innocent. But I wouldn't mind people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Abrams and Dershowitz, who care far more about Israel than they do the United States, having to wear a scarlet "T" (for traitor) on their shirts for the rest of the the Iraq war.
Comments on this entry are closed.