For the second time in a week, the Washington Post has teed up the Jews-and-power issue in a defensive manner. Yesterday it was a long piece by Ruth Wisse saying that Jews are a historically powerless people who had to take up subservient roles in gentile society. We don’t have enough power, she writes. Look at poor little Israel. Last week it was a column by Dana Milbank on Jewish intelligence, where he seemed to say, Jews are smarter but keep your voices down.
If you’re going to talk about it as much as the Post is, in these opinion pieces, why doesn’t the paper do real journalism? How much power do Jews have in the new establishment? This is a real and interesting question. The Post would better serve its readers by trying to establish facts, not just by printing opinion.
Also, both these pieces were attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer. Wisse at least mentioned them plainly, though she writes, unfairly, that they say American foreign policy is controlled by a "Jewish cabal"–an antisemitic canard. I believe the Post has run a series of critical pieces on M&W. Shouldn’t they give the authors or those who agree with them space to defend their point of view? (My sources tell me the Post has rejected a couple of pieces that would have backed M&W up…)
Related posts:
- Praise The Washington Post. It Lifts Up Walt/Mearsheimer (Then Tries to Bash Them)
- The Washington Post Attacks Walt and Mearsheimer as Teutonic Antisemites
- Not Talking About Mearsheimer & Walt
- Walt & Mearsheimer Must Be Brought Into the Mainstream (Just Ask Haaretz)
- Walt and Mearsheimer as Scholars of Jewish History
{ 23 comments }
"Wisse at least mentioned them plainly, though she writes, unfairly, that they say American foreign policy is controlled by a "Jewish cabal"–an antisemitic canard. "
They disavow that there is a "Jewish cabal" when addressing the question directly, but then refer to the "lobby" as coherent elsewhere.
They have no thesis at all if the lobby is only a diverse amalgam, with the only common thread, a sentiment of support for Israel.
The assertion that the lobby manifests in any way "Israel right or wrong", fails, without the presumption of coherence, a singular voice.
"The assertion that the lobby manifests in any way "Israel right or wrong", fails, without the presumption of coherence, a singular voice."
Richard, this sentence doesn't seem to mean anything. What are you trying to say?
Sort of off topic for this particular post of Philip's, but on topic for Philip's earlier calls for Jews to oppose war with Iran. Latest to join in the calling war with Iran folly is none other than NYC Major Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is quoted in Newsweek saying:
"You've got to stop nuclear proliferation, but I don't see any rational case for invasion or bombing. I've always thought that you should talk to everybody. Now I am not saying that the president of the United States should be talking to the president of Iran, but there ought to be back channels, ways of engaging."
Here is a link to a Google cache of the article with quote highlighted:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.newsweek.com/id/68113/output/print+%22You%27ve+got+to+stop+nuclear+proliferation,+but+I+don%27t+see+any+rational+case+for+invasion+or+bombing.%22
Philip – Quick run down to City Hall and make sure that Bloomberg is not providing a different perspective than the right wing jews you loathe. Heaven forbid there should be a diversity of opinions in the jewish community on foreign policy matters. Why, that would ruin your entire thesis that Jews are a cabal and not just like any other ethnic group in the USA.
"…the pro-Israel people are gathered in the elitist turrets, ready to release boiling oil on the masses."
But if oil does not settle it they might as well start throwing the Richard Witties to the enraged volk whilst entoning their usual elite-jew choir of "we are victims!".
In fact the Richard Witties would better act as good jews: throw themselves to the masses in innocent lamb fashion and spare elite-jews from the ordeal of having to silence future Weissmandls.
This may interest if any of you are in the Washington DC area next week. It is a discussion of "Kinship and Diasporas in International Affairs" by Yossi Shain, an Israeli academic who spends a lot of time writing about Jewish diaspora politics. I understand this talk will focus, as a case study, on the American Jewish diaspora.
http://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&CalendarID=349&EventID=53836
The field of "diaspora politics", the field Shain and his peers study, is summarized in this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_politics_in_the_United_States
"The assertion that the lobby manifests in any way 'Israel right or wrong', fails, without the presumption of coherence, a singular voice."
There need be no coherence of voice. The ASPCA and PETA both want there to be humane treatment of animals, and can be lumped into "animal rights activists" . Yet, there is no coherence between them.
It would be interesting to see a piece that answers Philip's question: "How much power do Jews have in the new establishment?" It would take significant guts on the part of the Washington Post.
I do remember that the Washington Post did publish a major research piece on the influence and structure of the "Israel lobby" back in July 2006. It was a real contribution to the debate as it did deal with facts.
Glenn Frankel. "A Beautiful Friendship? In search of the truth about the Israel lobby's influence on Washington." The Washington Post. July 16 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627_pf.html
An interesting note from Steve Clemons: He notices that Chuck Shumer's switcharoo on the Mukasey vote has some similarities to his performance during the last Bolton confirmation, when he said (behind the scenes) that "a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel."
Clemons suggests that Shumer and Feinstein's break with the Democratic ranks just might have something to do with their "idiosyncratic involvement with the nominee."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002475.php
Ruth Wisse is a dyed in the wool Jewish neocon & her word on W&M is certainly not to be trusted.
Also, the WashPo's editorial page coverage of Israel is hopelessly biased. That's why when you read WP editorials on I-P they are ridiculous, esp. when compared to the relatively progressive editorials fr. the NYT.
Richard,
I liked your review of the film. I will certainly try to see it.
"The assertion that the lobby manifests in any way 'Israel right or wrong', fails, without the presumption of coherence, a singular voice."
I'm not sure to what extent people is aware of the fundamental error here. There is a lot of work going on in the field artificial intelligence focusing on the solution of problems by means of free agents working in uncordinated manner over partial information. The ideas of "singular voice" and "coherence" are things of the past. Instead of a single coordinated movement all a heuristic problem solver needs is a set of free agents with basic drive and an efficient method for the destruction of undesired partial solutions, in other words well placed (though unconnected) double loyalty agents coupled with the killing of dissident discourse is enough to attain convergence over time to the desired goal.
"well placed (though unconnected) double loyalty agents "
Do you hear who paranoid that sounds?
Isn't that what the malicious fiction "Protocols" postulated?
If you regard the part of the book where they describe the actions of the "lobby" as entirely legitimate, legal, not monolithic in opinion, and normal (all have multiple loyalties) as controlling, then there is no thesis (at least regarding a "lobby").
If you regard the parts of the book where they describe the effects of the "lobby" as manipulating "America's geo-political interests", as controlling, then they are insidious and must be stopped at all costs.
My sense is that they invented a disease, as before AIDS was known to be closely associated, at some level of causality, to HIV, other descriptors were used. Thank God, it turned out to be caused by a virus, rather than some uniquely gay plague.
That was that Walt/Mearsheimer coined the name of the "disease".
Rather than call it "The Failure of Neo-Conservative Thought", they picked "The Israel Lobby".
Its definitely somewhat descriptive, but its relevance passes without the conspiratorial fuel.
This comment to Ruth Weiss's essay is interesting:
"gilmanc wrote:
So, .2% of those at every level of government are Jewish? That would mean the power is not distorted.
That would mean only 1 out of every 500 people at every level of government is Jewish. Is that the case? How many Jewish senators are there? There should be at most, 1. How many representatives? There should be 1.
But the reality is that it is money that creates power. Would you be willing to go on the record saying that .2% of this nation's wealth is owned by Jews?
Now, if you say "the United States has more than .2% Jews", then you must look at the influence the United States has on the world, and then look at the influence Jews have on United States policies. According to the CIA Factbook, Jews make up 1% of the United States population. So again, there should be one US senator and 4-5 US representatives. Is that the case? 13 senators are Jewish (13%), and 30 representatives are Jewish (6.9%). That would lead me to believe that there is an overrepresentation of Jews in our government, 7-8 times overrepresentation.
Really, though, I wouldn't care that Jews have this over-representation, if Jews showed a consistent desire to put the United States first. This means not conflating the needs of Israel with the needs of the United States. Therein lies the key. Not every criticism of Israel is a criticism of Jews. Those of us who will not look the other way at the occupation are subjected to accusations of anti-Semitism. Those of us who notice that the power brokers in our government are over-representated by Jews are not anti-Semites, any moreso than if we notice there are too many white men that are power brokers we are racist.
Finally, this op-ed screams of the same old "we're Jews, so of course we're powerless" rhetoric that has been in place for eternity. For much of eternity, it was true. With the creation and successful defense of Israel, the game changed. Now, in the eyes of the secular, the policies of Israel are subject to scrutiny as a member of the family of nations. With the creation of Israel, with its Jewish majority, the powerlessness ended.
Finally, regarding Burma, is Ms. Wisse saying Israel's actions in the territories are OK compared to Burma? What does Burma have to do with Israel?
Israel has never played nice with the family of nations. The consistent attitude of Israel has been to thumb its nose at the world and stand behind the United States, which is not the way to win friends and influence people. Yet, if Jews are going to assume that criticism of Israeli policy is the same as criticism of Jews, then I'll proudly wear the label of anti-Semite. It won't change that I have no hatred for Jews, and it certainly won't change that Israel's actions are not those of an honorable nation.
11/5/2007 8:06:46 PM
Recommend (1)
Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Garak wrote:
Wisse is either on drugs or deliberately distorts and misstates Walt and Mearsheimer. It is nothing but an anti-American screed. Sorry, Zio-fascists, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel. A nation born of terror deserves all the scorn heaped upon it. And Americans who actively work to further the interests of a hostile foreign power to the detriment of the US have no place on the pages of the Post. To even run Wisse's pathetic, sick rant is a disgrace to journalism.
God gave Israel to the Jews. Jews are Christ Killers. Two sides of the same coin. The Palestinians bear NO responsibility for the alleged genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Dispossessing them of their ancestral home is a crime against humanity and must–and WILL–be rectified. Two wrongs don't make a right, Wisse.
Wisse is a disgrace to Harvard and the entire US educational system."
Another comment ends up:
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
this comment to Weiss article is also interesting:
"tucompay1976 wrote:
What a unique distortion of various important historical facts. Certainly the claim that Jews have too much power is suspect and, philosophically, untenable. We can, however, raise meaningful questions about how Jewish communities use the power they have. AIPAC, an important force within the US political scene, is one such organization that deserves questioning as Walt and Mersheimer have done, for better or worse.
I appreciate any opportunity to better understand the tumultuous history of world communities. Jews, Native Americans, Romas, etc. all have important stories to tell about human dignity and cruelty. However, far too often, communities ignore the reality of their own cruelty by overemphasizing their suffering. In the brief and distorted historical summary presented here about the Jewish state of Israel, Dr. Wisse ignores very real and uncontroversial facts about Israel's non-victim behavior towards the Palestinians and Arab states. In Israel's case, accommodating its "enemies" is absolutely not what has been done. On the contrary, accommodation would have entailed accepting the 1967 borders as the basis for peace. Occupation and settlements are not accommodations. I think that, as a scholar, Dr. Wisse would do well to reduce the literary flare and add a bit of historical reality to her argument. Jews, who are not a monolithic community, don't have too much power. But some Jews do."
"well placed (though unconnected) double loyalty agents … Isn't that what the malicious fiction "Protocols" postulated?"
It isn't and that's the funny part.
When I talk about "destruction of undesired partial solutions" I'm talking precisely about such techniques like accusing someone of saying something he didn't actually said in a way to discredit him and therefore block the development of an undesired (for you) partial solution (or explanation). The same killing process is done at the political level and public information (media) level.
It was kind of you, Witty, helping me in my little explanation of the basic drives behind the zionist agent. Thanks.
More and more it will become clear to americans that zionist americans are dual loyalty agents: jailors of the mind at home and jailors of the body abroad.
The comments at the Washington Post do seem to be running pretty hostile to Wisse's article. I expect we'll see Richard Witty over there soon, defending the homeland. :)
"Zionist Pressure Fails to Stop Overcoming Zionism Book"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe_LehIMV7o
(Short video of Joel Kovel talking about Zionism and Israel on Democracy Now.)
When Dana Milbank is on Keith Olberman's MSNBC Countdown program, he comes across largely as a voice of reason. In his writings, he seems more like a 5th Columnist.
Looks like "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains" (Jonathan Demme's new movie) is going to keep the discussion going:
"Demme told me he intended the documentary to be a 'portrait in motion' of the 83-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate, whom he greatly admires, 'to find out what makes Jimmy Carter tick.' But it became a condemnation of what Demme now calls 'land-grabbing' from the 'oppressed' Palestinian people. The film is more assertive than the book."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500204_pf.html
Am I alone in noticing that the Washington Post has become indistinguishable from the New York Sun?
It is past time to consign it to the scrapheap of once serious US newspapers joining the NYT and WSJ.
Thank goodness we still have a few good UK papers.
Wisse is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
Her marshalling of evidence and claims is opportunist and slapdash.
* the destruction of the Temple in AD70. She fails to mention that most Jews did not live in or near Jerusalem at the time (the vast majority had already made their homes in 'foreign lands'), and that cosmopolitan Jewry did not miss a beat.
* the hostility of surrounding Arab states to Israel at its creation.
As if Israel was born on terra nullius and not conceived in sin. I see no Naqba.
* Edward Said as terrorist because he is photographed throwing a rock?
Hello? Perpetuation of the wholly unedifying spectacle of excoriation of the admirable Said.
* We got nowhere, she says, by installing Arafat as head of a proto-Palestinian state.
She admits, without irony, that Israel 'instals' a quisling (who does the right thing by agreeing to a Palestinian state on the arse-end 22%) but blames the quisling for the subsequent impasse.
* She boasts about Israel attracting venture capital as a knowledge powerhouse. She misses the parallels with Germany, a scientific-industrial powerhouse that spawned Hitler.
* 'Since the days of Pharaoh, Jews have functioned as a lodestar of religious and political freedom …'
Just so much bollocks. Israel has decisively killed all that self-deception (and endogamy is hardly conducive to religious freedom).
Etc. etc.
Wisse's brain is cooked.
Comments on this entry are closed.