Its silly. Larry Summers comments about Walt's shift in status from universally acceptable to not quite, is probably accurate.

That is a DIFFERENT beast than what happened. The LRB article was polemic. The verbal defense of it by Mearsheimer was polemic. When a thesis that includes elements of "Jewish conspiracy" includes public verbal and written rants, it FAILS to remain in the mainstream, unless the mainstream selectively condemns freedom of speech for Jews.

Similarly for Finkelstein. HE failed. He didn't need to adopt even a passively aggressive tone in writing, in editorial selection, and in interview. But, he did.

Finkelstein could get work. It just won't be in the field that he would like.

And…Phil. and a handful of posters on this blog.

The transparent cabal is in power, whether its on foreign power,
or the bailout–nothing but a Ponzi scheme there too–check out the comparison of our klepto-government with what the Europeans have done…

Monetary and fiscal policy, or foreign policy–Americans are getting the shaft–and loving it.

Thanks

This is "FIRE" in a movie theatre.

Your dismissal of criticism of him or yourself as "manners" is a bit odd.

Its an undisciplined approach, played over open fumes.

This is neither Vietnam nor South Africa.

In any case, the economy and finance industry are in such turmoil that I doubt anything is sure.

Putting aside for a second Phil's retort, this may be a good place to remind Witty et al that the Jewish bible (Tanach) is the ultimate example of polemics taken to the max. After all, is not polemics the very essence of the Torah? God, it seems, was quite given to polemics, no doubt in last-ditch attempts to persuade his wayward, contrary flock of the desirability of adhering to the right path (this path including – though not limited to – devotion to steadfast worship of the self-same God). As proof to the desirability of following-in-the-path God offers the past: a-la things were good when you were good – and vice versa…. In other words, anecdotal evidence, supported by much argumentation. Not unlike any book ever written in any of the 'softer' sciences (including the softest of them all, economics..)

Clearly perfection of manners (cf if you have nothing good to say, be quiet) was not one of the great virtues the Jews of old were instructed in. neither did God appear too successful in getting his people to follow the path of righteousness for any length of time, despite offering some of the best divinely inspired polemics of all time.

From this we learn that:

1. Polemics may be necessary if rarely sufficient in convincing the stubborn.

2. Jews had a longer experience in polemics than most – no wonder they are sensitized to the practice (and just what was the talmud exactly if not a polemic epic?). So they became quite adept at both diagnosing it and repudiating it in others while continuing to practice such themselves – with great relish (and here I'd like to offer Dershowitcz as exhibit #1)

3. All argumentation/instruction/persuasion involves polemics (remember your elementary school teachers?) so singling out W&M for dire accusations of engaging in this much maligned practice is a touch disingenuous. In fact the argument that polemics was part of the their work is, by itself, polemical.

4. If great manners alone were sufficient – and necessary – to cure the disease of polemics (assuming that's what it is, the jury still being out) all we'd have to look forward to is for the righteous to become as dull as the English

And yes, I know – this entire comment is pure polemics. Enjoy…