Everyone who reads this blog knows what a blurb is, right? It's an endorsement on the back jacket of a book. J.J. Goldberg, editorial director of the Forward, and a kind and thoughtful guy, blurbs Avraham Burg's important new book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, right under John Mearsheimer and over Tony Judt. Goldberg:
"Burg takes a blunt, loving, painful, and desperately important look at the state of the Jewish soul today. Anyone who cares about the future of the Middle East and the fate of victimized peoples needs to read this book and think hard." My emphasis.
I'm going to be posting a lot about Burg's book. It's exalted. (Actually sometimes a little too exalted.) It is a kind of Jewish vision quest for a prophetic idea to help Israel, and the Diaspora Jews, out of a tremendous spiritual and political crisis, the treatment of the Palestinians. As I've already noted, Burg is emphatic about the Israel lobby's negative effect. Here's one quote:
When the Jewish lobby in Washington, the Conference of Presidents of [Major] Jewish Organizations, and the other Jewish congresses and committees gather, only one issue is discussed: Israel. In the eyes of many Jews and non-Jews alike, the Jewish American community is a one-issue community....every time a strategic reevaluation concerning Israel is called for, the silencing voices are heard: Shoah, pogroms, self-hating Jews. Again anti-Semitism, swastikas, and Hitler decide the debate on Jewish identity and an opportunity for dialogue dies before it even begins."
Pure genius. Burg obviously believes there is merit in the most verboten charge made by Walt and Mearsheimer: rightwing Jews played an important role in fomenting the Iraq war. Burg:
"Jews hold stunningly powerful positions and clout in the United States. The combination of the American state's power and the Jewish power in the areas of legislation, administration, media, law, business, culture, and entertainment have made the Jews a defining factor of contemporary America...Too many of my Jewish American brothers and sisters have become the beating heart of neoconservatism. They are part of the white, right-wing, nationalist, and powerful establishment..."[my emphasis]
Back to J.J. Goldberg. He was very upset by Walt and Mearsheimer. In 2006, he ran this editorial saying: "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews." I imagine it was deeply disappointing to the authors. They were surely counting on Goldberg to provide them some cover for their ideas in the progressive Jewish community. In fact, they had cited several passages from Goldberg's book, Jewish Power; but Goldberg ran away like his hair was on fire. (And his liberal Zionist colleague Leonard Fein wrote Steve Walt this crazy letter about the book.)
Goldberg also said that Walt and Mearsheimer were "bigoted," here, in a September 2006 panel at Yivo, all about Jews in journalism. I only saw the panel on video last January, but here is an extended excerpt from my report:
A guy in the audience asked, What about the disproportionate number of Jews in the media, doesn't that grant Jews influence? [He stated:] "It does seem we have a large influence over power."
[Other panelists denied this. But] J.J. Goldberg spoke and basically acknowledged that this was the elephant in the room. He said that the issue of Jewish influence over Middle East policy was a "problem." Not a few--hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East believed this. "It is the standard parlance in the European intelligentsia, and it is becoming acceptable in the American intelligentsia and academia and the blogosphere." Later the same week [September 2006], Goldberg pointed out, Walt and Mearsheimer were going to be at Cooper Union for their debate... "These are not two schmucks," he said. "They wrote a bigoted, ignorant and inflammatory paper that made one good point, that America's relationship with Israel is one of the reasons that we have the conflict we have with the Arab world" and a lot of bad points, including, "that Jews somehow conspiratorially dragged us into that relationship with Israel, that the rest of America wouldn't have if they knew the truth."
We have avoided the discussion, Goldberg acknowledged, and other Americans were speaking in an "ignorant, bigoted way" about the issue, "because we don't know how to discuss it... America is in this worldwide struggle partly because of something we happen to like [Israel]. It's awkward. Maybe it's good that the Forward has a circulation of [only] 30,000 so we can have the discussion openly and intelligently and the goyim won't--"
Goldberg didn't finish the thought. He meant, let's talk about it without the goyim taking part.
I think I've made the point. When two non-Jews wrote about the special Jewish role in the Iraq war, Goldberg dismissed them as bigoted. But when Avraham Burg, a Jew with unassailable Zionist pedigree, echoes much of what they said about the Iraq war planners, Goldberg says, Hey lissen up. Doesn't this reflect religious prejudice? Burg, by the way, would not limit this conversation to Jews.
P.S. More Burg, on Iran:
Israel adopted [a] legacy of insecurity characteristic of trauma victims. Since, then we live under constant pressure and in the contradiction of unceasing armament to compensate and atone for built-in impotence and existential anxiety... Even Iran's stated position against Israel and Judaism does not scare me. They are not only our problem: they threaten and challenge the entire Western world, and most of the Arab and Muslim world as well. We should not take the lead on Iran; let others also worry...
The first Goldberg comments referenced the article, NOT the book.
"Even more startling, given who they are, is the flimsiness of their work. Countless facts are simply wrong. Long stretches of argument are implausible, at times almost comically so. Much of their research is oddly amateurish, drawn not from credible documents or primary source interviews but from newspaper clippings, including dozens from this newspaper, seemingly dug up in quick Internet word searches aimed at proving a point, not exploring the truth. Some are wildly misquoted. An undergraduate submitting work like this would be laughed out of class. A dean apparently gets to see it posted on Harvard’s Web site."
Independantly, I had the same impression.
"When two non-Jews wrote about the special Jewish role in the Iraq war, Goldberg dismissed them as bigoted."
This point does NOT touch the rational criticism of the scholarship, the conclusions derived and the map of how they were derived, the writing, the public relations and blogosphere roll-out, and the close association with the article (that Goldberg focused on).
I get that you personally hold Walt and Mearsheimer in high regard, and possibly in other public and private discussion, they are brilliant, sober, kind.
And, that even their intended thesis may have been presented in a manner (that word) that would have been palatable if still contreversial.
They conducted a McCain campaign, but not even as well.
Just for reference, following the publication of the paper and book, Mearsheimer periodicially took a very confrontational approach to even book-signing Q & A. He presented himself and the work as partison, not as inquiry.
They blew it in many ways. I would hope that they would self-criticize. And by the same standard as your insistence that Jews should not discuss issues that commonly effect them confidentially, they should undertake that self-criticism PUBLICLY.
I actually don't think that they should. I think they should do so privately, conveying the results of their thinking. It is their right to discuss their self-criticism among those that they trust, hopefully trust not solely for their political bias.
Thanks for quoting Burg from time to time, Phil. I unfortunately haven't seen the book in bookstores here in Lebanon, although a good many books authored by Israelis (but published by Western publishing houses) are available. I hope it will sooner or later show up on the shelves, because I would like to read it. I will probably disagree with Burg on many a point, but I also tend to agree with many of the passages you've cited from his book.
I don't get it, Witty, what is it about Walt & Mearsheimer, or their argument, that you don't like? I read their book over the summer, and kept shaking my head in disagreement. They are extremely moderate, and so politically correct on Israel that it's almost ridiculous. They basically toe the Israeli line on almost everything, and keep repeating throughout that they support Israel's right to exist, and to do so in secure borders (which means not even full withdrawal to 1967).
J.J. Goldberg prejudiced towards the goyim?
I'm shocked. Simply shocked, I say.
Those terrible Nazis hated Jews and murdered them for it.
But propaganda has moved on.
Today, Israelis, or as they fondly call themselves, "The Jews", have hit on this magical, unassailable formulation:
We murder the Palestinians because they hate us.
Yeah, that's the ticket. It's a twofer; get rid of the Other, pass yourself off as a humanitarian.
Goebbels would approve.
Lebanon blogger.
The article was different than the book. Goldberg's criticism was of the article primarily.
The difficult parts of the thesis was of monolithic, ruthless and relentless conspiracy, but then later disavowed as not monolithic, nearly entirely legal, not conspiratorial.
It invoked or inferred actually many theses of traditional anti-semitism, which is one reason for the intense reaction. "Jews control the media" (stated in 1932 Germany, 1940 US by "America first"), "Jews control finance", "Jews control politics through the ear of the monarch", and for their personal or community's gain.
All either big lies, or more importantly examples of INDIVIDUAL Jews rising through merit, or of the negligent absence of individual non-Jews in those fields.
In all of those fields previously, there had been prohibitive quotas limiting participation on an ethnic basis, in the states, with the exception of Hollywood.
Witty doesn't like the fact that W & M supplied much prestigious evidence, from Jewish print, that the premptive war on Iraq's main instigation resulted from concern about Israel's security. The Military-Industrial Complex had a hand (Chaney's), while Big Oil would have rather not. Bush of course was an empty vessel, filled
by a few dozen or so Zionist policy writers.
Is Witty a contortionist, or did he miss his true calling?
"The difficult parts of the thesis was of monolithic, ruthless and relentless conspiracy, but then later disavowed as not monolithic, nearly entirely legal, not conspiratorial."
I have also read the article — happened to be on the required reading list in one of my graduate courses — and recall no such "conspiratorial" tone or anti-Semitism. Could you perhaps refer to some passages? Thanks.
Hmm, interesting, the Zionists are quick to lay charges of conspiratorialism on anyone who points out the obvious until it's their own ox being gored and then they see anti-semites under every bush.
Witty, during my undergraduate years, I did a lot of activist work, and attended many talks on the I/P issue, including ones organized by my uni's Hillel chapter. I came to see first-hand the tactics used by zionists to sabotage talks given by speakers they didn't like. If the talk was free, i.e. there were no tickets, they would show up in large numbers and take up most of the seats, without explicitly showing that they were part of the same group. You wouldn't know it until after the talk, during Q&A time. Then they would start their trouble-making. They would literally rudely hassle the speaker, ask a question and then not allow him to answer, things like that. It left a bitter taste in my mouth that I have since not been able to shake off. Then, when Noam Chomsky came to give a talk, it was obviously too big for them to be able to handle it, plus it wasn't a free event. Each ticket was worth $20, and the lecture hall was open to 600 people (and another 600 in another lecture hall with a huge screen that broadcast the speech live as well), so Hillel would've had to spend a fortune to sabotage that one. Still, that day, which was, if I remember correctly, a Sunday, they showed up at the venue of the lecture, and started provoking students. What do you have to say to these dirty tactics?
Today, Israelis, or as they fondly call themselves, "The Jews", have hit on this magical, unassailable formulation:
We murder the Palestinians because they hate us.
Yeah, that's the ticket. It's a twofer; get rid of the Other, pass yourself off as a humanitarian.
Goebbels would approve.
Brilliant.
And this too:
the Zionists are quick to lay charges of conspiratorialism on anyone who points out the obvious until it's their own ox being gored and then they see anti-semites under every bush.
Chomsky should have been an abortion.
I'm not going to do an exegesis of the book or the article.
Its now a memory, not a current reference. I don't own the book.
Lebanon blogger. I get that you didn't perceive prejudice.
Did you read the list of prejudices that I mentioned earlier? Did you read the comments here over the years, invoking those prejudices?
Did you read the Goldberg review?
Any of those comments sound plausible and/or relevant to you in any way?
Phil's earlier stated concern was about censorship of dissenters, that dissenters didn't get invited to "Meet the Press", or NY Times op-ed pages.
But, one urged effect of the book, is a functional urging TO censor individual Jews and Jewish organizations from legal communications and lobbying.
When a topic is contreversial, in order to increase one's audience, to increase the degree and tone of attention that one's work receives, flaunting aggression at those that are rationally sensitive, is NOT the way to accomplish that.
One important setting for all this was that the dialog about the article, and the book, came at a time of Palestinian civil war with Hamas ascendency an unknown, Hamas shelling of southern Israel, Hezbollah escalation and abduction in Northern Israel (followed by Israeli reaction and over-reaction in Lebanon).
And, Mearsheimer in particular, went right into the fray.
If you are a war propagandist, so be it.
It is a decision that one can make, to go to war (in words even).
Its an unpleasant life, that imposes one's own unpleasantness onto too many others.
It is different than dissent that appeals to the humanity of the other.
On abuses to open dialog.
I've seen it first hand both ways, and harshly.
There are ways to present one's views that get the point across, but don't offend.
And better yet. There are ways to participate in forums that by listening to those with different perspectives, one learns.
those of you addressing witty, haven't you realized yet he is not a real person with real thoughts? you will soon understand that. witty's criticism of w&m are like the reviews of the book. not ONCE, did i ever hear a refutation of a specific point, or an a specific rebuttal or even a citing of the facts they apparently got so wrong. i can't even believe the critics got away with it. it was a "bad book", the research was "wrong" , long stretches were "implausible". completely general statements, and then the accusations of anti-semitism, that's it. pathetic performance of intellectuals who are respected (for some reason).
those of you addressing witty, haven't you realized yet he is not a real person with real thoughts? you will soon understand that. witty's criticism of w&m are like the reviews of the book. not ONCE, did i ever hear a refutation of a specific point, or an a specific rebuttal or even a citing of the facts they apparently got so wrong. i can't even believe the critics got away with it. it was a "bad book", the research was "wrong" , long stretches were "implausible". completely general statements, and then the accusations of anti-semitism, that's it. pathetic performance of intellectuals who are respected (for some reason).
Israeli best seller breaks national taboo :: Idea of a Jewish people invented, says [Israeli] historian Can hardly wait for this book to come out in English. Yeah, I know it was mentioned on this board before, but Jonathan Cook (who reports from Bethlehem) writes about the aftermath in Israel.
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/55691
Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Go over Witty's posts on this blog for the last couple of years. See how much he's learned?
There's a difference between obfuscation by ostensibly rational terms and an open heart and sense of justice.
I have W & M book right here. Witty never read it. Nor will he admit why it eventually had to come along. Phil is his childhood MOT; they share many fond memories. But even Phil can't get through. It's like a member of the White Rose trying to communicate with a peer who is a NAZI intellectual. If you think that term is oxymoronic, try the term ZIONISM.
And then… the concentration camps came to be, and then, the occupied lands. And then so it came to be, no more a shadow between ideality and reality. And so, eventually, the West was lost upon its resurrection. And Chaos descended, the war of the Hobbesian tribes.
I read the book, anon.
Did you read the review?
A relevant follow up book should be titled:
"The Israel Lobby Text – Its Relevance and Abuses"
"… and Abuses"
You just want to see your name in print.
"that Jews somehow conspiratorially dragged us into that relationship with Israel, that the rest of America wouldn't have if they knew the truth."
The Jews did drag American into a relationship with Israel.
And if Americans knew the full extent of the jewish lobby's and the zionist meddling and corrputing our political class (as if they weren't corrupt enough already) Israel and it's minons would be as welcome in this country as a skunk at a wedding.
Of course Goldberg hates us anti-semites and self hating jews.
We are that nagging voice that floods the void in the jewish conscience.
BTW….heard a fascinating discussion on C-span today, put on by AEI of all tanks….Judge Wood was the speaker and the topic was immigrants and 'loyalty'.
I almost levitated….Judge Wood quoted the the oath of alleigence…specifically the part about…"rennouncing all foreign alleigence, princes and potentates".
She went so far as to wonder if after taking the oath immigrants lived up to it…and suggested that it might be thought of some time that we should "enforce" loyalty. She went on to discusss 'dual loyalty' and how this effects the country.
Be still my heart!….I could hardly believe I was hearing this…maybe she is channeling my Hyphen- American theory.
All the talk of the discussion we should be having about the jews and Israel? The real talk we should be having is about exactly what Judge Wood is talking about.
The dual or no loyalty of some who reside here as citizens and misuse their privilages.
And how this faulty assumption and belief that that is their 'right'came about among those people.
Is not only jews who believe they owe nothing to this country, there are other groups like the Cubans exile who so screw out relaitons with Cuba becuase they envision themselves returning home as rulers after the US overthrows Cuba for them, the various exile groups who influence congress to take some action for their 'true homeland'..that usually isn't in our interest.
At some time this Orwellington notion that if you have US citizenship that your 'right to representation', which is the usual screed of the wittys and other zionist jews, includes working for advocating for and supporting a foreign country interest over this country…well, it's gonna end.
It will be a discussion. The seeds of this discussion have been planted in what the zionist have done here, in what other lobbies have and are doing here and will be be sparked by the declining conditions of ordinary Americans….yep Goldberg is right about one thing…people do start looking for who to blame when things go bad.
Unfortunately for the Jews the zionist among them have earned that blame for the Jews.
And as for W&M and 'The Israel Lobby', they were much kinder in their treatment than I would be.
If the US gets dragged into a war or even into expending more treasure supporting Israel in an attack on Iran that discussion will hit the front burner overnight.
J.J. Goldberg is the FORMER Forward editor. The current editor is Jane Eisner. Judging by my recent contacts w. her, I don't have high hopes that this "pretty good" Jewish newspaper will improve in quality.
The Forward along with Haaretz took oodles of Republican Jewish Coalition ad money for anti OBama smear ads full of lies. When I suggested that they refuse ads that were outright lies they claimed they weren't capable of make that judgment & left it to their readers to decide.
When I asked her to allow me to write a Forward column on the general issue of the RJC ads and their lies, she said I should write it on spec & they'd decide whether or not to accept it. I didn't like those terms since The Forward has never accepted anything I've submitted to them (they once published something of mine that they assigned).
I know I digress but…
And the bard of Seattle comes forth on the anniversary of kristallnacht. Somehow it seems right.
"Loyalty oaths"
Very odd.
An individual born in the US is not conditionally a citizen. An individual that decides to be a US citizen to LIVE here, is not conditionally a US citizen.
To fearfully deny citizenship on the basis of your prejudiced (predetermined) conclusion or litmus tests, would be a GREATER INJUSTICE.
Just like we Jews have to self-inquire as to what is important about being Jewish, Americans should as well.
If Americans become as xenophobic (but without any real enemies now) as Israelis can be, would be a great tragedy.
We are UNCONDITIONALLY citizens.
"We are UNCONDITIONALLY citizens."
That should change.
"That should change."
Now we are in fascist territory. You must be a "true American".
RE: "An individual born in the US is not conditionally a citizen. An individual that decides to be a US citizen to LIVE here, is not conditionally a US citizen."–Witty
Partially true in a technical sense, though Israel's law of return fudges the matter, a very practical matter given the disproportionate
number of Jews in the USA government's key positions and MSM media-and the memory of all those Jewish American summer camps growing up–much like the US German Bund camps in the 1930s. If one is not born here yet decides to be a US citizen to live here, one IS conditonally an American but only after one swears allegiance to Uncle Sam, not Uncle Mockie.