Praise the lord, who is one, Maureen Dowd remembers Bill Safire today and says what the Times had refused to tell us, that religion was central to him (Israel too, Maureen), and in that, Jewish parochialism:
He would have appreciated the fact that his obits ran on Yom Kippur. He had a famous dinner every year at his home in Chevy Chase, Md., to break the fast that gathered many of the city’s most influential players.
Curious, I pestered him for years for an invite. He patiently explained it was just for Jews or people who were, or had been, married to Jews.
After years of pleading, including many protestations that I had had Jewish boyfriends and that I would one day find a Jewish husband, he broke down and let me come.
He was a mensch. And that’s no mishegoss.
A friend comments on the matter: "Safire’s social influence? Take a look at Maureen Dowd’s column today. Less and more than a eulogy–revealing her relationship with Safire to have been safely friendly and mildly flirtatious; but there’s a surprise at the end, which bears out your theory of the centrality (and the suppressed public awareness) of the Jewish presence in the American political and journalistic establishment. You might think Maureen Dowd has long been close enough to power to be satisfied with her status. It turns out there was one thing wanting: an invitation to the power dinner which William Safire was famous for giving at the end of the Yom Kippur holiday…."
Not that it’s a big deal, but one suspects that if the person in Safire’s position had told Dowd she couldn’t come because those dinners were for males only, or whites only, or Christians only, or for whomever-only, Dowd’s eulogy wouldn’t have been quite so fulsome.
Or that Phil’s response would have been so tame.
Yeah, so what, so you want to meet with only your in-group? Only your ethnicity? Only your sex? There are legitimate reasons for that at times, and the issue needs to be undertaken case-by-case, not as a witchhunt of political correctness.
I don’t really want to see any more of Dowd’s graph than I have to so I’m not gonna comment on Safire, other than to say I really just can’t imagine someone writing about Bob Herbert, one day: “Gosh, I really wanted to attend a dinner he was having, but it was for blacks only.” (Sometimes I wonder, how have the Africans managed to survive as a people for so long?)
“There are legitimate reasons for that at times, and the issue needs to be undertaken case-by-case, not as a witchhunt of political correctness.”
Rrrrright, because La Dowd is such an open-minded, understanding, equable opponent of political correctness….
The passage Curious, I pestered him for years for an invite. He patiently explained it was just for Jews or people who were, or had been, married to Jews. had “Jewish” replaced for “black” on Fark.
Fark: “Curious, I pestered him for years for a [dinner] invite. He patiently explained it was just for Blacks or people who were, or had been, married to Blacks.”
Its currently getting denounced as “racebaiting”
“He patiently explained it was just for Jews or people who were, or had been, married to Jews.
After years of pleading, including many protestations that I had had Jewish boyfriends and that I would one day find a Jewish husband, he broke down and let me come”
I hope she meant that to be as hilarious as it reads. Truly, I am ROFL
That’s hysterical, the entire process of Jewish acculturation reduced to a one-night-stand. Good work, MoDo. She is trampling through the warehouse where the drapes or Roth are stored!
“drapes of Roth” with apologies to A.S.
She really cut him down to size, there. And did it in a self-deprecating way I really appreciate. Why, it’s almost, well, I shouldn’t say it “Jewish” humor. She is clever.
The only thing you have to watch out for at the fast breaking are the really gig guys and gals. They are voracious, and may get food all over you or even eat you if you’re not careful…lol Sorry, couldn’t help myself…
Reflecting on William Safire’s effect on my own thinking, I am drawn to remembrance of another Jewish journalist, Walter Lippmann. For me, there were stark differences between the two eminent writers.
I became aware of Lippmann as a college freshman in 1955. Then, and for a decade or so after, he had a profound effect, direct and indirect, on my political evolution. Although I knew he was Jewish, the fact seemed insignificant. I viewed him as a polished oracle for an establishment that I still regarded as predominantly and naturally WASP. Then, I thought of Israel as a young country which was essential for redress of an historic injustice; but it played no role in the American political drama of the time, as far as I knew then. I was implicitly pro-Zionist.
Two decades later, in the mid 70′s, I took notice of Safire as a brash new columnist for the NY Times. By then, I was aware that things had changed in the American political landscape. The 1967 war had occurred, the USS Liberty had been attacked while I was still a reserve naval officer, and my view of Israel was irrevocably altered. In considering Israel, I thought mainly of the plight of the Palestinians.
Safire’s style was very different from the German-Jewish gentility of Lippmann. With Safire I was immediately made aware of his Jewish identity; it was an essential aspect of his public persona. It was through Safire (and later Krauthammer) that I became acutely conscious of an element we now call the Israel lobby, and the murky influence this nebulous entity had in the media. Nowadays, it all seems so much clearer than it did then.
Thirty years ago it was not the large Jewish presence in the media that was disquieting to me. I had been aware of that for decades, had in earlier years enjoyed the writings of Lippmann, Art Buchwald, and a host of others with no apprehension. Safire, above any others I recall, initially helped change that perspective by overtly combining his Jewish identity with his obvious attachment to Israel. There’s nothing wrong with that in an individual writer. But Safire sensitized me to the existence of a political movement called Zionism and its focus on the media as an instrument of power. He led me to become a regular reader of Commentary Magazine. As a reader of The New Republic since my college days, I began to notice how drastically that esteemed rag was changing.
I honor the memory of William Safire. But I regarded him as a different kind of Jewish journalist – one who helped plant Zionism solidly within the terrain of American journalism.
” honor the memory of William Safire. But I regarded him as a different kind of Jewish journalist – one who helped plant Zionism solidly within the terrain of American journalism.”
What’s to honor in that?
Respect the memory? Tolerate the memory? Endure the memory? I don’t like to dis-honor the recently deceased. Maybe next year.
Reflecting on William Safire’s effect on my own thinking, I am drawn to remembrance of another Jewish journalist, Walter Lippmann. For me, there were stark differences between the two eminent writers.
I became aware of Lippmann as a college freshman in 1955. Then, and for a decade or so after, he had a profound effect, direct and indirect, on my political evolution. Although I knew he was Jewish, the fact seemed insignificant. I viewed him as a polished oracle for an establishment that I still regarded as predominantly and naturally WASP. Then, I thought of Israel as a young country which was essential for redress of an historic injustice; but it played no role in the American political drama of the time, as far as I knew then. I was implicitly pro-Zionist.
Two decades later, in the mid 70′s, I took notice of Safire as a brash new columnist for the NY Times. By then, I was aware that things had changed in the American political landscape. The 1967 war had occurred, the USS Liberty had been attacked while I was still a reserve naval officer, and my view of Israel was irrevocably altered. In considering Israel, I thought mainly of the plight of the Palestinians.
(continued below)
Safire’s style was very different from the German-Jewish gentility of Lippmann. With Safire I was immediately made aware of his Jewish identity; it was an essential aspect of his public persona. It was through Safire (and later Krauthammer) that I became acutely conscious of an element we now call the Israel lobby, and the murky influence this nebulous entity had in the media. Nowadays, it all seems so much clearer than it did then.
Thirty years ago it was not the large Jewish presence in the media that was disquieting to me. I had been aware of that for decades, had in earlier years enjoyed the writings of Lippmann, Art Buchwald, and a host of others with no apprehension. Safire, above any others I recall, initially helped change that perspective by overtly combining his Jewish identity with his obvious attachment to Israel. There’s nothing wrong with that in an individual writer. But Safire sensitized me to the existence of a political movement called Zionism and its focus on the media as an instrument of power. He led me to become a regular reader of Commentary Magazine. As a reader of The New Republic since my college days, I began to notice how drastically that esteemed rag was changing.
I honor the memory of William Safire. But I regarded him as a different kind of Jewish journalist – one who helped plant Zionism solidly within the terrain of American journalism.
Typically inane MoDo. Not a word about his extreme Zionism, his Israel-first stance, or his pimping for the Iraq war. And nary a mention of his nickname-level friendship with the war criminal killer “Arik” Sharon.
Safire actually wrote speeches for Sharon.
I agree. Dowd is as much an airhead as Palin. She’s more interested in a dinner invite than in policy. I’d like to see an analysis of how the Nixon administration brought together a “read meat” cultural conservative Catholic like Pat Buchanan with an elitist ethnocentric Eastern Jew like Safire, and what that curious alliance cost the conservative movement. It might even be instructive for how to proceed today.
I think you are on to something here, AF. Mooser thinks she was tongue in cheek–I don’t. Palin’s little Israeli appeared suddenly in her office window, almost right out of the blue. That blue is our blues; we need a new, less generous Bob Dylan to sing
what’s been blowin’ in the wind since 1967? And a tune that details more, those masters of war?
Don’t expect anything from Bob Dylan. His feeble political mind produced the Zionist anthem “Neighborhood Bully.” A paean full of nonstop hasbara bullshit.
Bob Dylan is the reason I always wear a premium-quality (Arai) full-face helmet, and take motorcycle safety very seriously (Leave no turn un-stoned, is my motto)
I’d hate to end up like him. But hey, you gotta serve somebody, might as well be the Lord!
I’m in favor of mandatory helmet laws whenever I think of that.
Sorry about the duplication; I thought the first transmission had failed.
Ishmael- It is interesting that you contrast Safire with Lippmann. First note that you use the term “gentility” to describe Lippmann and I believe the root of the word is “gentile”.
Here is Marvin Kalb on Lippmann:
“Lippmann, one of the great figures in American journalism in this century, frequently criticized Jews as “rich, vulgar and pretentious.” He suggested that Harvard limit the enrollment of Jews. He dismissed Hitler’s antisemitism as “unimportant”, adding that the German leader was “the authentic voice of a genuinely civilized people. From 1933, when Hitler came to power, until 1945, when Hitler was destroyed, Lippmann never wrote a word about the Holocaust, never once mentioned the death camps.”
While you contrast the gentility and assimilationism of Lippmann to the ethnocentrism and pugnacity of Safire as if they were unrelated, I consider them a type of cause and effect. Lippmann’s silence and antisemitism led to Safire’s pugnacity and advocacy for the Jews.
Um, actually, I’m pretty sure “gentility” comes from the same root as the adjective “gentle,” and so therefore is the quality of being civil and mild-mannered (which on reflection, explains why you didn’t recognize that). One would also associate it with the post-Enlightenment stereotype of the gentleman.
You’ll have to forgive me, I’m not familiar with the etymology of “gentile” but I would have to imagine it is a transliteration from some other language.
You score irony points for labeling another Jew as an anti-Semite, incidentally. It’s not your most heinous trampling over and misuse of language to date… but it is one of the most consistent.
Wondering, my little essay was intended to contrast the role of the most prominent Jewish journalist of an earlier period in American history with that of Safire, one of the most prominent Jewish journalists a generation or two later. Also, to place those roles in historical context and to discuss how each writer impacted me. The emphasis was on how much things have changed.
I am well aware, in a general way, of the criticisms many later Jews have had of Lippmann. But that does not change the fact that he was immensely influential in American journalistic and political thought for half a century. My object was to draw a sharp contrast between Safire and an earlier Jewish journalist of importance to his time. I think you are confirming that in selecting Lippmann I succeeded in that.
When I used the word “gentility” to describe Lippmann, I knew that someone would associate the word with “gentile”. I meant to suggest no such connotation (although a bit of mischievous provocation wouldn’t really hurt anything). As to the etymologies of the two words, I defer to Mooser below. My understanding was that they are separately descended from a common Latin root and have never been related in the descendant languages. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
Lippmann suggested that Harvard limit the enrollment of Jews.
What do you call that if not antisemitism? If a woman would advocate limiting the number of women allowed into law schools what would that be but anti woman? Lippmann was not a self hating Jew. He didn’t hate himself. He was gentile and assimilated. He hated pushy, vulgar Eastern European Jews. Find a better term than antisemitism to describe the advocacy of this policy.
gentility: a state or manner of gentle birth, from OF gentilite ; from F: gentil. See
gentle: well-born, noble, generous, domesticated, tame, pliant, soft, mild, belonging to as good family;see also genteel, gentile (non-jewish, gentile). As in the Oxford
Dictionary of English Etymology, 1966. (I cut the changing description/definition short, but kept the essence.
Gentility comes from Gentile? In what ionosphere?
No one really knew about the death camps until after the war, WJ. Director Billy Wilder told me that when he was asked by the German army psyops teams General to get over to Germany in 1945 and create newsreels about the concentration camps to disabuse the German people of Hitler-love that he piled tables with typhoid bodies to illustrate what had gone on and make people hate Hitler. The German Army was trying to readdress the message of what was coming out. Wilder had a General with his coat draped over his shoulders walk from table to table shaking his head at the 6-ft piles of naked bodies. It’s now a famous newsreel that some mistake for gassed citizens, but they weren’t, they were typhoid victims. The death camps info didn’t come out until the prisoners talked.
The persecution of the Jews was certainly well-known in Manhattan in the 1930s. They were massive demonstrations in NYC and at Madison Square Gardens run by various factions of the the Zionist movement. The German boycott was also well underway until that the Zionists broke it with The Transfer Agreement that gave Hitler his $6 million to start the war in return for 60,000 Jews going to Palestine in 1940.
“you use the term “gentility” to describe Lippmann and I believe the root of the word is “gentile”.
Sure, makes perfect sense to me. Only it isn’t, not even close.
[14th century. < French gentilité< gentil (see gentle)]
"Gentile" is from the Latin gentilis “of the same clan”
Darn it, I should have kept reading before posting. You have this covered a lot better than me, heh.
Did Safire advocate “for the Jews” or did he advocate for Zionism? Big difference, you know.
Both. They are not mutually exclusive.
I would think that they go together quite often.
Zionism did a lot for certain Zionists. It didn’t do much for the Jews, except to use Jewish desperation to Zionism’s advantage.
Really? Native Palestinian Jews would disagree.
Mooser: “… except to use Jewish desperation to Zionism’s advantage.”
This is a very significant historical reality, as any good history of political Zionism shows.
The sentence as a whole, though, is literally untrue. Zionism so far has done much for “the Jews” – both “good” and bad. “Good” in that it has led, behind a common purpose of the Zionists, to a marshaling of political power and influence that would otherwise have been unobtainable. (Reaction to the Holocaust alone would not have been sufficient for that)
Bad in that this concentration of political power and influence is likely to have seriously undesirable consequences, for “the Jews” as well as for others affected.
Please note, Mooser, that I am very, very aware that many Jews in America and elsewhere do not sympathize with this accumulation of political power, and may even consider it detrimental to their well-being. I am acquainted with a few of these.
The Zionist movement’s first fruits were the Balfour Declaration and the mandate granted to Britain which explicitly stated that the establishment of a Jewish homeland was a priority. As a result of the British mandate during the late twenties and the 1930′s hundreds of thousands of Jews from Germany and other parts of Europe were able to emigrate to Palestine, when the doors of the rest of the world were slammed shut. Those Jews were saved by Zionism.
Some words from one of Israel’s proverbial founding fathers, David Ben-Gurion:
“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”
Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
Yes there is an element of truth in that Wondering, for that time, however the time has passed. I can truly see at a certain men sitting down and discussing these issues of closed doors and antisemitism. I don’t think I am far off the mark on this point, even Norman F. understands that perhaps there was a noble quality at the beginning. The fact of the matter is that we do not have the same issues now, that as an example both in the USA and Europe the terrain of lets say “walls” and limits, the bulwark of an antiosemitism no longer exists – just look at what we have accomplished.
To keep acting like we are in the same position is a form (at times) of almost virulent paranoia. I know how it lurks beneath the surface in the sense of our fears, and some individuals wish to inflame it to the detriment of others at this juncture. Zionism needs to be recognized for what it is presently, it is not some white knight that has come to save us but it is exploitation of not only us but another people who suffer under colonizing oppression. It wishes to take our sons and daughters and sacrifice them on the alters of its delusions.
I understand that this representation of history is uncritically accepted thought, but it really isn’t the truth. The “doors of the rest of the world” were not slammed shut, and most German Jews who fled in the 1930′s did not ever go to Palestine.
From Segev, “The Seventh Million”:
Was it easy to emigrate from Germany during the 1930′s? Did other countries welcome the refugees with open arms? No. It was during the depression and many countries were loathe to accept any refugees for fear of conflicts with their own populations, and many were just uncaring. But, despite all that, most German Jews went to Western Europe or the US or Latin America, not to Palestine. So obviously, the doors were not slammed shut.
But it was no different in Palestine. Besides the British restriction on immigration certificates, instituted for fear of conflicts with the native Palestinian population, the Zionist organizations themselves were not really interested in immigrants unless they were of a Zionist mindset and/or could help in the Jewish nation-building in Palestine. In other words, they were no better than any other country in that regard. When the histories are written in 50 years or so, I believe that most will come to realize that Zionism, whih was disasterous for the Palestinians, also did little to really help the Jews, unless it first served other purposes, such as the building and maintenance of a Zionist state.
You need to read more, bub. Powerful Zionist forces were behind the 1924 US anti-immigration law that curtailed the huge influx of German jews, Catholics and Lutherans into the US and started the anti-German feeling of which Lippmann was a victim. Shut the immigration right down. The Zionist forces wanted the German Jews, of which there were many, to go to Palestine. Powerful US Jews like A.O Sulzberger of the Times and various prominent judges were against the Zionist putsch to create a homeland and cause this dissension. (Search the NYT morgue.) In fact, everything that they said would result, has resulted. Zionist groups convinced FDR and the Canadian Prime Minister not to let Jews into the country; they wanted them to go to Palestine. To say that Jews were saved by Zionism is to debauch history.
The early Zionists despised assimilation, kinda like the secular political version of the rabbinical edicts in the middle ages.
MRW- What evidence do you have that the Zionists were instrumental in the severe limitations placed on immigration into America in 1924? Yes, the Zionists wanted immigration to head to Palestine, but were they powerful enough to get their wishes implemented in legislation? It is anachronistic to think so. It is anti historical to assert so without evidence. The Jewish population in Palestine in 1929 was about 170,000 by 1939 it was approximately 400,000. Where would those Jews have been without Zionism? Answer: In Europe.
Yes, the Zionists wanted immigration to head to Palestine, but were they powerful enough to get their wishes implemented in legislation?
Really? How’d they get the Balfour Declaration or Woodrow Wilson’s support for a Jewish state in 1918?
It’s not like there weren’t any influential Zionists in the United States.
“The Zionists seek to establish this home in Palestine because they are convinced that the undying longing of Jews for Palestine is a fact of deepest significance; that it is a manifestation in the struggle for existence by an ancient people which has established its right to live, a people whose three thousand years of civilization has produced a faith, culture and individuality which enable it to contribute largely in the future, as it has in the past, to the advance of civilization; and that it is not a right merely but a duty of the Jewish nationality to survive and develop. They believe that only in Palestine can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of disintegration; that there alone can the Jewish spirit reach its full and natural development; and that by securing for those Jews who wish to settle there the opportunity to do so, not only those Jews, but all other Jews will be benefited, and that the long perplexing Jewish Problem will, at last, find solution.”
–Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court 1916-1939), The Jewish Problem: How to Solve It (text here), 1915
“Those Jews were saved by Zionism
Those Jews were used as hostages by Zionism would be more accurate. The same Zionism which, heedless of any consideration for the people it was ostensibly serving, violated the agreements with Britian, and ended up fighting a little war with the British colonial forces which were trying to provide a home for them.
The Zionists ended up bopmbing the King David Hotel, and eventually (for whatever reason) left the area, leaving the Zionists all alone with the Palestinians they had enraged, hoping that Britian would be there to take the consequences.
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
details the process quite well.
MJ
http://www.antiwar.com/kolko/?articleid=11058
MJ, here is some of the evidence:
http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=502
I meant WJ, not MJ in both instances above.
The evidence you have provided seems limited to the desires of the Zionists to make Palestine the prime destination of Europe’s Jews rather than the effect they had on American policy. The ability of the Zionists to affect foreign policy at the time is one thing, but the issue I raised was one of immigration which is domestic policy. The immigration legislation of 1924 and the limits on immigration in the 30′s seem clearly to be the effect of the domestic wishes of the American public rather than the nefarious influence of the Zionists. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
“Call Me Ishmael September 30, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Respect the memory? Tolerate the memory? Endure the memory? I don’t like to dis-honor the recently deceased. Maybe next year.”
You are much more patient than I am.
“Mooser September 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Zionism did a lot for certain Zionists. It didn’t do much for the Jews, except to use Jewish desperation to Zionism’s advantage. ”
You may be right, but it doesn’t mean that Zionism/Israel doesn’t get heavy support among Jews.
How would you really feel if Israel were conquered and you had to watch news reports showing Zionist Israelis being slaughtered and exiled? Outside of feeling disgust at the suffering of human beings, would you feel sadness because the victims are fellow Jews? I believe that the possibility of seeing fellow Jews suffer as Palestinians suffer is what keeps many Jews in the pro-Israel camp.
Let them suffer, instead of us.
Then.
Now.
“How would you really feel if Israel were conquered and you had to watch news reports showing Zionist Israelis being slaughtered and exiled?”
I would be aghast and horrified at the loss of life, of course. But how on earth could that happen? Israel is well able to take care of itself, and with US help, fields the best and biggest Army around. Who is going to conquer them?
And why on earth should I imagine Israel being conquered, when the reality is that Israel, far from being in danger of being conquered, has the resources to implement a 40 year regime of illegal occuopation and collective punishment.
But, I guess most Israelis are Jews, so they are only one step away from slaughter and concentration camps.
I don’t mean tomorrow, and I didn’t mention concentration camps. Israel’s time will come eventually, and I’m curious about how American Jews react to the thought. If the worst case scenarion comes about, I’ll view the situation as sad, but it’s no more my business than Rwanda was.
Todd, I have no wish for any harm to come to innocent Israelis, and such there are. Why is it that any call for Israel to make a compromise and cease illegal and self-destructive activities is iterpreted as a call for all Israelis to get killed.
The fact is, that even if Israel is dissolved, the Israelis will be well taken care of. I very much doubt they will be left, unarmed to face Arab rage, alone. Not a chance.
Remember, Israel is not a healthy nation, in terms of remaining a Jewish-supremacist state. They can choose who they will adapt to the changing conditions.
But there are very few circumstances, all of which could only occur by dint of very strenuous Israeli efforts, which would result in an unarmed Israel facing the wrath of those they have been oppressing.
Not that I want to see any of them occur. And there are many Israelis who are in difficult spots. Many who could be tried for war crimes, and of course, those living in illegal settlements.
BFD? All that time working the op-ed and this is her the nugget of info we’ve been craving? When is Dowd going to use her healthy sense of sarcasm against Netanyahu?
Anyway you look at the etymology of the French and Roman influenced English words gentle and gentile, they both seem to disconnect from the word Gentile as given in Hebrew or other Middle East languages originating in the Old Testament as per various translations and ditto in the Talmud. Anybody want to explain?
Citizen – “gentile” doesn’t originate from Hebrew at all.
It comes from the same Latin root, “gens,” meaning nation or tribe, which became the root of “Genesis” “generation” and other words related to birth or beginnings. A “gentleman” is one who is well-bred, of the “right” bloodline.
“Gentile” means “those not of our nation”. In Romance languages such as French or Italian, it also means “pagan” as well as “non-Jewish”.
The passage Curious, I pestered him for years for an invite. He patiently explained it was just for Jews or people who were, or had been, married to Jews. had “Jewish” replaced for “black” on Fark.
Fark: “Curious, I pestered him for years for a [dinner] invite. He patiently explained it was just for Blacks or people who were, or had been, married to Blacks.”
Its currently getting denounced as “racebaiting”
bob, don’t you get it? She reduced his entire vaunted Jewish insularity to “well, anybody who slept with a Jew once”. It was a self-deprecating way for MoDo to point out Safire’s hypocrisy.
You need to look at the fact that, oh never mind, you won’t get it. Don’t you see, she doesn’t quote him as saying that?
It’s funny and she cut Safire right down to size. His vaunted Jewish seperatism really comes down to “whoever I want to invite”, that’s what she was showing, how seamlessly he uses Jewishness for his own self-interest and can’t tell that’s what he is doing.
did Safire ever write about the I/P issue? Or was he part of the filtering system that has kept the truth about the I/P conflict from the pages of the New York Times ?
Where was he on the invasion of Iraq? Was he with Judy “I was fucking right” Miller ?
A. Sullivan
Podhoretz
These two hit it on the head. He roused us the Bronx senior-citizen crowd and the older Upper West Side crowd with a frenzy of Israel-Firstism. I know. I listened to it for ten years. the assumption of the most extreme views of Jewish and Israeli vulnerability as if they were inarguably the only positions a non-anti-Semite could take. Dead on.
mishegoss? That’s the new spelling? How about meshegaas, the real spelling.
Hows about we use link to pass.to
to standardise the spelling of Yiddish terms. As the old Yiddish proverb says “it’s a good thing”
Few journalists can measure up to a Safire, there really is no need for such bitterness, Phil.
Dowd was simply fondly remembering a friend and colleague. She wasn’t counting the Jews and measuring their power.
Lots of journalists can measure up to Safire. Chris Hedges comes to mind. And R.W. Apple. And David Binder. And Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. And Andrew Neil.
He basically got his start as a PR flack who hooked up as Nixon’s speechwriter. He got his column from that gig. Safire has nowhere near the on-the-ground background that Hedges has, or any of the others mentioned above. His journalistic stint was in the army during the war as a grunt.
@Julian Few journalists can measure up to a Safire, there really is no need for such bitterness, Phil.
Dowd was simply fondly remembering a friend and colleague. She wasn’t counting the Jews and measuring their power.
Dowd:
After years of pleading, including many protestations that I had had Jewish boyfriends and that I would one day find a Jewish husband, he broke down and let me come.
One of the recurrent themes Phil has is of ethnic power and assimilation. If Dowd does on about having to sleep her way with Jewish guys into a very exclusive and powerful get-together that podhoretz acknowledges was lacking in religious observation by the attendees, it is a dovetail in these recurrent issues of ethnic power, tribalism and assimilation.
Phil and some of the others are overinterpreting this column, I think. It isn’t shocking to me that Safire would have dinners around Yom Kippur that are limited to Jews and spouses. It’s a religious holiday. Besides, it’s a Maureen Dowd column–if there’s anything of significance in it at all it has to be some sort of accident.
But Safire was usually a hack. He had a few decent libertarian impulses, but he pushed the Mohammad Atta/Iraq connection, among other things. He was a disgrace to his profession. But then again, when you look at the majority of NYT columnists (with a few rare exceptions), that’s not surprising.
@ DonaldMohammad Atta/Iraq connection, among other things. He was a disgrace to his profession. But then again, when you look at the majority of NYT columnists (with a few rare exceptions), that’s not surprising.
How Safire’s political stances regarding a pro Likudnik POV at the NYT seem “not surprising” is wha tis interesting here with Dowd and its what Sullivan questions.
At any rate, that’s the quickest and easiest conversion to Judaism I’ve ever heard of!
“What do you take me for, a girl who converts on the first date?”
Intentionally or not, MoDo cut him right down to size. Deft, with a self-deprecating anecdote, too. Nice work.
It’s one of those things, you know, to get it, it’s not just that you have to be Jewish, you have to be a certain kind of Jew.
I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the kind that usually ends up a comissar(or a neo-conservative), as common as that fate is for us.