This is crazy! The Hudson Institute is having a conference this week on the America-Israel relationship "at a crossroads… challenges to the special relationship" etc etc and look at the speaker list. It’s almost completely Jewish, starting with a bang, border-crossers Meyrav Wurmser and Michael Oren. I think Christopher Hitchens is in there as a nod to what, I don’t know. Hudson claims, "Our broad-based approach has, for decades, allowed us to present well-timed recommendations to leaders in government and business, domestically as well as abroad." Who are they kidding? Look at this speaker list. I mean, I love Dan Levy and Aaron David Miller, they will bring a breath of sanity to this fetid room; but do you think there might be some Arab-Americans represented? Or gentile-Americans? Wow, neoconservatism is like the energizer bunny. Cause it has money…
10:00 – 11:00 AM: Keynote Address: Ambassador Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Introduction: Meyrav Wurmser, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM: "The War of Narratives: Do the Obama Administration and Israel Have Different Views of History?"
Christopher Hitchens, Contributing Editor and Columnist, Vanity Fair
Aaron David Miller, Public Policy Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Douglas Feith, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Robert Lieber, Professor of Government and International Affairs, Georgetown University
Daniel Levy, Senior Research Fellow, the New American Foundation
12:30 – 1:00 PM: Luncheon
1:00 – 2:30 PM: "The Battle to Define the ‘Pro-Israel Camp:’ Will the Current Crisis Split the American Jewish Community?"
Martin Peretz, Editor in Chief, The New Republic
Peter Beinart, Associate Professor, CUNY Graduate School of Journalism
Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director, J Street
Jay Lefkowitz, Senior Partner, Kirkland and Ellis
Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and Former Senior Editor, Commentary
Tevi Troy, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
2:30 – 4:00 PM: "The Divergence of Peace and Security Policies?"
Ambassador Martin Indyk,Vice President for Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution
Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
David Wurmser, CEO, Delphi Global Analysis Group
Michael Makovsky,Foreign Policy Director, Bipartisan Policy Center
Saleema asked a good question on the “Hot damn, we’re the new Establishment” thread: How does what Phil posted differ from what he himself condemns as anti-Semitism? I gave Phil the benefit of the doubt, commented on the fact that there are real issues that should be discussed, but that there are pitfalls and sensibilities involved. Then Phil went and posted this story – important, interesting, scary, twisted. It could have been presented just as well however (probably better), without pressing any of the usual AS buttons: “goyim”, “cause it has money …” So is there a double standard regarding who can say what? Does Phil want to provoke anti-Semitic remarks? If so, why cancel and ban?
Regarding the substance of this story. I would expect no less of the Hudson Institute, but it is good and important to call them out for it.
It could have been presented just as well however (probably better), without pressing any of the usual AS buttons: “goyim”, “cause it has money …”
I do not doubt that ‘out-of-earshot-of-the-goyim’ and ‘money’ are AS buttons, but this in and of itself does not invalidate them as legitimate issues. It is the CONTEXT in which they are presented which matters. Phil didn’t make any broad claims about Jews as a whole. He was specifically referring to neoconservatives and this conference.
I realize it is difficult to properly establish context consistently, but it would be a mistake to neglect these issues. They are real, and people will and do discuss them. It is better to provide context because when people don’t have accurate background information in which to evaluate their conceptions, they will fill in the blanks themselves, inevitably erroneously.
I think outreach of sorts will be necessary to prevent a widespread rise in antisemitism in America over the next several decades. The ‘circling the wagons’ response to perceived threat was a vital survival tool in the past, but it is no longer necessarily optimal. American perception of Jews is not shaped with the experience of a millennia of virulent antisemitism.
I think that at present most Americans do not view Jews with either antipathy or guilt, and it is their dearth that makes this response incomprehensible to many of us in the light of obvious wrongdoing by Jewish extremists. Those who do not understand how the response arose in the first place think there must be something wrong with Jews because they wouldn’t defend similarly repellent extremists (of their own) merely because of close degrees of racial or religious kinship. A more nuanced appreciation of both the history of Jews, not just the Holocaust, and the diversity in Jewish political opinion will go a long way toward heading off widespread future problems at the pass. This isn’t going to happen without new leadership in the Israeli Lobby, and exposure of the folly of the old guard, e.g. Phil’s article, is necessary.
“Phil didn’t make any broad claims about Jews as a whole. He was specifically referring to neoconservatives and this conference. ”
Right. How about we have an understanding on this blog that, unless indicated otherwise, when someone says “Jews” it means “Jews (I’m not talking about Jews as a whole)”.
Excellent post, Colin. Really excellent.
And just an aside to everyone else…could we, all of us, refrain from personal attacks on Richard Witty? If you, or I, disagree with him…is it too much effort to explain why, as opposed to name calling and personal attacks? And if it is too much effort…how about following mommy’s rule and saying nothing?
This is Phil Weiss’s site, and he has asked, several times, for some minimal civility, and specifically in regard to Richard Witty (who happens to be an old friend of his). I don’t think Phil is asking too much here.
“It could have been presented just as well however (probably better), without pressing any of the usual AS buttons: ‘goyim’, ’cause it has money …’ So is there a double standard regarding who can say what? Does Phil want to provoke anti-Semitic remarks?” (Shmuel)
Why is the discussion of obvious facts anti-semitic, whether done by Jews or “goyim”? Don’t you think that virtually every semi-educated person in America is aware that Jews are (substantially) over-represented in positions of political and journalistic influence; over-represented, that is, by the usual standards of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? And don’t you think that people talk or ponder about that a lot privately, and wonder how it came to be? And, especially in the context of America’s conduct of foreign policy, don’t you think this is an explosive issue?
I’d like for someone to explain to me why serious public discussion of this issue is anti-semitic. “Hot buttons” are going to become a lot hotter if fresh air is not allowed in.
I really didn’t make myself clear, CMI, for which I apologise. The obvious facts of this story, as you put it, are important and eminently worthy of discussion. I do not believe that doing so is in any way anti-Semitic.
The point of my original post was that Phil seems to be playing some sort of game, deleting and banning posts and posters for exceeding certain limits, while flirting with those limits himself, possibly encouraging commenters to go places he doesn’t want them to. If I were him, and concerned about anti-Semitism creeping into the discussions here, I would be a little more careful with my language – while not consciously avoiding any issue. I was not criticising his post per se, but wondering about his limits, and the way he applies them to others and to himself.
Thanks for the clarification, Shmuel. For the most part, I agree with you.
But let’s suppose that this same post had been presented not by Phil, but rather by one of the regular commentators here. Take, for example, the veteran “Citizen”. Or me, or Chris Moore. Would Phil consider the comment to “cross the line”? I like to think not. I like to think that Phil wants to see comments that well express his own opinions.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the same comment from Chris Moore would be judged anti-semitic because Phil has judged Chris Moore to be anti-semitic. Maybe it would be over the line for me because I’m one of the goyim and relatively unknown here (although a long-time reader).
What about “AS button” words or phrases like “goyim” and “cause it has money”?
Phil could have said gentiles or non-Jews instead of goyim. Both the terms gentile and goy connote the clear distinction that Jews have historically drawn between themselves and the rest of humanity. But goy, I think, sometimes in common (English) usage has an additional connotation: an implication that the Other is inferior and beneath respect. (Am I wrong in this?) But don’t you think that some of those conferees at Hudson are likely in fact to think in terms of “goyim” and all its connotations? Is it anti-semitic for me, following Phil, to suggest so? (Your unlettered anti-semite is unlikely to be aware of any differences in meaning between goy and gentile, or even to know what goy means at all).
I don’t think that pointing out that Zionist think tanks like Hudson, AEI, the Saban Center at Brookings, are backed by a lot of Jewish money is anti-semitic, whether Phil says it or I do. Don’t we need to elucidate the nature of the power structure the Lobby depends on for its effectiveness?
So I don’t believe that, in doing this post and using the language he has, Phil has encouraged others to cross a line into anti-semitism.
But that’s just my opinion. We are handicapped in making a judgment about this because Phil hasn’t given a clear explanation of what he considers anti-semitism to be for his purposes here. In the two recent comment sections devoted specifically to the subject of anti-semitism, I tried to explain what I think it is and isn’t, and others did as well. There is still substantial disagreement. It’s something we need to keep thinking and talking about.
“It could have been presented just as well however (probably better), without pressing any of the usual AS buttons.”
Shmuel, I’d be interested in how you would have gone about this.
Personally, I can’t see how anyone could read this list of participants in a conference on U.S. Middle East policy, where EVERY SINGLE PARTICIPANT IS A JEWISH ZIONIST AND/OR PROFESSIONAL ISRAELI LOBBYIST, and not be indignant about it.
D.., As I have tried to explain, I too am indignant about it (although hardly surprised, knowing the Hudson Institute), and see nothing wrong with bringing the story itself to light. Having said that, if I were concerned about anti-Semitism on my blog (which Phil obviously is), I would be extra careful to avoid words like “goyim”, which implies an inbuilt, Jewish cultural disdain for non-Jews. I might consider that implication true, partially true, a reasonable generalisation, or simply acceptable hyperbole, but I would also be aware of where it might lead and the kinds of comments it might encourage. Phil can do what he likes of course, but I (and others too, I think) am confused about what he wants and where he sets his limits. I understand that “Goyim need not apply” is catchier and more provocative than “Non-Jews need not apply”, but were I worried about anti-Semitism in the discussion on my blog, I would choose the latter. As CMI pointed out, we can only speculate, because Phil has not explained his rules (at least in recent discussions on the subject).
Shmuel I understand. I hadn’t fully read your subsequent replies. Ultimately, I think it’s just that your priorities are somewhat different from Phil’s. If one belives that we really ARE talking about “an inbuilt, Jewish cultural disdain for non-Jews,” which in the form of Zionism is currently resulting in great suffering throughout the world, then one would think that the most important thing is to make sure everyone understands this, without sugarcoating it.
It’s a matter of trust — that the gentiles can indeed handle the truth without pogroms.
D.- you say that Zionism is causing suffering throughout the world. I am aware of suffering in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper. Since you probably include the war in Iraq as an extension of Zionism, let me concede that as well for our purposes. Please elucidate: where else is Zionism causing suffering?
WJ, everything is connected. You left out Lebanon, whose “clock was set back twenty years.” And don’t forget Egypt, where the world’s longest-running dictator is propped up in return for staying mum on the subject. And of course there’s Iran, whose people are being demonized and whose economy is being strangled as we speak. And what about own economy: did pouring $2 trillion into the sands of Iraq have any connection with the economic meltdown? Probably. And you can’t have a lobbying program on the scale of the Zionists’ without some corruption of the political process, with a resulting loss of legitimacy and civic involvement. And all our international institutions, from the UN to the IAEA to the human rights orgs, have been intentionally weakened by the Zionist supporters.
(There are other sources of suffering in the world. But Zionism’s contribution isn’t insignificant.)
Looks like an X-ray of the tail that wag’s the dog everyone around the world is aware of
except the vast majority of Americans.
This is surprising, how? The Hudson Institute is Neocon Central. If a den of snakes had a convention, they would invite snakes to speak.
LOL. And claim a “broad-based approach”, naturally.
This sounds more like AEI. Why is Hitchens even there? He’s the goy that will light the sparklers for the circus introduction. Hope he smokes a bean, and tries to get deep on the audience. He’ll be more free to rattle on his ‘ideas’.
Hitchens discovered his Jewish roots late in life. Just about the time his career arc was beginning to slide. (A little like Sammy Davis Jr.)
I don’t understand why people listen to some of these people any more. Feith, Abrams and the Wurmsers are still pushing their failed “Clean Break” agenda. I can’t imagine Prof. Juan Cole or Helena Cobban getting an invitation.
There are some real wackos on this list, but I guess the Hudson Institute couldn’t and wouldn’t leave out their senior employees. However, it is great to see Jeremy Ben-Ami on it. I wonder if he was offered a chance to speak in one of the ‘external relations’ sessions, or if he chose to speak in the ‘internal relations’ one. Perhaps I am not giving the conference organizers due credit, but his placement gives the appearance that he is being allowed an opportunity to ‘explain himself’, or perhaps it is a case of ‘keep your friends close, but your enemies closer’.
Analysis of pre-conference wrangling over the guest list would reveal much about the current state of this part of the Lobby and how it it is dealing with resistance. Too bad it won’t be on C-Span, it’s likely to have more impact on formulation of US government policy on this issue with consequent impact on American lives than any sleepy-eyed session of Congress.
Looks like there will be some good discussion.
Lets hope that live and let live finds a voice, everywhere, not the mutually exclusive stuff like is on each side of the “Temple Mount” tension.
Not a very diverse group, is it?
On a related note, the senate banking committee (star Schumer) was just meeting live,
and shown to us by CSPAN. The subject was more economic knives directed
at Iran. The consensus of the panel (all Jewish except one) was we need to strangle
Iran more, ever more. They larger context was unspoken–until at the very end of the session a code pink woman arose and started shouting against the suspension of Israel
from all NPT and anti-WMD talk, despite the fact the world (outside the USA) knows all about our don’t ask, don’t tell policy. The session was already over; the attendants and participants just filed silently past the code pink woman–the incident was a few seconds
after hours of Shumer, most especially, arguing for ever more use of American economic leverage to crush Iran.
Really? All Jewish?
This is from Ha’aretz. Lot of Jewish names here, maybe more than I realize. I don’t normally go around poking a names to uncover ethnic background.
So how do disagee with what I said?
Thanks, Phil. Ethnicity, religion and the neoconservative movement is a largely undiscussed topic, that should have the TV coverage that, say Italians in the mafia gets.
The remarkable importance of the continually error-prone neoconservative movement in US politics from the Iran Contra (+ Israel) scandal to the Iraq war needs to be covered. Their ideological empathies to Likudniks need to be covered as well.
BTW, the Hudson Institute is where Judy Miller came to rest. I believe she’s writing publicity for them now.
Just now? Wasn’t that part of her job at the NYT? She sure acted as if it was.
If, as I tend to believe, all this will end badly some day for Israel, I also suspect that analysts and historians will look back at the causes and diagnose a severe case of Israeli citizens and partisans having progressively constructed and lived in an ever-smaller bubble of unreality from which naturally sprung ever worse thinking.
That bubble is really getting small. Ultimately perhaps not only will all non-jews be expelled from it, but there will then be run-off between rabbis to find the one who is the most purely jewish.
Makes me even more pessimistic about Israel’s chances.
Pingback: Goyim need not apply to U.S. foreign policy jamboree | JewPI