Glenn Greenwald asks a lot of the right questions about the staying power of neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin (right) in "Why the Washington Post won't fire Jennifer Rubin."
Is there any doubt whatsoever that had Rubin promoted a rant spewing these sorts of ugly caricatures about Jewish children and Israelis with accompanying calls for savage violence — rather than directed at Palestinians — that she would have instantly been fired, then castigated and attacked by all Serious precincts? As [Ali] Gharib reports today, that was the question posed by a Post reader via email to the Post‘s Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton. To his credit, Pexton had previously condemned Rubin on his Ombudsman blog, writing: “in agreeing with the sentiment, and in spreading it to her 7,000 Twitter followers who know her as a Washington Post blogger, Rubin did damage to The Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat.” After denouncing Abrams’ rant as “reprehensible,” Pexton added: “That a Post employee would retweet it is a huge disappointment to me.”
That’s all fine as far as it goes, but what about the question posed by the reader: wouldn’t Rubin have been fired for promoting this hate-mongering had it been directed at Jews and Israelis rather than Palestinians? Pexton’s email response, published by the reader who emailed him, was this:
"Off the record, I think it’s quite possible. But the ombudsman does not hire or fire people here. I only comment."
...What is most striking here is Pexton’s highly revealing cowardice — probably well-grounded — in wanting his observation about this double standard to be kept private; shouldn’t an Ombudsman who believes this be eager to raise it in public? As the reader noted in reply to Pexton:
"If, in your opinion, such a grave double standard exits, why do you comment off the record? Why not publicly state your opinion? Why self censor? Doesn’t that reinforce insidious limitations on free speech?
"Think of the absurdity. You must stay cautiously silent about a perfectly reasonable opinion while Rubin and Abrams can let fly with genocidal remarks. With respect, your silence contributes significantly to the poisoning of public debate.
"Please speak up."
What’s particularly remarkable is that Pexton is admitting (albeit wanting it kept secret) what any honest observer knows to be true: that there is a very high likelihood — I’d say absolute certainty — that Rubin would have been fired had she promoted a post like this about Jews and Israelis rather than Arabs and Palestinians.
But this is the insidious, pervasive bias that has long been obvious in a profession that relentlessly touts its own “objectivity.” Even the mildest criticism of Israelis and anything even hinting at criticisms of Jews is strictly prohibited — a prohibition enforced by summary, immediate dismissal and enduring stigma. As Nicholas Kristof wrote during a visit to Jerusalem last year: Israel “tolerates a far greater range of opinions [about Israel] than America.”
... Indeed, the neocon fanatic who runs the Post‘s Editorial Page, Fred Hiatt, predictably defended and praised Rubin, calling her “an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter” who “is often the target of unjustified criticism.” ...
If the Post applied media standards equally to anti-Arab and anti-Israeli commentary, then Jen Rubin would be waiting on the unemployment line next to Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr. But it plainly does no such thing, and therefore she will remain exactly where she is.
The ultimate question here, though, which Greenwald does not answer, is Why is this now Establishment political culture? Why is intolerance toward Palestinians so anchored in Washington? Why is every Washington Post columnist evidently a Zionist, from Krauthammer to Richard Cohen (who sings the Hatikvah after reading a book against the Israel lobby) to Dana Milbank (who heeds his Israeli au pair's response to Netanyahu's speech last May) to Jennifer Rubin (who believes that Israel has a right to the West Bank).
I think the answer is both ideological and financial, that Establishment institutions derive a lot of their money now from people who have intolerant views about Palestinians. This is the lesson of Obama being abandoned by "Jewish donors," per the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, over his opposition to settlements. As the Times put it, "some Jewish donors — a major fund-raising constituency for Mr. Obama and other Democrats — are resisting the campaign’s appeals over unhappiness with the administration’s approach to Israel." I believe that this donorship the applies to newspapers too, whose funding is uncertain in these internet-driven times. They are afraid of alienating conservative money, much of it from Jews. This is why Barney Frank, who knows better, cannot come out against settlements. To do so would be "political suicide" until he has a Jewish base of support for such a statement. And even J Street cannot provide that to him.
Greenwald is wrong to describe Fred Hiatt as a neoconservative fanatic, as if Hiatt, an old friend of mine, is ideologically one with a fool like Jennifer Rubin. Hiatt is a good liberal who has been swept along by the tide in Washington. I am sure he is afraid of damaging his career by opposing neoconservatism. And so that is the central issue: why did this zeitgeist take hold in blue states? I answer that question sociologically: the zeitgeist came about because of the rise of Jews into the Establishment and the rigid construction of Jewish identity on a Zionist framework.
That identity is slowly shifting. And so is the tide. Salon publishes a lot of non-Zionist pieces. Nicholas Kristof at the Times seems to be moving toward a pro-Palestinian position (as opposed to Israel stalwarts Tom Friedman and David Brooks.) Andrew Sullivan has got a beachhead at the Daily Beast. Max Blumenthal and Ali Gharib get quoted in the mainstream press.
Obama's collapse at the U.N. has shocked our politics. As has Republican Bob Turner's victory in Democratic Brooklyn because of the Israel issue. Many on the right and the left want to politicize the Israel/Palestine issue, and I believe we will have a fuller debate in next year's presidential election and you will see more and more columnists expressing pro-Palestinian views.
I wonder if the ombudsman will get fired for his off-the-record comment?
It wouldn’t be altogether shocking if it happens, right?
Shouldn’t that read a pro-justice position?Calling someone just pro Palestinian limits the conversation. Being neither Jewish or Muslim, that’s what I am,pro justice.
And Hiatts career?Isn’t he at the apogee at the moment,or is editorship of the whole paper in his sights?And the way that rag is going,bankruptcy,put at bay by rich donors,ala the NYTs, is coming soon.
And Turners victory was just a Likud moment,copying the dynamic of circling the wagons as in Israel as American Jews see that America is waking up to the absurdity of this nonsense,and they’ve doubled down on the insanity of pride of place,and Zionist Xenophobia.
excellent post phil. excellent.
can you even imagine if someone wrote an article advocating throwing jews to the sharks (really ones). i still can’t get over how anyone gets away with supporting kind of mindframe and keep their job at a major publication.
I think I disagree with my man Phil here. The zionist project in palestine was perfect for the US’s postwar designs in the “grand area” – and so, it’s narrative became a convenient one for US planners; it allowed for and defended an authoritarian, imperialist agenda under the guise of protecting people – that’s the basis of American foreign policy propaganda. I don’t see it as a coup of the establishment, more that the establishment needed shock troops for it’s overall agenda – in other words, the jews were recruited. And yea, once the makers of American foreign policy had the jews, the rest of the liberal class with all of their moral flexibility and ambition were sure to fall right in line, Fred Hiatt included.
phil, thanks for this article… i have to regularly thank glenn greenwald for his work as well and this article of his is no exception..
phil quote “the zeitgeist came about because of the rise of Jews into the Establishment and the rigid construction of Jewish identity on a Zionist framework. ”
whatever way it came about, there’s no excuse for the double standards or the inability to challenge what is now essentially a corrupt framework with the mainstream media in the usa… people like rubin are allowed to continue on when her comments are clearly racist… the usa has to live with revelations like this that are happening more regularly… the jewish community also has to live with these hypocrisies in what must be a deteriorating position for zionism in the usa given these double standards are on display for all to see… this shit isn’t going away either until is is directly addressed, so i thank phil and people like glenn greenwald for continuing to shine the light on these double standards with the idea their will be an end to this…
in the meantime zionism in the usa now represents racism… until the zionists call for an end to this, they look bad here..
Good for Joe!
But I’m not sure I’d describe Sullivan’s place at the Daily Beast as a beachhead. More a retreat from the Atlantic.
Just as another example of the double standard, apparently some kids set cars on fire and sprayed swastikas in a Jewish neighborhood of NY. Huge the outrage! Denunciations from Bloomberg!
Where’s the outrage that this exact same thing happens in the West Bank on a daily basis, except that the swastikas have six points? When has Bloomberg ever denounced the price taggers?
Phil Weiss wrote:
“Why is every Washington Post columnist evidently a Zionist, from Krauthammer to Richard Cohen [] to Dana Milbank [] to Jennifer Rubin….
Ummm, not too long ago we saw here a cite to a Ynet piece by a Tani Goldstein who, in analyzing jewish financial successes, ascribed same at least partially to “mutual aid.”
Is there any reason to disbelieve that this applies as well to hiring decisions, tenure decisions, university admittance decisions, choices as to who to retain as columnists and etc. and so forth?
Funny thing: In many employment discrimination cases these days *the* biggie in terms of evidence is just plain unadorned statistics showing racial/ethnic/etc. disparities. So how come that’s okay to observe? (Not to mention in big cases alleging systematic wrongful discrimination probably absolutely necessary.)
Seems to me everyone knows what’s going on and everyone’s just cowed into not saying it. Except maybe Tani Goldstein when talking to the tribe.
RE: “Greenwald is wrong to describe Fred Hiatt as a neoconservative fanatic, as if Hiatt, an old friend of mine, is ideologically one with a fool like Jennifer Rubin.” ~ Cap’n Weiss
SEE: Amazing Story Of Why Washington Post Is So Weirdly Neocon, By M.J. Rosenberg, TPM Cafe, 09/20/10
SOURCE – link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
DICKERSON- Thanks for the link describing the funeral. Fascinating! I had the impression I was reading about a Mafia funeral, a Jewish Sonny Corleone. People paying their respects to power.
RE: “I believe that this donorship the applies to newspapers
too, whose funding is uncertain in these internet-driven times.
They are afraid of alienating conservative money, much of it from Jews.” ~ Cap’n Weiss
SEE: Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar, by Mike Allen & Michael Calderone, Politico, 07/03/09
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to politico.com
P.S. ALSO SEE: Katharine Weymouth Steps in It Again, By Jack Shafer, Slate, 09/15/09 ~ A Washington Post piece gets spiked after its publisher expresses a preference for happier stories.
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to slate.com
PHIL- “I answer that question sociologically: the zeitgeist came about because of the rise of Jews into the Establishment and the rigid construction of Jewish identity on a Zionist framework.”
I think that you are essentially correct. The obvious follow-on question is “How did this come to pass and what continues to sustain this phenomenon?” In this regard, the focus needs to be on the Jewish elite who have the resources to impose their vision on the majority. In other words, why are so many Jewish elite Zionists, what’s in it for them?
How about ‘why are there so many Zionists among the elite, what’s in it for them?’ since the majority of the non-Jewish elite are also Israel firsters or Christian Zionists. The Zionist lobbies have long been dominated by the evangelical rapturous fundamentalists. Truman was sort of a Christian Zionist. Most of the pressure groups who convinced him to support partition were also Christian Zionists. There is probably more of them in the world than there are Jewish people period.
It’s easy to associate Jews with Zionism for obvious reasons. That also gives them the ability to deflect and claim antisemitism, invoke holocaust sympathy and Jewish persecution, etc. Not because they’re actually offended but because it works to silence their critics. The Zionism/elite thing is best approached irrespective of religion or ethnicity IMO, gives them less ‘ammo’ to smear us
RE: “How did this come to pass and what continues to sustain this phenomenon?” ~ Keith
SEE: JJ Goldberg on Jewish power again…, by Cecilie Surasky, Muzzle Watch, 5/20/09
LINK – link to muzzlewatch.com
what does the washington post’s refusal to fire jennifer rubin for her racist anti-palestinian remarks have in common with the penn state cops’ refusal to arrest students who turned over and set fire to a television van?
ths inversion of values in a desperate but futile attempt to protect an obscene and dispicable status quo