Remnick
In The New Yorker that came out Monday, David Remnick wrote that Newt Gingrich's goal is the Jewish "vote." He didn't say it once, but four or five times (emphasis mine):
Late last week, as part of a Republican pander-fest for the Jewish vote... Newt Gingrich... called the Palestinians an “invented” people...
The Palestinian vote will not decide swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or, above all, Florida; a considerable shift in the Jewish vote could.
Gingrich and his fellow Republicans have sensed a potential softening in the Jewish vote. In 2008, only African-Americans were more solidly behind Barack Obama, who, according to exit polls, won seventy-eight per cent of the Jewish vote. But the Republicans are hoping to woo at least the more conservative sector of Jewish Americans—those who feel that Obama has been too hard on Benjamin Netanyahu.
Chemi Shalev of Haaretz, the leading Israeli newspaper, then interviewed Remnick about his story and ran an interview Tuesday. Here's Shalev's first question and the beginning of Remnick's answer. Emphases mine.
Q. How do you view the extraordinary presence of Israel in the Republican race?
Remnick: Well, it’s not unprecedented. Israel even figures into things like New York mayoral races, as if the New York mayor had a foreign policy. So it’s not surprising that it would make an appearance to some degree or another, but you’re right, it’s a larger one this time around.
The reason is very simple: it is the hope of the Republican Party that the criticism of Obama regarding the Middle East and Netanyahu and everything related to it will somehow translate into a softening Jewish vote, that last time gave Obama 78%, second only to the African American community.
The Republicans won’t get a majority [of the Jewish votes] but they hope to get more votes in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and especially Florida. And I think they are also hoping to see if they can get some money from the obvious corners in the Jewish community. It’s not a secret to them that in terms of campaign contributions, Jewish Americans give quite a lot of money.
Remnick has been a leading voice on the issue in the last year, but in his New Yorker piece he is obfuscating, and the reason is obvious; Remnick is concerned that talk about Jewish money will arouse anti-Semitism in the United States. NPR's Robert Siegel did the same obfuscation last May. These men don't trust their audience. I'm reminded of Tom Friedman's interview with Ari Shavit in 2003, in which he said that the Iraq war was the war that a neoconservative "elite" wanted, something he wasn't going to write in his column: "I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."
The question of why Republicans are pandering on Israel is not a trivial question, it's an important one. A lot of us, including Remnick, went into this business because we thought the American people had a right to know.
Remnick wrote a superb piece on Mike Tyson once . I can’t remember where I saw it. He’s a great writer. But he needs to be honest with thinking Israelis. They know their country is falling apart.
So now you think you have an answer to the question: American politicians pander to Israel because Jews contribute money to their campaigns in a disproportionate manner.
So, what needs to be done is clear. You need to counter this by raising more money so that the money coming from Jews will not be that significant. What is the problem to do that? Jews are only 2% of the population in the US. Surely the other 98% can outspend them easily. That they don’t do it is not the problem of the Jews. It is the problem of the people that are stingy in their donations.
Just to be clear, I think your diagnosis is completely wrong. American politicians pander to Israel because that is what American voters want. The money helps, but without the grass roots support for Israel, it would be meaningless.
It’s definitely money.
We are supportive of Israel, but rarely do we talk about Israel as a part of our on-going political discussion.
Due to horrible reporting on the issue (Harvard did a study comparing Haaretz and the NYTimes in 2006 and it’s likely gotten worse), religious fundamentalism, and MONEY – we support Israel.
It isn’t based on right or wrong, because our politicians support Israel right or wrong. And we don’t support Israel because we’ve understood the conflict. Americans aren’t well-read on the issue. If they were, then they’d know more about Israel than their own country.
There are several embarrassing poll results that show the ‘majority’ doesn’t know squat about it’s own country.
I hope you’re not implying any virtue to this majority, eee. There is none. You have been able to brutalize and steal from a virtually defenseless people because the Israel lobby lies so well and people are too lazy/indoctrinated to do anything about it.
“rarely do we talk about Israel”
Are you joking? Remnick completely agrees that Israel is being discussed DIS-PROPORTIONALLY in the Republican race. Israel is discussed more than many other pertinent subjects. It is clearly not the money. It is the grass roots support.
No i am NOT joking.
Israel is a topic of interest during elections because of Jewish donors.
If you were honest eee, you would apply a second filter too.
The second filter is how is the level of discussion?
We dont talk about israel enough and what we do talk about is heavily censored.
Israel is not under the spotlight in either the level of profundity necessary for meaningful catharsis AND it is not under the spotlight enough during the non-election period.
You need to get your head out of your racist bubble.
I think you are partly right on this. Most Americans consider Israel an ally and so want to support it. However, I don’t think most Americans have a strong opinion or are aware about what is going on, which is due in large part to the media. There was some issue about the IP conflict that in a survey showed Republicans felt more in one direction on it than Democrats did in another direction. It might have been the 1967 lines or the UN bid.
In any case, I disagree that American voters want “pandering”, or fawning.
If a representative sample was chosen of the American public, I doubt they would give Net. the same number of full ovations he received in Congress on everything. I also doubt that would give Israel more cash than any subsaharan Afican country.
So if it is left up purely to voters and you take out the money, even with their current awareness on the issue, they would probably give it more support than South Korea and Taiwan get, or other allies, but I don’t think it would be nearly as strong.
We have a bad economy and are scrambling for cash, so I think if it was up to voters they would cut the aid to a significant extent, which is something than crept into some Republicans’ words, as Obama’s campaign pointed out (elsewhere on this Blog).
Basically, the Lobby takes things from a situation where there is more or less significant positive support to where the leader makes a visit and gets alot of standing ovations from all the Senate regardless of what he actually said. Which is true. They were often clapping just for him, rather than for what he actually said (like rejecting 1967 lines).
And in any case, if Americans are misinformed or uninformed, then you have to ask why this was. I did not know much about the issue when I started college, and just assumed israel was democracy like America and Pals were terrorists against civilians. It was only when I chanced to hear a talk by missionaries to the West Bank that I found out about the very bad conditions of occupation. It was especially striking that Christians were being harmed by the occupation, and that I was paying for this.
I remember going to a Hillel club and mentioning about how the Pals were bad, and the group leader, who was a social worker type person just kind of looked down, which wasn’t something I expected. Looking back, I think she knew more and felt more sympathy about the Pals than she felt she could say in the context of the group.
It was only after hearing the volunteers’ talk on the issue at a Quaker meeting that I found out what was really going on.
So there is a combination of people not being informed or being misinformed by the media, people vaguely supporting the Is. government because it is an ally without usually having strong feelings, plus the strongest or second strongest lobby in the Capitol.a
“So, what needs to be done is clear. You need to counter this by raising more money so that the money coming from Jews will not be that significant.”
Or go to public financing so that these donor’s can’t buy any influence.
“What is the problem to do that? Jews are only 2% of the population in the US. Surely the other 98% can outspend them easily.”
The other 98% are not single-issue donors like many American Jews. For the other 98%, the US is their primary concern and their loyalty and political action is not focused on improving the lot of a foreign nation, as is the case with many of the pro-Israel people.
“Just to be clear, I think your diagnosis is completely wrong. American politicians pander to Israel because that is what American voters want”
You can think that, but you would be wrong. While American voters view Israel, itself, with favor, polls have repeatedly shown that the public believes that the US government has been too one-sided and believes that it should be more even handed and not be a lap dog to the Israelis. But the politicians get their bribes/donations from people who want the US to lick the Zionist ass, so that is what the clowns in Washington do.
“The other 98% are not single-issue donors like many American Jews. For the other 98%, the US is their primary concern and their loyalty and political action is not focused on improving the lot of a foreign nation, as is the case with many of the pro-Israel people.”
Yes, the other “98%” care about America more than many Jews in America. What a load of hogwash. And where do you come up with the “fact” that many American Jews are single-issue donors? You have any evidence or is that an allegation you are pulling out of thin air? When Jews contribute to the Democratic party, they are contributing to all the issues this party supports.
And as usual you miss the point. If so many people are against “licking Zionist ass”, why is there no wide support for anti-Zionist politicians? Why are very few people giving them money?
“Yes, the other ’98%’ care about America more than many Jews in America. What a load of hogwash.”
Please learn how to read. I did not say that they care about America more than the Jews do. I said that the US was their primary concern. If you cannot understand the difference, please stick to your native language and quit pretending to understand English.
“And where do you come up with the “fact” that many American Jews are single-issue donors?”
From their past statements and actions.
“When Jews contribute to the Democratic party, they are contributing to all the issues this party supports.”
Perhaps. But the real question is whether the level of donations would drop if the Democratics took a harder line on the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews occupying Palestine, but changed no other position. And if you don’t believe that American Jews would not reduce their donations, you are a naive fool.
“And as usual you miss the point. If so many people are against ‘licking Zionist ass’, why is there no wide support for anti-Zionist politicians? Why are very few people giving them money?”
I’ve explained this to you on a number of occassions. Perhaps you aren’t smart enough to grasp the concept, so I will try one more time: Most people in the US are apathetic. They are not concerned one way or the other with Zionism, except for, basically, 1) Zionist Jews, 2) Zionist Christians and 3) right-thinking human-rights people who oppose the continued Nakba being committed by the Jews-occupying-Palestine (and even many of them don’t really care about Zionism, per se, but about the fact that the Zionists can’t seem to act in a moral manner toward the Palestinians whose land they’re stealing and whose lives they are purposefully and wantonly destroying.)
Pretty much everyone else in the US, if they give the issue any thought at all (which they by and large don’t), tend to react with a combination of the anti-Arab (and specifically anti-Palestinian) bigotry that has been innundating American by Israelis and its supporters in the media since at least the 1980s, coupled with a well-meaning request that everyone all just get along.
question: why is there no wide support for anti-zionist politicians?
answer: because people are uninformed, misinformed, wrapped in their identity, love to be biased against the “other”, and eat the BS given to them. look in the mirror, and you might be sharing some of those attributes.
but in all honesty there are many obvious reasons. a major reason is that most people know it is “messed up” in israel, criticize their policies in a general way, but in the end care more about domestic politics. the squeaky wheel gets the grease, hence those who passionately support israel right or wrong (many christians, jews, and simple islamophobes) have a very strong voice. the bulk of the public does NOT have a very strong opinion, including many jews, so they just ignore the pro-israel pandering.
but it seems to be changing, as more jews realize israel “right or wrong” is bad for israelis, americans, and american jewry.
“Please learn how to read. I did not say that they care about America more than the Jews do. I said that the US was their primary concern. If you cannot understand the difference, please stick to your native language and quit pretending to understand English.”
So you are saying that for American Jews America is not their primary concern. Also hogwash.
“From their past statements and actions.”
Of course, you can generalize about the attitudes, concerns and beliefs of many Jews from a few past statements and actions. By the way, how about linking to a statement and showing it represents a large number of Jews?
“But the real question is whether the level of donations would drop if the Democratics took a harder line on the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews occupying Palestine, but changed no other position. ”
Why is that an important question at all? All donors are interested in a range of issues and if some party would support less one of their issues it is obvious that they would be less inclined to donate. But it won’t go down to zero. It shows nothing about your “one issue” allegation.
“Most people in the US are apathetic”
Again you miss the whole point. People here are claiming that Americans are really anti-Zionists. Thanks for proving my point.
“So you are saying that for American Jews America is not their primary concern.”
No, I’m not. Can’t you read?
“Of course, you can generalize about the attitudes, concerns and beliefs of many Jews from a few past statements and actions.”
I did not say “few.” Can’t you read?
“By the way, how about linking to a statement and showing it represents a large number of Jews?”
Do your own work.
“Why is that an important question at all?”
Because it is the threat of loss of pro-Zionist funding to politicians which keeps the US government’s policy at a pro-Israel maximum, regardless of the views of the US people.
“But it won’t go down to zero.”
As the ol’ slave driver in the South would tell you, you don’t kill a slave to keep him from running away; you just need to hurt him real bad and then he’ll do what you want.
“People here are claiming that Americans are really anti-Zionists.”
Most Americans are apathetic. I think most people would say that Americans would be more anti-Zionist if they knew the real facts and weren’t subject to distorted media coverage and political commentary.
“Thanks for proving my point.”
No, you’re wrong. You’re position (as well as I can tell from your jibberish and babblings) is that Americans are pro-Zionism. They’re not.
Tanaka,
You are just an inconsistent liar. Here is what you wrote:
“The other 98% are not single-issue donors like many American Jews. For the other 98%, the US is their primary concern and their loyalty and political action is not focused on improving the lot of a foreign nation, as is the case with many of the pro-Israel people.”
Then you write in answering me:
“So you are saying that for American Jews America is not their primary concern.”
No, I’m not. Can’t you read? ”
You clearly have written: “For the other 98%, the US is their primary concern”. This clearly implies that for the 2%, the US is not their primary concern. You can of course deny it till you are blue in the face but anyone can read what you wrote.
Then you claim that you have read and heard enough statements from Jews to support the following generalization: Many American Jews are single issue donors. You are of course not willing to provide any evidence to support this nonsensical generalization, because there is no evidence to support your claim.
“You are just an inconsistent liar. ”
LOL. No, when I lie I am consistent about it….
“This clearly implies that…”
No, that is your inference, not my implication. Fail.
“…anyone can read what you wrote.”
And probably most of them are capable of higher-level reasoning and are not simpleton, binary thinkers as you appear to be.
“Then you claim that you have read and heard enough statements…”
No, I didn’t. Jeez, lousie, you’re at a computer; you can cut and paste if simple reading is too complex for you. I said, “[f]rom their past statements and actions.”
“You are of course not willing to provide any evidence to support this nonsensical generalization, because there is no evidence to support your claim.”
LMAO. No, I am not willing to provide any evidence because it appears to get your panties in a twist (or, at the very least, I like to think it does) and that fact amuses me.
“Then you claim… you have read. You are of course….your claim.”
“eee”, don’t you know that only a person with low self esteem cares what people they don’t know thinks of them? A guy from Israel (well depending on whose lines you use) told me that. And when you combine that with your tendency to malicious prevarication and defensive whining, it turns ugly real fast.
You don’t know any of us, why are you here, intensely, obsessively concerned with what we think?
Not to mention that this site is providing you with the information you need to recognise and jump clear of Israel’s final paroxysm. But we’ll never get a “toda” from you.
Why are very few people giving them money?
Because very few voters give money to political campaigns.
Of course you are right. But I can understand, even sympathise, with Remnick’s hesitation to talk about the real reason why these people pander so hard on Israel – donors. Jewish money inevitably bring the topic of Jewish power, which is verboten in the discourse of the American media(and who owns the NYT, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, the LA Times and so on?) since many, many decades.
To a large extent, I can understand that. On other issues than Israel, why would it matter that Jews to a large extent own and control the major media in this country?
It would be very strange why someone would bring it up all of a sudden. But on Israel, it is no longer irrelevant. Israel, as the Jewish state, is getting coverage so favorable in the U.S. media which it isn’t even getting in Israel.
If, say, Jamaicans owned most of our media and Jamaica was getting goldplated aid and endless praises from the politicians and anyone who even dared to question this extreme show of support would then be cast as a racist; you’d be right to ask what has caused this fervent support. And noticing the that to a large extent Jamaicans are active in political donor circles and have very prominent positions in the media, and often owning them, would of course be natural, even if controversial. Because power, especially power so fraught with history, does not like to be investigated or questioned.
Old canards about Christians Zionists or general sympathy just won’t cut it. Just look at immigration. Very unpopular with the voting masses but that’s completely ignored among the major media.
The notion that if something has a large base of support among the population must somehow make it’s ways into the media, is a false one, which immigration as well as other issues demontrated. How popular was affirmative action when it began? Forced bussing? De-segregation?
On many of these issues we would today say that they were right or we would at least concede that they have many pros to them. But when they began, the very few liked them. It was worst in the South, of course, but the general sympathy in the North was hardly much better.
This also dovetails the discussion that somehow Christian Zionists are behind the pro-Israel orthodoxy nearing comic levels. But as you rightly point out, this pattern crosses party lines. Who cares about pro-life positions in the Democratic party? Christian evangelicals are largely Republicans.
Of course it’s the donors that matter in the end, but then you’d have to talk about Jewish power in general and that’s simply not a point many leading U.S. Jews are comfortable with. And for good historical reasons, I’d like to add.
It matters for more than just the Israel and related Middle East issues. People who are too eager to see Israel protected from military and security threats will tend to support things like the U.S. national security state and its increasing encroachments on American civil liberties. They will support the whole War on Terror idea.
I like bringing up the example of Jamaica and specifically the Rastafarians. They have their own weird sort of Zionism, with selective reading of Biblical verses promising God’s blessing to the ancient Ethiopians and Cushites, and further believe they are the legitimate heirs to those blessings. (For good measure every appearance of the word “herb” is interpreted as marijuana). But these folk are not stealing land from anyone, they have not manipulated the US Congress into falling all over each other seeing who can increase the welfare check to an artificial Rasta nation which is wreaking havoc on another indiginous people across the water.
Their music is nice too.
Im uncomfortable with that too Krauss. I’ve said I’m uncomfortable with it, repeatedly. But I take my oath as a journalist seriously — the people have a right to know– and i have faith in Americans, that when educated they can deal with these things honestly; and besides, everyone knows! Who’s he fooling? Phil
“Of course you are right. But I can understand, even sympathise, with Remnick’s hesitation to talk about the real reason why these people pander so hard on Israel – donors. Jewish money inevitably bring the topic of Jewish power, which is verboten in the discourse of the American media”
“And for good historical reasons, I’d like to add.”
Better to have it in the open than hidden because it will/has come out anyway.
If the public is privy to the debate and facts and it’s discussed as part of the Israel problem (and money in politics in general) the less likely it is to have it all laid on The Jews.
Keeping people ignorant of what is going on and who is doing what is the dangerous thing. Not knowing what they don’t know (thanks Rumsfeld) is why people generalize and go off willy nilly in all or some directions if something goes bad.
Unless I have somehow missed it in my search of the two print issues, this Remnick piece on Gingrich neither appeared in the most recent New Yorker (double edition for Dec. 19 & 26), which I believe would have been mailed out on Monday and which I received on Tuesday, nor in the previous issue, dated Dec. 12. As far as I know, the piece on Gingrich has appeared only on line, with a dateline Dec. 11.
Remnick is concerned that talk about Jewish money will arouse anti-Semitism in the United States.
i have to part ways with you on this one phil. i think remnick doesn’t want to deal with attacks from the right flank directed at his magazine. he doesn’t want to end up on lists from critics like josh block or abrams:
link to mondoweiss.net
eluding to congress being influenced by jewish money is slandered as anti semitic in this country. he’s looking after his own ass and the new yorkers.
we have to trust the american people can get a little dose of anti israel (the result of Chemi’s last paragraph here) without us all turning anti semitic.
you can say that stuff in israel tho without risking your career because everyone understands how this process works, or they should by now.
Annie,
Boy have you got it wrong. The Republican politicians are discussing Israel because that is what their voters want to hear. Nobody is forcing the issue down the throats of the Republican voters.
eee, since you have a habit of addressing claiming i didn’t make as opposed to referencing my actual taxt i would appreciate it if you would copy/paste the quote of mine you are referencing. thanks.
i didn’t say anything about “discussing Israel” or “forcing the issue down the throats ” so specifically what do you mean: “Boy have you got it wrong. “
Annie,
You write:
“we have to trust the american people can get a little dose of anti israel (the result of Chemi’s last paragraph here) without us all turning anti semitic.”
You are implying that because Israel is discussed extensively, Americans will develop anti-Israel feelings. You are of course wrong as you got the causality wrong. The politicians are discussing what the voters want to hear.
3e You are implying that because Israel is discussed extensively, Americans will develop anti-Israel feelings.
ok, let’s take a look at what i linked to (the ‘ last paragraph’ i referenced)
so this is your idea of ‘ implying that because Israel is discussed extensively’? because there’s nothing there about being discussed extensively. however there is something there about at the expense of pressing domestic issues such as education, crime and poverty, as well as significant foreign policy issues such as Russia, China, the Eurozone crisis and the Arab Spring.
you are so predictable eee. don’t want to address my point so you pretend i say something else. my point, was that americans can look at this stuff without turning into anti semites. if you care to disagree with that, go ahead.
“The Republican politicians are discussing Israel because that is what their voters want to hear. Nobody is forcing the issue down the throats of the Republican voters.”
They’re doing it because it’s primary season. And they need to hit all three legs in the Republican stool.
Conservative/Republican voters and the politicians are more racist than average, they are naturally drawn to their fellow racists, the Zionsits. They also believe that Jesus will come back soon and kill all of the Muslims, Jews and others who don’t become Christians (and they believe that there needs to be a giant war between the Jews and Arabs in which millions will be killed before this happens. So you have THAT to look forward to) and that Israel is central to that event. Finally, there are those portions of the party who never grew out of playing GI Joe, and spend their lives stroking their guns as they imagine using them to murder third-world foreigners without mercy.
The Israel issue therefore becomes a litmus test–a perfect storm–for the GOP. Right wing politicians appeal to right-wing GOPers by praising what they see as the Jews in Palestine carrying the white man’s burden against Muslims and brown people, killing civilians without mercy with good ol’ American weapons, all, untimately, for the greater glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God.
That’s why they do it. Your shitty state is the perfect synthesis of immoral racism, mindless religion, and brainless militarism. So it is a perfect American right-wing dog whistle.
“That’s why they do it. Your shitty state is the perfect synthesis of immoral racism, mindless religion, and brainless militarism. So it is a perfect American right-wing dog whistle.”
So you see, about 50% of Americans share the same ideology as Israelis, a fact that people here were not willing to concede. And of course it is not Jewish money either, it is the common ideology as you concede.
Of course your view of the ideology is completely wrong, but that is beside the point.
“So you see, about 50% of Americans share the same ideology as Israelis, a fact that people here were not willing to concede. And of course it is not Jewish money either, it is the common ideology as you concede.”
Nope. First, most Zionism in the US is Christian Zionism, based on numbers. So unless there’s been a break out of Jesus love in your Jewish wonderland, it’s not the same ideology.
Second, you make the mistake of believing that simply because 50% of the country (roughly) are Republicans, that they agree with the fringe elements of their party. Not so. About 1/3 of the party even approach the level of lunacy we are talking about here. But because they vote in high percentages during the primaries than the less insane members of the party, they punch way above their weight class.
Third, you simply don’t understand who makes up the Republican party. An enormous percentage don’t give a shit about Zionism either way, but simply want low taxes and regulations so they can make a lot of money, not have to pay a lot for foreign-made crap, and, if they’re doctors, lawyers or other professionals, don’t want the peons to be able to sue them if they commit malpractice.
But the difference betweent the views of most Americans, who favor or at least aren’t opposed to Israel but believe that the US government is too one sided on the Palestine/Israel dispute, comes down to the money of donors.
“Of course your view of the ideology is completely wrong, but that is beside the point.”
Whatever.
You can’t keep your story straight can you?
You say:
“Conservative/Republican voters and the politicians are more racist than average, they are naturally drawn to their fellow racists, the Zionsits.”
“Conservative/Republican voters” are about 50% of the voters in the US. You are clearly admitting in one post that they are drawn ideologically to Zionists and then you try backtracking. Oh well.
you nail it, woody, over & over again
“You can’t keep your story straight can you?”
You can’t think straight, can you?
“‘Conservative/Republican voters’ are about 50% of the voters in the US.”
Not really, but more or less.
“You are clearly admitting in one post that they are drawn ideologically to Zionists”
LMAO!!! I said that they are more racist than average. I then insulted you by saying that you are a racist. I wasn’t making political commentary, I was rhetorically spitting on your wicked ideology.
“That’s why they do it. Your shitty state is the perfect synthesis of immoral racism, mindless religion, and brainless militarism. So it is a perfect American right-wing dog whistle.”
“So you see, about 50% of Americans share the same ideology as Israelis, a fact that people here were not willing to concede.”
Gosh, “eee” Israel should make you their chief spokes-model. Your campaign to show American they are just a shitty as Israels will be a big success.
((“Nobody is forcing the issue down the throats of the Republican voters.”))
A big portion of Republicans like the idea of cutting foreign aid, and the Republican candidates said they would cut it to Israel too. Then not long afterwards they recanted. So to some extent the issue is forced down the throats of those who want to reduce foreign aid.
Most Republicans are not CZs, and most also are anti-spending. Consequently, a big portion are expected to support giving out less aid to other countries including Israel. Then when their candidates say this, the candidates recant for some reason not long after.
smart. didnt think about that!
If Remnick is concerned about antisemitism when talking about FACTS then that tells you an obvious truism:
There is a kernel of truth in antisemitism (which is a mixture of lies and framing) OR there is a hysteria of antisemitism in the US. Or both. I think both since Zionist groups know how powerful as an ideological bludgeon, the antisemitism accusation is.
He is worried about framing though. How he frames the truth. He can be direct in Israel because the pressures there are different.
Here he has to worry about the non-Jewish majority.
It’s sad what Remnick is doing. It’s basically bigotry; he finds himself more comfortable with foreigners–Israelis–than with his fellow citizens.
And that in a nutshell is the entire problem with Israelism.
Cliff,
You said “there are several embarrasing poll results that show the majority doesn’t know squat about its own country”. I agree, a series of surveys have proven that Fox viewers are woefully ignorant of current affairs, the latest study revealing that it is actually ‘better to consume no news’ than to watch Fox – you end up better informed (the slatest 21 Nov 2011 – poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University).
RE: “Remnick has been a leading voice on the issue in the last year, but in his New Yorker piece he is obfuscating, and the reason is obvious; Remnick is concerned that talk about Jewish money will arouse anti-Semitism in the United States.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post doesn’t seem to be concerned about inciting anti-Semitism when she speaks to an audience of Christians and slams Jews for being naively liberal as a way to try and explain that they have fallen away from God and been captivated by the “religion of liberalism” (causing the Christian audience to express considerable dismay).
SEE: Inside CUFI’s 2011 Washington “Summit”, Special to JewsOnFirst.org, 07/29/11
Our eyewitness report on Christians United For Israel’s annual Washington conference
ENTIRE REPORT – link to jewsonfirst.org
just as the romans fed christians to the lions, there’s the history of zionist jews feeding liberal jews to the nazis*. does this mean such jewish zionists are self-haters? damn right, it does.
*doubters might google zionist-nazi collaberation.
The Robert Siegel interview from last May is hardly the only example of NPR ducking the question of Jewish money. In fact, NPR appears to have systematic policy of doing so (surely, it can’t be that they’re all just stupid, right?). One example from just last week: in an All Things Considered segment entitled “GOP Candidates Affirm Their Support Of Israel,” about the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum, there’s no reference whatsoever to money, donations, contributions, whatever. When host Lynn Neary asked reporter Ari Shapiro “Well, why is it so important for Republicans to address this group?,” Shapiro acknowledged that Jews are a small number of voters and overwhelmingly vote Democratic, but then rattled on about the evangelical vote, the possibility that Jewish voters could make a difference in a few swing states, etc. – everything except money.
Quite a few of the commenters, however, pointed out what was missing.
right Henry, I heard that same report and was angered, and decided not to do anything on it, beating a horse. but it’s glaring, and important… Thanks, Phil
You know, what’s amazing (or at least amazing for the lack of attention paid to same) is that … here’s this venerable old American institution, simply in need of a new editor. So they hire Remnick, and given its nature one doubts that in doing so they intended to be charting any new political direction or concentration. While it certainly dealt with political issues in the past, clearly its main focus was more on literature and just general, wide-ranging journalism and etc.
And yet, bada bing, Remnick gets hired and apparently without a mote of hesitation on his part suddenly the New Yorker (in the form of himself at the very least) seems to be regularly knee deep in the Israeli and anti-semitism issues and etc. And I hardly see Remnick taking any pains to say that when he goes talking about these issues it’s solely due to his own interest and his statements should not reflect on the magazine or etc.
So all of sudden an institution that was historically only occasionally interested in such issues, no moreso than any others, is seemingly brought evermore to the front and center as regards same.
Not saying this is anything nefarious on Remnick’s part: He seems a decent guy. It’s just the unconscious assumption that … of *course* his jewish concerns should be everyone’s and of *course* his sensibilities should be that of the institution he works for and etc. and so forth.
Kinda interesting.
Remnick was hired to restore some credibility among longtime New Yorker readers, after Tina Brown’s six-year reign. One of the first things Brown had done was to ease Elizabeth Drew out, who had been doing some of the best in-depth political reporting on DC there ever has been. Before Brown, there had also been more political items in talk of the town than during her stay, so when Remnick took over, some contrasts immediately apparent didn’t necessarily reflect the longtime history of the magazine.
“Remnick is concerned that talk about Jewish money will arouse anti-Semitism in the United States.”
Jesus Christ, the only people who are sensitive to this are Jews, and they happen to be wrong, Remnick included.
(1) Everyone knows Jews like to donate big bucks to politics. Big deal. And they own the majority of Hollywood studios. Big deal. You think this is a mystery? You think gentiles are stuck on stupid and don’t know this? I dont recall a big outbreak of anti-semitism when Seymour Hersh spoke of “Jewish money” in politics a few years back.
(2) Accusing people wrongly of being anti-semitic will arouse anti-semitism in the US.
(3) Where any group or person (Jew, Christian, Muslim, gun manufacturer, class, logger, Asian, banker, businessman, pastor, polluter) gets into trouble and evokes the ire of a nation is when the activity takes advantage and threatens the national interest. Witness the mortgage mess, the 99%, or President Bush. That Countrywide Mortgage guy, the Italian who appeared on the Hill way too tanned in the blue shirt and white collar and cuffs, had to hide. They called him “that motherfucking wop” and ‘that mofo Italian’ in my neck of the woods, where his damage was most severe. Had he been Jewish, and the people he cheated substituted ‘wop’ for ‘Jew’, would that have been anti-semitic? No.
Considering the fact that current (and past) u.s. foreign policy vis-a-vis the me conflict is taking america (better, the world) down a deadend to doomsday*, is it not vital that if, indeed, israel-firsters have a stranglehold on u.s. foreign policy, that said stranglehold be broken? And towards that end, of course the religions of these israel-firsters matter? After all, aren’t they using their religion (whether such be Christian or Jewish) to pitch their take on the importance of Israel to the public, and never mind that the Zionist’s understanding of the importance of Israel differs from that of the non-Zionist. Yet the religion of Jewish Israel-firsters can’t be mentioned for fear of stirring up antisemitism? Except eventually this fact is going to get out, and then -the public’s reaction, “what the hell’s going on, how come this fact’s never been disclosed before” – such a predictable outcome isn’t going to stoke antisemitism? The answer? Tell it the way it is without covering up personally uncomfortable details, before it’s too late.
*perpetual war + global warming = doomsday
Yourstruly, except we’re cooling. Here are the daily NASA satellite temps; bookmark it: link to discover.itsc.uah.edu
(Check channels 5 and 6. They are the temps of the lower tropical troposphere that cause the trouble. Channel 4 satellite stopped working in October.)
I repeat myself, but regarding Israel/Palestine, Remnick was and is part of the problem, not the solution. Take him for his word.
Many knew this was happening, many knew that both Jews and Zionist Jews in the US said one thing in American circles and quite another in Israeli circles.
I first came across this double speak when I spoke with American Jews about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. When they didn’t know I was Israeli, they fiend ignorance and played it dumb. Then when I told them I was Israeli, the part of their brain that contained all the detailed information about the conflict suddenly kicked in, but instead of denouncing Israel’s crimes, they went on to justify them.
Remnick and his ilk do the same exact thing. They speak differently to American audiences, knowing that their target audience has a certain set of social, civic and moral values that are different from those of Israelis.
I stand by my criticism of Remnick from a few days ago as his protestations concerning Gingrich’s comments about Palestinians do not fool me.
This is what I like about you, Avi, what I admire. You are a straight-shooter and honorable.
“Remnick is concerned that talk about Jewish money will arouse anti-Semitism in the United States.”
Maybe that’s been the plan all along.
“These men don’t trust their audience” (enough to say the Republicans are after Jewish money rather than after Jewish votes).
No, No, and No. They do trust that part of their audience which I call BIG-ZION, the Jewish money which is spent to influence USA politics. These publishers want advertisements and other signs of affection to continue rolling in from these sources. Perhaps universities and law schools — ever hopeful for funds for new buildings and so on, and having been asked by BIG-ZION to do so — ask NYT and New Yorker not to hit BIG-ZION too hard. Who knows the pathways of political control in the USA by the BIGs? What we do know is how very effective it is.