Evidently embarrassed by its decision to run Eric Alterman’s attack on Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath, The Nation now runs six letters criticizing Alterman, then a response to them from the columnist.
A couple of letters express anger that The Nation is providing a home for Eric Alterman’s staunch Zionism. And this is appropriate: The left is reaching a crossroads on this issue; it is becoming more and more difficult to say, I’m a progressive and a Zionist. As Keith Schuerholz writes:
Isn’t it time the left rejected this kind of overt racism and petty, chauvinistic nationalism? How could The Nation betray its legacy by pandering to those who defend an apartheid regime?
Abdeen Jabara makes a similar point:
I am troubled by The Nation’s need to present “two sides of the story.” Having Alterman do his hatchet job in the same issue as Blumenthal’s article is a case in point.
There is no equivalency between whatever Palestinians have done or are doing and what Israel and Zionism have done to the Palestinians. And no section of the media, particularly the progressive one, should try to make it so. Let Alterman’s piece be published, but either not in The Nation—or with The Nation’s disclaimer.
Alterman leaps on that point: “[T]here would not be a ‘disclaimer’ attached to my column; I wrote it at the express request of my editors.” So Alterman reminds us that The Nation leadership is divided over this issue. How long can the left continue to straddle? How does The Nation reconcile progressivism with Alterman’s support for such actions as Israel shooting up an aid boat in international waters, killing 9? Scott Roth is a partner at The Nation. He now likens Alterman to the back end of an equine. I think The Nation needs to figure out its line on this question, and tell Alterman to save his Zionism for The New Republic.
Alterman’s last put-down of his critics is: “I have often heard it remarked that the Palestinian people have been profoundly ill served by their leaders. Unfortunately, much the same can be said about their cheerleaders as well.” So this is how he characterizes Charles Manekhin (Jerry Haber of Magnes Zionist) and Abdeen Jabara (former head of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee)? Haber has lived in Jerusalem for many years. Both he and Jabara have only been cheerleaders for human rights in my experience.
Finally, Alterman takes a stab at Blumenthal because his book was “recently endorsed on the website of neo-Nazi David Duke.” This is the second time he’s said so in The Nation. He seems to want Blumenthal to commit hara-kari. Well, then Alterman would have to go first. When he went after Sheldon Adelson in The Nation (“Sheldon Adelson and the End of American Anti-Semitism: How can it be that the ‘richest Jew in the world’ can buy the foreign policy of a major party’s presidential contender and ‘the Jews’ have somehow escaped the blame?”), David Duke quoted the piece extensively and praised the heck out of Alterman.
H/t Jew4Palestine.
PS Blumenthal agrees with me about Jabara:
.@Eric_Alterman says Palestinians are “ill served” by Abdeen Jabara, an Arab-American lawyer spied on by FBI for his solidarity activism…
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) November 29, 2013
Thanks Phil for keeping us updated on this.
I was struck by the intellectual dishonesty of Alterman’s curt dismissal of the letter written by Ralph M. Coury. Alterman not only ignores Coury’s very valid criticism, but additionally insults the Nation editor who chose to publish the letter.
As the humorous graphic that is the first comment after the letters indicates, this debate has shown Alterman’s review and subsequent writings on Blumenthal to be a complete “train wreck.”
I think Alterman is helping Blumenthal’s book sales as one the the letters implies.
I also believe that Goliath will sell better than people think and will have a long shelf life. This is because despite all the superfluous talk about balance, tone, context, nuance, and Max’s radical politics, the sometimes forgotten fact is just how good a work of journalism Goliath is.
I think Goliath will be part of the I/P canon well into the future because of its wide scope, its honest reporting, Max’s courage, and its originality. My bet is that Goliath is on the bookshelves of Rudoren and Friedman, maybe even Kershner, although they would not admit to it.
Alterman, to my mind, in effect, said this: ‘Anyone who stands up for Palestinian national, human, civil, or property rights (that is, is in Alterman’s view a cheer-leader) ill-serves the Palestinian people.’
Well and those same people certainly ill-serve Israel (in Alterman’s view, I dare say, I dare say).
So I guess they should remain silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is famous for writing (I think at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) “Wovon Mann nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss mann schweigen” // Whereof one cannot speak, thereof he must be silent.
But Max Blumenthal was able to speak. Goliath is a magnificent speech.
Alterman would wish to say that one cannot speak about Palestinian rights (or Israeli oppression of Palestinians). I think, rather, that he cannot (reasonably) speak about the impropriety of speaking Goliath’s truths to power and wear the mantel of any but a totalitarian.
This gets more hysterical — Alterman trying to weasel wordie his way out of what he said about his being willing for America to take attacks for supporting Israel.
“.” Here, Blumenthal pretends to be shocked by my allegedly “extraordinary declaration that Americans must be willing to endure more 9/11-style terror attacks ‘if that’s the price we have to pay’ to maintain the US-Israeli special relationship.”
That would be extraordinary if I had said it, but I did not. Check the link that Blumenthal, himself, provides and you’ll find an article by the fanatical anti-Zionist and Blumenthal booster, Philip Weiss, in which he reports on 2011 panel discussion in which I participated at the 92nd Street Y. (My words are often big news for Weiss’s website, though its accuracy can be iffy at best.) The article contains both a video of the panel as well as an apparent partial transcript. (I cannot vouch for the latter’s accuracy.) The issue in question was the extremely sensitive one of dual loyalty of some American Jews to both Israel and the United States. In it, I admit to my own conflicted feelings and explain that while I, personally, as a pro-Zionist American Jew, would be willing under certain circumstances to accept such attacks as the price of American support for Israel—indeed, this is yet another argument for Israel to compromise with the Palestinians and allow a peaceful Palestinian state to be built alongside Israel in order to reduce or perhaps even eliminate this threat—””
I fail to see the difference between what he says he didnt say and what he just said.
And adding that being willing for American to take hits for Israel is ‘an argument for Israel to compromise”?…….rotflmao!
Alterman goes on….
“”I hardly think it appropriate to pretend that there is no price for America’s support for Israel. Nor do I think that the interests of America and Israel are identical, as so many neoconservatives and members of the “pro-Israel community” so frequently insist. In other words, in the quote in question, I was quite clearly speaking for myself personally as a Jew who cares deeply about Israel before a Jewish audience attending a conversation about Israel at a Jewish institution. I was not even attempting to speak for “Americans” as Blumenthal pretends, because more than 99 percent of them are not, like yours truly, Jews who happen to care deeply about the fate of Israel.”
Gee, we must admire Alterman’s honesty in admitting that although he doesnt believe US and Israel interest are identical like most I-Firsters do…..he is STILL willing for Americans to take the hits for Israel anyway.
Alterman sounds a little desperate to me. Maybe he is afraid his I-First is starting to have a bit of a smell.
Good going Max, one down.
What I wonder is how these attacks compare with Alterman’s other expositions. Are his arguments normally this weak? What value have his past essays possessed? Is he always this bad?
It looks to me that The Nation is divided, with a majority supporting Blumenthal: The Nation ran a very long excerpt from Goliath, much longer than a typical article in The Nation. A minority supports Alterman, hence the hostile review, entitled “The Israel-Hater’s Handbook”, which is of course a minor variation on the standard trick of accusing Israel’s critics of anti-Semitism.
Not so many years ago, The Nation debated, solemnly, whether or not there really was an Israel Lobby, which (as Alexander Cockburn wrote at the time) is a bit like debating whether or not there is a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. Cockburn was one of the very few critics (at The Nation) of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Edward Said, an eloquent spokesman for the Palestinians, wrote only rarely for The Nation. In short, The Nation used to be part of the problem, running mild criticism of Israeli policy, while censoring facts “on the ground.” For example, the everyday oppression suffered by the Palestinians, detailed by Pamela Olson at Mondoweiss, used to be censored out of The Nation as thoroughly as it was censored out of The New York Times. The Nation used to be part of the problem. That has now changed, and that is the real significance of the boost they gave to Max Blumenthal’s great book.