The New York Times has now covered the attack by Leon Wieseltier on John Judis for writing a book that is highly critical of Zionism. The piece by Jennifer Schuessler is called “A Bastion for Israel, Seething Inside“– the bastion being The New Republic, where both Judis and Wieseltier are employed– and revels in the foodfight element of the spat.
No doubt that’s a juicy story. The characters are compelling, from the disciplined but turbulent author (Judis) to the lurking impetuous saloniste (Wieseltier, pictured in the Times with Louis Quatorze mane, below), to the unreadable new owner of the magazine, Chris Hughes out of North Carolina, Facebook, and marriage equality.
But as Wieseltier and Judis would surely agree, this is not about personalities in the end, it is a substantive battle over an ideology inside the US establishment; and there is scarcely a word of substance in the Times account. Wieseltier says Judis wrote a “profoundly anti-Zionist book.” I agree with him. You’d think this idea might have been discussed. Nope.
I’ll get to Schuessler’s grittier revelations in a moment. For the time being, here is an excellent cheat-sheet on the story from a friend:
1. Cites only negative reviews of Judis, not one positive one, such as Globe and Mail and Boston Globe.
2. Fails to identify “historian Ronald Radosh” as an ex-Left renegade neoconservative (subspecies: fanatic).
3. Fails to describe how Wieseltier used Radosh as go-between to get out his letter attacking Judis to a far right website. Doesn’t even cite Radosh’s email containing Wieseltier’s greenlight to publish his email [which Mondo published].
4. Doesn’t describe Judis’s book thesis– that Truman went against his own convictions, for a binational state (because he believed in separation of church and state), and supported the establishment of a Jewish state because of pressure from the Zionist lobby.
5. Doesn’t report that Judis spoke recently at the Truman Library and was received enthusiastically.
6. Doesn’t quote any historian who supports his thesis.
Now here is the grittier part of Schuessler’s story:
“Judis interjects a point of view into the debate that has probably never been expressed by a New Republic writer,” Jack Shafer, a media and politics columnist at Reuters, said in an interview. “That’s what’s fascinating. I don’t think you’ve ever heard a New Republic employee arrive at the conclusions he seems to have arrived at.”
In the pre-publication galleys of “Genesis,” Mr. Judis praised Mr. Hughes for an openness to views on Israel that would not have been “tolerated” under its longtime former owner, Martin Peretz, who sold the magazine to Mr. Hughes.
“I suppose that having to be associated with a publication whose views on the subject I often disagree with led to a buildup of repressed indignation that fueled the years I spent on this book,” he wrote in the acknowledgments.
Mr. Judis, in an interview, said that he had dropped that passage from the finished book after complaints from Mr. Wieseltier, but stood by the basic point. “I always felt I couldn’t write about Israel, and the few times I did there was an enormous fluff,” he said. When Mr. Hughes took over, he added, “I think his attitude was, there’s no correct line. There would be a diversity of views.”…
“What’s insulting to the magazine isn’t Leon’s email, it’s that they excerpted the book,” Mr. Radosh said in an interview, adding, “Obviously Chris Hughes doesn’t know anything about Israel.”
In a statement, Mr. Foer rejected the notion that the magazine had a new editorial line on Israel, or any line at all.
I wonder how long the Times is going to treat the Israel conversation as a badminton dispute that ended up ruining the party, and actually discuss the extent to which Zionism depended/depends upon empire to dispossess Palestinians– “the darker side of Zionism… the attempt to impose a Jewish state on a people who had lived in Palestine for 1300 years,” as Judis writes.
(A year ago I wrote that it’s time for the media to tell their readers what Zionism is. Judis’s book presents just that opportunity.)
I am unconditionally opposed to judging ideas based upon features of the person who argues for them, and that’s that! Then again, how can I take seriously any ideas that emanate from what’s underneath Wieseltier’s coiffure? No, delete that. I didn’t write it.
And Phil, did you see this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/middleeast/a-counterstrike-against-israel-boycotts-with-a-glamorous-face.html?hp&_r=0
The tone is interesting. No Nazi-esque comments like Rodoren, but still attempts to downplay BDS, questioning its influence etc.
The story quotes the New York Times as saying that “Mr. Foer” maintained that The New Republic had not changed its position about Israel. Mr. Foer is not identified in that excerpt.
It’s Franklin Foer, who was an attack dog for Marty Peretz in 2003, when Peretz owned TNR.
Foer attempted (without success) to smear Alexander Cockburn as an Anti-Semite.
You can find Cockburn’s account at this link. Cockburn concludes with these words.
So you should know that these days it’s clear evidence of anti-Semitism to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic, with which I have had combative relations for the past 30 years, as would anyone with a moral fiber in his body. Could anyone sink lower than Foer? Yes! Eric Alterman adduced as a proof of my anti-Semitism the fact that I had been rude, more than once, about Irving Howe. Puts me up there with the Cossacks, doesn’t it?
@Phil
It doesn’t. Israel is a powerful country. It would be perfectly capable of dispossessing the Palestinians on its own with ease. What empire does is create USA interest which conflict with the Palestinians being brutalized and thus encourage America to bribe Israel with weapons and trade not to dispossess the Palestinians. If anything empire is dragging this whole thing out and making it more humane.
Which is one of the reasons the people pushing for a cutoff in USA aide might want to be careful what they wish for. They don’t like Israel shackled, Israel as a free agent pursuing its own interests without being tightly tied to the USA I suspect they like far less.
“He his head buried in the sand and doesn’t understand that there can be a first time for everything”
I do understand that, but my position doesn’t rely on BDS/sanctions and my position doesn’t have the consequence of prolonging Palestinian suffering while claiming to be against such a state of affairs. You should answer Jeff’s question and say a date when your outcome of a Palestinians state (or ROR?) will happen because of sanctions/BDS or whatever.
It’s always just around the corner isn’t it? If it isn’t then I would suggest a different strategy from people like you is in order if you give 2 flying figs about Palestine more than you enjoy endlessly displaying your hatred for Israel.
When’s it happening Hostage? And when it does will our suffering your counter productive hostile yip yap end too?
I’ll take any personal insults on my character as an admission of your ignorance and inherently flawed position.