Given that Joe Klein has engaged in another tantrum, first repeating the ridiculous charge that Jewish neoconservatives somehow mesmerized John McCain into being unduly confrontational regarding Iran, then launching into expletive-laden tirades against Jamie Kirchik, and finally telling the Washington Post that Jewish neocons sometimes “put the interests of Israel above the interests of the U.S,” I thought I’d reprint what I wrote about Klein last year (see also this post on Klein):
Joe Klein’s outburst about the “Jewish neocons” allegedly pulling John McCain’s strings on behalf of Israel reminded me that I’ve been meaning to blog about the fact that liberals, including (and sometimes especially) Jewish liberals increasingly use the charge of “dual loyalty” to try to discredit, and thus silence, Jewish conservatives.
This is especially clear from Klein’s piece, because unlike many writers, he actually shows an understanding of neoconservatism, which he describes, in roughly accurate terms, “as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy.” There is nothing uniquely “Jewish” about this ideology, and the neocons have applied to everything from the Salt II treaty to Grenada to Bosnia to Iraq, usually in circumstances that have nothing to do with Israel–as I have written, “if Israel suddenly was at complete peace with its neighbors and was no longer an issue of foreign policy concern, I would bet that all of the Jewish neoconservatives would remain neoconservatives, and continue to promote neoconservative views on foreign and domestic policy.” And, as I’ve noted previously, Jews are not overrepresented among neoconservatives relative to their prominence as public intellectuals generally.
The purpose, then, of associating “neocons” with Jews, and neoconservatism exclusively or primarily with concern for Israel, is to delegitimize conservative Jews, just as conservative blacks are called “Uncle Toms” and whatnot. As the National Review media blog notes, “conservatives who aren’t ‘neo’ in any appreciable way — say, Jonah Goldberg — are denounced as ‘neocons’ based mostly on their surnames.”
One interesting aspect of all this is that the standard left-wing “Uncle Tom” attack on black conservatives accuses them of being insufficiently supportive of “their people,” while the emerging attack on Jewish conservatives accuses them of being too supportive of “their people” and thus having dual loyalties. Hmm.
UPDATE: In reaction to a previous, more outlandish Klein screed, Shmuel Rosner of Ha’aretz pointed out quite aptly that liberal Jews also argue that the policies they support will help Israel. [And given that Israel is very popular with Americans in general, and American Jews in particular, it would be foolhardy to argue that a policy is good because it would hurt Israel; even the Chomskys and Finkelsteins of the world usually claim to have Israel's ultimate best interests at heart.] But, Rosner points out, it’s only the conservative Jews, or at least the ones that are hawkish on foreign policy, including Israel-related foreign policy that get accused by the likes of Klein of dual loyalty:
Here’s a little mind game with which to demonstrate my point. Imagine Klein, back in the late Nineties, writing this:
“The fact that a great many Jewish officials in the Clinton administration plumped for this Oslo process between Israel and the Palestinians, and now for an even more foolish summit at Camp David between Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. diplomatic leverage and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”
Can you imagine him writing such thing? Can you imagine him blaming the many-many Jewish members of the Clinton administration for tilting the American agenda toward the peace process only because they want to help Israel?
If you can – Klein is being honest. If you can’t – Klein is just using religion to denounce people with whom he has policy differences.
Oren says:
Indeed. This is a disturbing trend.
Of course, running opposite to that is the trend among Jewish conservatives to level the charge of “disloyalty” (or outright antipathy towards Israeli interests) to discredit Jewish doves.
November 13, 2009, 12:00 amsitzpinkler says:
Bernstein, why are you always posting about Jewish topics?
November 13, 2009, 12:11 amSarcastro says:
Yeah, Bernstein! If ya want to post on things you’re interested in you should get a blog or something!
[I think that as our politics gets more polarized, this facet goes right along with that trend, with both Bernstein and Oren's effects coming more and more to the fore. It's a symptom, not the main problem.
That being said, calling out the more egregious bomb-throwers is a good thing.]
November 13, 2009, 12:28 amLeo Marvin says:
Are you suggesting “self-hating Jew” isn’t meant as a compliment?
November 13, 2009, 12:33 amdeklerk says:
“liberals, including (and sometimes especially) Jewish liberals increasingly use the charge of “dual loyalty” to try to discredit, and thus silence, Jewish conservatives.”
Actually, they (along with other rational people) could use such an observation to demonstrate that the such neocons are not primarily concerned with what is in the best interests of Americans.
Israel has zero strategic value to the United States. The average American wouldn’t be affected one whit if Israel were to go poof tomorrow. (Of course, it would be a tragic loss of life, but as any reasonable observer of the United States will discern, we really aren’t terribly troubled when foreigners die.)
Okay, that said, if someone is as concerned about what happens to Israel as they are with what happens to the United States, what would you call it if not “dual loyalty?”
And, if someone is concerned about a country that matters not to the US’s interests, can you fairly be said to have America’s interests at heart?
November 13, 2009, 1:11 amDavid Bernstein says:
I’d say this is at best arguable (e.g., if Israel didn’t exist, Jordan would likely fall to anti-American interests as it would have without Israeli intervention in 1970, and then perhaps Saudi Arabia), and given that it’s arguable, the rest of the argument doesn’t follow, because the neocons may simply take the other side of the argument. Regardless, certainly the U.S. interest in Bosnia, where the neocons urged U.S. military intervention, was harder to discern than the U.S. interest in Israel. The neocons also famously supported the contras in Nicaragua, among other U.S. military interventions that have nothing to do with Israel.
November 13, 2009, 1:28 amHurtletheturtle says:
“As the National Review media blog notes, “conservatives who aren’t ‘neo’ in any appreciable way — say, Jonah Goldberg — are denounced as ‘neocons’ based mostly on their surnames.””
Jonah Goldberg spilled about 10,000 words a few years ago to convince everyone that he is not a “neo-conservative.”
I guess Mr. Bernstein is the only person to read all of that, and certainly the only person to be convinced.
Goldberg is everything that neo-conservatism is tied up in a little doughy ball. Advocate of American expansionism? Check. Fanboy of sending people his own age off to die in foreign wars while declining to enlist himself? Check. Urging the United States to attack, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan? Check, check, check, check, check. Not having any concern about the ballooning budget and deficit – or at least those parts of it arising from multi-billion dollar wars? Check. Having a snotty adolescents understanding of history, war and the law. Big checks there. Willing to sacrifice personal freedoms of American citizens in favor of illusions of security. Check. Torture fanboy? Check.
I mean only a very, very foolish person would attempt to argue that Goldberg is a “conservative” rather than a “neo-con.”
November 13, 2009, 1:32 amOren says:
What about people that believe that US interests are aligned with Israeli interests? Surely a situation like that is not, a priori, impossible.
November 13, 2009, 1:36 amricky says:
I find the accusations of “Jewish neocons pulling strings on behalf of Israel” about as credible as McDonnell’s assertion that “working women are detrimental to the family”. That is to say, so obviously true as to be unworthy of comment.
November 13, 2009, 3:21 amyuowen says:
I’d say this is at best arguable (e.g., if Israel didn’t exist, Jordan would likely fall to anti-American interests as it would have without Israeli intervention in 1970, and then perhaps Saudi Arabia), and given that it’s arguable, the rest of the argument doesn’t follow, because the neocons may simply take the other side of the argument. Regardless, certainly the U.S. interest in Bosnia, where the neocons urged U.S. military intervention, was harder to discern than the U.S. interest in Israel. The neocons also famously supported the contras in Nicaragua, among other U.S. military interventions that have nothing to do with Israel.
November 13, 2009, 3:35 ampifu says:
Yeah, Bernstein! If ya want to post on things you’re interested in you should get a blog or something!
[I think that as our politics gets more polarized, this facet goes right along with that trend, with both Bernstein and Oren’s effects coming more and more to the fore. It’s a symptom, not the main problem.
That being said, calling out the more egregious bomb-throwers is a good thing.]
November 13, 2009, 3:38 amRon says:
If Americans support Israel, then supporting Israel is an American interest.
Democracies don’t have interests that transcend that of their voters’.
November 13, 2009, 3:39 amii says:
Perhaps the worst thing about attempting to delegitimize neoconservatives by dismissing them as a Jewish collective hellbent on advancing the interests of Israel is that this strategy, as silly as it is, detracts from the otherwise valid attempt to delegitimize neoconservatism, as dangerous and wrong as it is.
November 13, 2009, 5:38 amii says:
Ron, good thing we’re still somewhat of a republic then, where often the majority doesn’t get its way.
November 13, 2009, 5:43 amHadur says:
One problem of the “Jewish neoconservative” meme for people like me — people who have disagreements with neoconservative theory and practice — is that we are often not allowed to criticize neoconservatives, because defenders of neoconservatism will say “aha, by neo-conservative you mean Jew, so you are being anti-semitic!”
In fact, I’ve run into an issue where some of Jewish friends who don’t know anything about this particular branch of political theory will accuse me of being anti-semitic just because I complain about neoconservative influence on this or that. They just heard somewhere that “people who are against neoconservatives are just against jews”. The difference between these and the former group is that they’ll generally drop the issue once I explain to them that neoconservatism is a distinct political school with adherents of all colors and creeds.
November 13, 2009, 5:46 amDavid Nieporent says:
If you know that, then you’re one of the few people using the term who do. Most people using it as an epithet don’t have the foggiest idea what it means. (Not all are using it as an anti-semitic euphemism; I’ve seen liberal ignoramuses calling Antonin Scalia and other conservative Justices “neocons” as an epithet.)
November 13, 2009, 7:25 amEvan says:
In many circles any criticism of Israeli policy is by default antisemitism. Sadly there’s enough real antisemitism out there that we don’t need to make up this phony kind.
November 13, 2009, 7:32 amsashal says:
That’s what I thought.
November 13, 2009, 7:53 amFind it harder and harder to see difference in tactic and ideology(given the obvious differences in origin and different hate target) between German Nazis and American neoconservatives.
Seriously, what difference there is?
What if German Nazis did not go after the Jewish population?
Would anybody tell the difference then?
Instapundit » Blog Archive » DAVID BERNSTEIN on Joe Klein’s latest tantrum…. says:
[...] DAVID BERNSTEIN on Joe Klein’s latest tantrum. [...]
November 13, 2009, 8:10 amSarcastro says:
sashal makes an awesome point! The use of fear, myth and propaganda means neocons are just like Nazis. Also lke Nazis: Obama, teapartiers, code-pink types, and a whole bunch of posters on the internet.
November 13, 2009, 8:10 amBaby M says:
Julius Streicher is alive and well and on the editorial staff of Time and the Washington Post.
November 13, 2009, 8:15 amsashal says:
Sarcastro, is that the only thing which unites Nazis and neocons?
November 13, 2009, 8:17 amfear and propaganda?
how about militarism, belligerence; how about disregard to human life,cultural differences, historical progress ; and how about exceptionalism etc…
No Obama is not like nazi…..
Abdul says:
I always thought that “neoconservative” just meant “someone I don’t like because they are conservative.” I can’t recall the last time i heard it used some other way.
November 13, 2009, 8:23 amAlex says:
Hurtle, talk about snotty adolescent views…
You forgot an important Neocon view – advocating for the expansion of democracy everywhere and the overthrow of tyranical regimes whenever and wherever possible. By the way, not sure so many neo cons, being one myself, believe Pakistan should be overthrown. In fact, I would argue that even the most utopian dreams (and they are utopian to some extent) of the most belligerent neocon, does not include the overthrow on the Pakistani regime since most understand that islamic fundamentalists would most likely fill the void.
And I am curious, if there is no American exceptionalism, would you say no country is exceptional? Are we on a par with cuba, venezuela, russia, china? If not, who are we on a par with? The french? Mexico? Brazil? India? We won world war II. We won the cold war. Our culture and influence permeate every part of the world. More people migrate to the US every year than any other country. Sounds a tad bit exceptional to me.
>> Willing to sacrifice personal freedoms of American citizens in favor of illusions of security.
So how much of the patriot act and other things blamed on neocons has Obama overturned? Not much. In fact, it seems that the current administration is taking the aparatus Bush put in place and increasing it around the edges. Are they neocons or just smart defenders of this country?
>> Torture?
Yea, now we just continue extraordinary rendition and send them overseas to be tortured since we don’t want to dirty our hands ourselves. Obama = Neocon I guess…
November 13, 2009, 8:26 amsashal says:
advocating is not the same thing as killing innocent to promote your ideas, Alex.
And yes, French and Germans and Italians would like to see democracy spread all over the world.
They just do not use the Bolshevik methods of permanent
revolution/aggressive wars to advance that idea.Btw, people do immigrate into the European countries as well….
Hey, Alex, you know who won the WWII as well ?
November 13, 2009, 8:35 amCBI says:
Interesting. Wikipedia: “Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.”
David Bernstein and Joe Klein do not like this rather objective definition, so add their own spin to the definition with words like “unilateral”, “bellicosity”, and “utopian”. Such rhetorical devices usually assist in avoiding thoughtful analysis of an opponents ideas while persuading (both self-persuasion and persuasion of others) that one is more moral and well-intensioned (with the implication that the others are immoral and malevolent).
It appears that many of the commentors use “neoconservative” as somewhat of a portmanteau snarl-word: the issue at discussion is the extent the snarl aspect applies to or is caused by Jews, either as individuals or as a collective.
Personally, I’m not sure the term is intellectually (as opposed to rhetorically) useful.
November 13, 2009, 8:48 amnewscaper says:
As one who always admired Israel and its modern story, I nonetheless used to take this attitude when the settlements issue would seem to scuttle glimmers of progress:
“Why on earth is US national security so hostage to Israel’s *domestic* politics?”
And, no, being critical of some of their policies is *not* necessarily ‘anti-semitic’ or even ‘anti-zionist’.
However, a decade-plus of utterly self-destructive bloody-mindedness and self-serving flame-fanning by Arafat and then now Hamas has convinced me that, no, both sides over there are *not* somehow equally to blame.
I firmly think that the US should stand with Israel for the shared Western values under assault that they represent — no, not blindly, because their interests are *not* identical with ours (no country’s are) and they are most definitely not a puppet.
That said, I do have to add this small caveat — isn’t funny how so many people make a big deal of them being such an important ally, when at the same time they are toxic enough that we don’t dare actually fully align & associate with them like we do the UK, etc? That certainly seems to undercut the symmetry of the value of the informal alliance.
November 13, 2009, 8:49 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
No, that doesn’t describe neoconservatives; sorry. (But it is amusing that you accuse them of both disregard for cultural differences and exceptionalism.
November 13, 2009, 8:51 amSarcastro says:
Kissinger, Bismark, – Nazis! Also, Russians are Nazis. And Obama’s current policies, a bit Nazi-ish.
Neocons have no regard for human life. This is clear. The people who accuse liberals of putting ideals above human lives are silly. This is also clear.
November 13, 2009, 8:55 amPat Patterson says:
I don’t think that the stratgegic value of Israel can actually be stressed enough. The world has been figting over this particular area for almost 5,000 years as Israel and Egypt control the trade routes of both Europe and Africa. Any invader of the Near East or Africa has to transport a land army through the gap created by the Gaza strip between the Mediterranean and the chains of mountains that run from Turkey to Cairo. The Suez Canal is within combat flight range of Israel while the Dardanelles and the Persian Gulf exits are within range with either the use of refueling planes or some of the extra drop tanks that are just now coming into use for the F-16B and other variants that Israel relies on. These areas the US would have to defend itself if Israel was not doing that function yet the US still has a lot of men and equipment there just under the current situation.
November 13, 2009, 9:01 amRicardo says:
That’s the state of modern political discourse. “Neocon” has replaced “fascist” as the epithet of choice for some on the left while Marxist, socialist, and even fascist (Jonah Goldberg — the original subtitle of his “Liberal Fascism” book was “From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton”) continue to get flung around by some on the right. In neither case to people seem to care to understand what these terms actually mean.
November 13, 2009, 9:05 amTruePath says:
Your general point seems valid but I think you are being a bit optimistic about the reasons people have the political beliefs which they adopt. I’m absolutely certain that if Israel experienced a period of long abiding peace jews would become more ‘liberal’ (really just a greater discomfort with the hard choices that the real work forces us to make between evils). Just as I’m sure that the lack of any such existential threat in the recent past has made many western countries more willing to tolerate empty postures toward peace/international law even when they come at the expense of actual human suffering.
Of course there is nothing particularly jewish about being a neocon. Sure, the threat israel faces gives hawkish policies a warmer reception than they might otherwise have recieved but other cultural influences on Jewish Americans push in the other direction. If you took away the threats to Israel the next generation would grow with only the one kind of influence and not the other.
November 13, 2009, 9:08 amNickM says:
Hint: it wasn’t the French, Germans, or Italians.
Nick
November 13, 2009, 9:09 amSolon says:
Maybe he’s right. The strong neo-con Likuud
AIPAC Bushies maxed out on their Israel first–but still good
for the US credulity.
Perle–an SC Trojan no less, Feith, Wolfy had divided loyalties
at best–and one was considered the mega-mole for Israel.
Read Ostrovsky’s “By Way of Deception” or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7060/is_11_7/ai_n28529262/
November 13, 2009, 9:21 amOren says:
DB, I’m going to steal your Bosnia rhetorical twist. Hope you don’t mind too much, it’s a good one.
November 13, 2009, 9:44 amnjoriole says:
Sitzpinkler/”Sit-pisser”:
November 13, 2009, 10:16 amWhy do you ask?
njoriole says:
Well now, I (and a great many Americans, I would wager) would care deeply if France were to “go poof” as you so elegantly stated it. I would also care if it were to happen to the UK, or Belgium, or Columbia, or (etc., etc.) While it may be true that “The average American wouldn’t be affected one whit..” if any (or all) of these countries (including Israel) went “poof,” most Americans can understand implicitly the notion of supporting a democracy versus the viral and pathological totalitarian states that have made several concerted efforts to wipe it (and them) out. Of course, some people and states are more equal than others. It may a regrettable state of human nature that we could care more about the fate of, say, Israel than of Burkina Faso or (insert largely irrelevant body politic here). Nevertheless, the “poofing” of Israel (or France, etc.) WOULD have an adverse effect upon us, because the club of civilized nations would diminished by one, and we can hardly afford to face the maniacal jihadist fanatics with our numbers reduced.
November 13, 2009, 10:31 amYankev says:
Mashiach must be at hand — Sarcastro posts something even I can love!
November 13, 2009, 10:33 amsol vason says:
I stopped reading Joe Kline in 1979 because he regularly defended Pot Pol.
Marxist theory requires eliminating the ruling class and the Bourgeousie so that the peasants can unite and create a pure socialist society. Pot Pol killed 6 million Cambodians in order to prepare Cambodia for socialism.
Kline was Pot Pol’s hagiographer.
November 13, 2009, 10:41 amCrazyTrain says:
Umm, David, Joe Klein is hardly a “liberal” — he is a typical Washington-insider, squishy moderate who worships those in power (see also David Brooks). He is absolutely despised in the left & center-left blogosphere — google “Joke Line.”
November 13, 2009, 10:41 amYankev says:
Sad but very true. You can add Likudnik, Ultra-Orthodox and Zionist to the list as well.
November 13, 2009, 10:48 amluagha says:
deklerk: “…Israel has zero strategic value to the United States…”
An old saw. The military technology partnership between the US and Israel is wide and deep. Without Israel we’d be nowhere near where we are on missile defense and aviation systems. And Israel is the first place these systems are tested in the field against hostile action, to boot.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to scientific development that takes place as joint US-Israel partnerships.
November 13, 2009, 10:48 amYankev says:
Also AIPAC.
November 13, 2009, 10:52 amNowMDJD says:
And eliminating elections, glorification of a charismatic leader, imprisonment, torture and death of political enemies, eradication of despised minorities, expansionism. Just like neoconservatives.
November 13, 2009, 11:25 amsashal says:
Exactly, NowMD
November 13, 2009, 11:36 amNowMDJD says:
sashal says:
And who, exactly, is the charismatic leader? Where are the concentration camps? Whi is supposed to be exterminated by Charles Krauthammer and Joe Lieberman? Where do they want American Boundaries set?
Maybe you need to see a psychiatrist to be evaluated for a possible prescription for antipsychotc medication.
November 13, 2009, 11:41 amDave N says:
I just think sashal hit the wrong link on his way to Daily Kos.
November 13, 2009, 11:49 amequiman says:
So your argument is that Israel serves the US’s strategic interests because it fosters stability and pro-American sentiment in Jordan and Saudi Arabia?
Wow.
November 13, 2009, 12:01 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Equiman, do you know what “e.g.,” means?
November 13, 2009, 12:07 pmmueller says:
Maybe not pro american sentiment, but certainly stability. Israel is our permanent aircraft carrier on the eastern end of the Mediterranean.It is of great strategic importance.Militarily it is the baddest kid in the schoolyard and all the other kids know it and stay in line.
November 13, 2009, 12:27 pmsashal says:
so neocons are notch better then Nazis?
November 13, 2009, 12:34 pmO’K, NowMD, I will give you that
Jonathan Rubinstein says:
As you may have noticed old-fashioned antisemitism has been gaining traction since 9/11/2001. Some will blame all of this on Bush invading Iraq which is claimed in some quarters to be a “Jewish plot”. In the aftermath of World War II antisemitism became unfashionable since many of its most notable exponents were either war criminals or associated with them. I am not referring to Shoah which is other than a war crime although war was an essential component to its implementation, as is genocide generally. The ramping up of Islamist extremism which precedes 9/11 == think the Iran revolution and the fatwa on Salman Rushdie — nobody took it seriously except Salman Rushdie– but which was a throwing down of the gauntlet which we in the west have shamefully declined. Antisemitic posturing clothed in rhetoric about Israeli barbarism, colonialism etc. has become acceptable again as it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Now as then, frightened and undignified Jews are joining the chorus — Joe Klein is better known than many of the academic pygmies peddling this swill. It only encourages the judeophobia which islamists fantasize about. Expect it to get much worse. It will.
November 13, 2009, 12:37 pmFat Man says:
All the anti-neo-con bomb throwers in this thread have demonstrated that neo-con is a code word for Jew, and that antisemitism is the socialism of fools, and the only viable form of socialism remaining.
November 13, 2009, 12:38 pmOren says:
The last time we thought that, 100,000 Jews were killed and a million more exiled. I’m not keen on repeating that chain of events. :-)
November 13, 2009, 1:29 pmFen says:
Meh. Why bother? Klein is just another Obama Filcher
November 13, 2009, 2:18 pmCrazyTrain says:
Israel is our permanent aircraft carrier on the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
Really?!? How many US air bases are in Israel? How many US combat-air missions have utilized Israel to either originate, end or refuel? You will be surprised to learn the answers to these questions are zero and close to zero, if not zero. The US has bases, etc., in several Arab states, however. Israel is not a puppet of the United States — and little dorky conservatives like you who idolize Israel with your own fantasies of being “the baddest kid in the schoolyard” only cause the dangerous misperception that Israel is a puppet of the US. Moreover, go talk to some Israelis — left, right and center — there is no fun to being “the baddest kid in the schoolyard”; it may be necessary because of the neighborhood they live in, but it is not something they want — you go spend some time in the military and then come back here and glorify war and the death others. . . .
November 13, 2009, 2:25 pmCJColucci says:
the ridiculous charge that Jewish neoconservatives somehow mesmerized John McCain into being unduly confrontational regarding Iran
The charge certainly is ridiculous. Confrontationalism and bellicosity are McCain’s natural states.
November 13, 2009, 2:36 pmYankev says:
Not sure which incident you are referring to. If you mean Shabsi Tzvi, that was a case of “Mashiach is here”, and there have been many more recent events.
If you mean the leaders of 19th Century Reform who said that the Messiah is here and his name is freedom, and Berlin is the New Jerusalem, again, it was a case of he is here, not he is coming, and, as predicted by R. Meir Simcha (the Ohr Sameach), the result was about 60 times the number of deaths that you cited.
Even more recent are certain followers of MMSh, zt’l (although those followers might instead say shelitah), who believe that he is still only waiing for the right moment to reveal himself.
If you mean those who voted for The One, we have yet to see how many deaths r”l will result from the man’s combination of incompetence and arrogance, but it is certainly looking ominous. (I am reminded of the fictional Ambassador Lando Mollari, who remarked to an equally fictional general of another government, “Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you!’)
And yes, I realize you were kidding, but derech agav . . . anticipating the imminent arrival of Mashiach has a long tradition and in fact is considered by some to be a constant mitzvas a’aseh. They say that the Chafetz Chaim, zt’l, kept a packed suitcase under his bed so that he would be ready to leave on a moment’s notice when Mashiach arrived. Thinking that Mashiach is already here, otoh, does have serious problems, as I will agree.
November 13, 2009, 2:51 pmequiman says:
Mr. Bernstein wrote:
The response was:
Bernstein replies:
Usually e.g. means “for example.”
It’s odd that the argument you choose – and the only one you choose – as your “example” is such a weak and laughable one.
Usually people like to offer their best arguments.
I hope that, at this point, even you have realized how, shall we say, unpersuasive, the notion is that Israel serves the US strategic interests by promoting pro-American sentiment in the middle East.
Okey dokey. Now that we’ve established that the only example in support of your argument that you have provided is laughable, what else you got?
Anything?
November 13, 2009, 3:06 pmyankee says:
This. I’m sure someone could think of some American strategic interest that’s served by our support for the Israeli government, but “promoting pro-American sentiment in the Middle East” is not it. American support of Israeli policy makes our reputation in the region worse, not better, except within Israel itself.
November 13, 2009, 3:16 pmCJColucci says:
Every four years, I develop a joke Presidential platform. One of my foreign policy planks is to resettle the former Jewish diaspora in Texas. That would civilize Texas, remove the main irritant in Arab-American relations, have friendly countries sitting on the world’s oil, and do wonders for Jewish acceptance by the large number of Americans who can’t imagine a Jewish cowboy. (The title of the Gene Wilder-Harrison Ford film about a Polish rabbi making his way across the American west to San Francisco with the help of a bank robber with a heart of gold escapes me.)
November 13, 2009, 4:08 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Reading is fundamental. Nowhere did DB say anything about “pro-American sentiment.” He said interests, not sentiment.
November 13, 2009, 4:41 pmMatt says:
equiman, don’t bother asking Bernstein to respond to the merits of your argument, he prefers to peek his head out only to attack someone’s verbiage. We can’t expect him to respond to every counterpoint raised in the comments, but at least once in every DB post someone tears apart his logic and he fails to respond.
November 13, 2009, 5:13 pmh2u says:
CJColucci, that movie would be The Frisco Kid.
November 13, 2009, 5:52 pmLeo Marvin says:
Can’t we at least agree that “Nazi” has been stripped of significance by both sides, and find a new word to render meaningless?
I just hope he doesn’t mean 100,000 Jews die whenever you agree with Sarcastro.
November 13, 2009, 5:56 pmequiman says:
Nieporent
If you will stop humping Mr. Bernstein’s leg, you’ll see that he didn’t quibble at all with what I said. He was just wondering what I thought e.g. meant.
November 13, 2009, 7:46 pmDavid Bernstein says:
You also left out that I started the point with “I’d say this is at best arguable.” So what you should have written is “So your argument is that Israel [arguably] serves the US’s strategic interests[.]
November 13, 2009, 8:25 pmbecause itOne example is thatfosters stability and pro-American sentiment in[its regional power has helped keep pro-American regimes in]Jordan and Saudi Arabia [in power].” I’m not sure why I should expected to respond to a “paraphrase” of my argument that is actually a completely different argument.Matthew Bilinsky says:
I dunno, from what I can see Klein is referring to the Jewish character of some neo-conservatives to support his point that those particular neo-cons’ extreme hawkishness may be driven by a certain paranoia and potential victimhood, along with a tendency to value Israel’s well-being over America’s best interests (which is sometimes, but not always true).
This post seems to suggest that Klein has lumped all neo-conservatives and hawkish figures together as Jews in a vindictive attempt to suggest that they think what they think simply because they’re Jewish.
I’m sorry but the mere mention that certain neo-cons are Jewish does not reach that level.
November 13, 2009, 9:21 pmOren says:
Well, I was referring to the second Jewish-Roman war. Starting a futile war (that ends up nearly destroying your people) because the Messiah is coming seems different than simply awaiting his arrival (but still acting like a normal human being).
That is, it’s not the most recent proclamation of the end of days, but certainly the one that seems to have made people lose their minds most thoroughly.
November 13, 2009, 9:37 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Joe Klein Again -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ben Schochet. Ben Schochet said: Joe Klein goes off on Jews again – http://bit.ly/PhL5f [...]
November 13, 2009, 10:29 pmYankev says:
No, it would remove the main excuse in Arab-American relations. The Arabs would soon find another excuse.
November 15, 2009, 11:04 amYankev says:
No, that would imply I had agreed with Sarcastro before, and as best I recall, I hadn’t.
November 15, 2009, 11:06 amYankev says:
Your history was faulty. The leader of that war, Bar Koziva (who changed his name to Bar Kochba, in order to foster an identification Mashiach), did not claim that Mashiach was imminent, nor did his followers. Many of those followers, including R. Akiva, believed that Bar Kochba was in fact Mashiach. Other followers of the rebellion disagreed, and one of them (I forget which one, but like R. Akiva, he was a Tanna),told Akiva “The grass will grow from your cheeks (i.e. you will be dead and buried) before Mashiach is here.”
That said, I agree that it is disastrous to start an unnecessary war against a vastly superior foe, and that one should act like a normal human being — the moreso, in fact — when Mashiach is imminent.
November 15, 2009, 11:13 amOren says:
It’s been a long time since I read Josephus, thanks for the correction.
November 15, 2009, 12:18 pmleonblackbone says:
Mr. Bernstein,
Care to state how, exactly, you believe that Israel’s regional power has helped keep pro-American regimes in Jordan and Saudi Arabia?
And, after that, do you have any thoughts about whether this supposed benefit is outweighed by the animosity created in Jordan and Saudi Arabia towards the US for its unflagging support of Israel? You might begin by explaining how 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia viewed the US’s support of Israel.
November 16, 2009, 1:03 amMichael Turton says:
The link between the neocons and Israel obscures another, more important link: many of them come out of Asia backgrounds before they started nursing crushes on Israel, and they continue to maintain those longstanding links. For example, Paul Wolfowitz is currently head of the US-Taiwan Business Council. The neocons are, predictably, hardliners on China. The real tragedy of neocon bellicosity is that when it is finally directed at the right target, China, it comes at a time when they have discredited themselves as mere warmongers.
Michael Turton
November 16, 2009, 6:41 pmRichard Aubrey says:
The Israelis might be a little bit malleable.
November 16, 2009, 10:56 pmThe Arabs, supporing extremists against the west, are not.
Therefore, it pays to believe it’s the Israelis who are at fault. We can, maybe, get them to roll over and die to appease the Arabs and we’ll be safe.
If we really understood that it wouldn’t make any difference to our safety vis a vis the jihadists, it would be too, too scary.
I think the term is scapegoat, and in the real old way, the scapegoat is supposed to take our sins and fears and die.
My recollection doesn’t go back that far, but I’d think the way to bet was that it didn’t make much difference in the long run, but maybe everybody slept better for about a week.
Better than having to stay awake to reality, I suppose.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » What Else is New? says:
[...] rant by Joe Klein in response to rather bland criticism from Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin. This has become something of a Klein specialty, at least when it comes to discussion of Israel’s American supporters. Categories: [...]
February 19, 2010, 4:46 pm