by a previously reasonable commentator goes to Joe Klein, who wrote the following in response to claims that Obama associate Rashid Khalidi is anti-Semitic: "I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous." In other words, because Arabs are "semites" they can't be anti-Semitic.
(Aside: I have no reason to believe that Khalidi is anything but a non-anti-Semitic, but anti-Israel, Palestinian nationalist). Jeffrey Goldberg responds:
I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not about to accuse Joe of being an anti-Semite, but I will note that this the first time I've ever heard a Jewish person, or a non-anti-Semite, make this sort of malicious statement, one that perverts the universal meaning of a term in order to mock the phenomenon of Jew-hatred. "Jew-hatred" is actually my preferred term, because, as I'm sure Joe knows, "anti-Semitism" was a term invented by the avant-garde Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr, who was the founder, in 1879, of the League of Anti-Semites, which argued that Germans and Jews were locked in a death struggle for racial superiority. And we know where that ended.Goldberg is being properly charitable, but readers should recall that Joe Klein was last seen on this blog ranting about "Jewish neocons" allegedly pulling John McCain's strings on behalf of Israel. And, as Goldberg notes, "Joe derives great pleasure from criticizing Jewish supporters of the Iraq War — the Wolfowitzes, Perles and Feiths --in specifically Jewish terms, while never seeming to use the Christianity of other supporters of the war, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and other such marginal figures, against them."Since Marr's time, of course, the term has evolved from a compliment to an insult, but its meaning has held steady all these years. As I said, the only people who insult Jews by denying the meaning of the term are, in my experience, anti-Semitic.
UPDATE: I have to disagree slightly with Goldberg, in that I do know of individuals who have repeated the "how dare Jews call an Arab anti-Semitic when Arabs are also Semites," line because of complete ignorance of the origins and typical uses of the term anti-Semite, combined with an absence of proper reasoning skills (even if "anti-Semitic," including Arabs, Arabs could be anti-Semitic, just as there are anti-Semitic Jews). Of course, it doesn't help Klein much to argue that he threw out this line out of a combination of ignorance, poor reasoning, and being too lazy to actually look up what "anti-Semitism" means.
And, as one commentator notes, Klein's line is analogous to saying, "Canadians can't be anti-American, because they are Americans, too."
FURTHER UPDATE: Klein has apologized for his "wordplay."
He then adds: while the term, antisemitism, will always retain its traditional meaning--anti-Jewishness--it does conflate certain categories: there are those who just hate Jews, and then there are those who merely disapprove of zionism...and a third category, those who accept the idea of a Jewish state, but disapprove of Israeli expansion into the West Bank and Gaza. People like Goldfarb--and far too many other Jewish neoconservatives--go around calling people like Rashidi antisemites when, in fact, they're merely opposed to the more egregious expansionist schemes favored by the some of the more extreme members of the Likud Party.Yikes! First, the term "anti-Semitism" doesn't "conflate" anything, even if there are some people who use it to disparage people whose views on Israel they don't like. Second, what basis is there for claiming that obscure McCain spokesman Goldfard is a "neoconservative," as opposed to just a conservative Jew that Klein doesn't like? Third, and most important, the last part of this quote is laughable. Khalidi, from what I've read, was associated with the PLO at a time when its charter called for the destruction of Israel. It's true that almost all prominent Palestinian nationalists were affiliated in some way with the PLO at this time. But to conflate criticizing a Palestinian nationalist who thinks of the creation of Israel as the "Nakba" with criticism of someone "opposed to the more egregious expansionist schemes favored by some of the more extreme elements of the Likud Party" is absurd. You'd think from what Klein wrote that Khalidi is a Labor Party Zionist! So, while Klein is right to call Goldfarb to task for calling Khalidi an anti-Semite because he is anti-Israel, Klein is making the opposite mistake: suggesting that anyone who is NOT an anti-Semite must not be anti-Israel.
"previously reasonable commentator"
Klein has also previously been unreasonable. Do you mean to imply that this is his first departure from his senses?
Wow, Dukereader, way to miss Bernstein's point. His point is not that anyone who disagrees with the definition of antisemitic is himself antisemitic, but rather that Klein's claim that an Arab cannot be antisemitic by definition was stupid.
If the term "anti-Israel" is more correct, then why not use that? Using the term anti-semitism seems misleading, at best.
Roger Schlafly, have you ever heard someone who hates Arabs called an anti-Semite?
Who's that stupid?
Not an uncommon tactic, tying a legitimate discussion up in the meaning of a word, or the legitimacy of a particular word usage ("smacks of racism"). Avoids losing on the facts of the case.
But, other than making the other side quit in frustration, does such nonsense ever actually convince anybody of anything?
Mr. Bernstein is right up their with the right honourable Daniel Pipes in being fair to Mr. Khalidi's work on this one.
So, while I agree that anti-Semitism for all practical purposes nowadays means hatred of Jews, I don't think you can write Arabs out of picture so easily, because originally it meant hatred of Jews on the ground that Jews resemble Arabs.
If someone is a palestinian muslim, then there should be a presumption that they do hate both Israel and jewish people - not a presumption that they don't. It's probably the only accurate presumption of hatred that exists. Calling oneself a "Palestinian" is, in my opinion, a protest moniker, meant to denounce Israel.
I haven't taken position in the presidential race and have mixed feelings about both candidacies, but I find quite paradoxal that David Bernstein mocks Andrew Sullivan's Obama fix as he, himself, never misses a shot to demonize anyone, or anything, that comes even close to the running candidate.
I can't wait to read Db objectivize just how much Bronfman seeks the destruction of Israel.
Perhaps the "way-over-the-top blogging against Obama" statuette should be awarded too.
Gracious servants of the state of Israel? I also wasn't aware that strongly calling into question the actions of the Israeli state meant that one was, ipso facto, a jew-hater.
Rashid Khalidi has been to many jewish events in the US, is friends with many jewish scholars, is a member of inter-faith organizations, has written widely about jewish-muslim cooperation efforts in the levant pre-1948, and has charted a future in which the Palestinians and Jews live peacefully side-by-side.
But sure, he's just a generic jew-hater.
"The Volokh Conspiracy -- Fair and Balanced (TM)"
"The Volokh Conspiracy -- Fair and Balanced (TM)"
Close enough for libertarian work.
Yes, and a well-deserved award at that! In fact, I venture to guess that Bernstein can win this award even without writing in his own name on the ballot.
"And I should add that anyone who thinks that my blogging on Obama has been remotely similar to Sullivan's blogging either hasn't been reading Sullivan or has some major blinders on."
The interesting thing about blinders is that those with major blinders don't usually see that they have them on.
Uh, only the fact that before he was an obscure McCain spokesman, Goldfarb was an editor at the Weekly Standard? Perhaps Klein has read his writing there, even if you haven't? Possibilities abound.
I think you actually missed MY point! Goldberg most certainly did say that "As I said, the only people who insult Jews by denying the meaning of the term are, in my experience, anti-Semitic."
DB later updated his post to say he disagreed with this (in effect saying the same thing I wrote)
"The interesting thing about blinders is that those with major blinders don't usually see that they have them on."
So take them off and then tell us what you think about DB already.
elements of the Likud Party is absurd."
Should be after the word "Party."
Of course, a Canadian would never make that argument, since Canadians hate being mistaken for Americans.
Some examples are repeatedly calling members of the Obama campaign (including Obama) "liars"; your obsession over Rev. Wright (which even McCain isn't touching), the Bill Ayers stuff, and now this obsession over the Khalidi awards dinner and "releasing the video", while ignoring McCain's own links, which are much more substantial, to Khalidi (ironically). In short, it appears that much of your blogging has a hyper-partisan agenda --getting McCain elected by stirring up fears about Obama's character and person by tearing him down. That is fine, but then why do you act shocked when someone calls you on it (even though they may fall into your trap of exaggeration, by saying you "demonize" Obama). It is too bad, because I think much of your posts are fine and I generally enjoy reading them, but usually when the posts I enjoy are more analytical, and less overtly partisan.
Maybe me and you do not share the same definition of "demonizing". Let me illustrate my point with an extreme example. If I was to say Hitler was a monstruous politician who's ideology led to millions being innocently murdered, I am confident I would be accurate in saying so, but I would nevertheless be demonizing the guy. That being put in perspective, your posts on Ayers et al. fell in the category.
We could hold long arguments as whether or not is Khalidi an anti-semite, or if Ayers still is a radical, I feel I need not to remind the countless efforts you put in showing the "evil face" of these Obama allies. It is my opinion that your efforts to present the other side of the medal regarding these individuals were seldom in comparison. Hence, their portrait appears to be distorted (from my own and personal point of view). It's fair game in the context of partisan blogging, but it doesn't do justice to the academic pretentions the VC has used me to.
DB: And I should add that anyone who thinks that my blogging on Obama has been remotely similar to Sullivan's blogging either hasn't been reading Sullivan or has some major blinders on.
There is no doubt you are very different from Andrew Sullivan by style, background and ideas. I do not fancy his style nor do I agree with him on most points. He clearly is cheerleading and treats objectivity with a blatant cruelty. It doesn't grant him much credibility, neither does it help that you have adopted, for the past few weeks, a focus on the bad people to ever have surrounded Sen. Obama without demonstrating their plausible influence on the presidential candidate. In such regards, I personally find the latest attacks on Khalidi particularly questionable.
My remark (on the sullivanesque title) simply aimed to point at the irony I saw with the current post's title. Please do not take offense for that.
Strained analysis such as this boggles the mind. Besides defying the laws of physics, imo Klein's newly parsed principal in practice would overturn many "consorting, aiding and abetting" violation elements. Strange reasoning, indeed.
As for "Palestinians" there is no country called Palestine, nor has there ever been a country called Palestine. There is no group of people with a common culture, unity, or identity known as Palestinian. Palestinian is just a political/public relations term used by Israel/jew hating Arabs to get their way by disingenuously appealing to Western principles of equality. This provides a nice summary of the issue. Even Arafat conceded this fact, with his PLO minion Zahir Muhsein summing it up rather bluntly:
"The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. "
As Golda Meir said, there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. But that's politically incorrect so it must not be true. What should they call themselves? Arabs would be a good start. Frankly I could care less. If the Muslim world actually gave a shit about fellow Muslims, other middle eastern Islamic countries would welcome the displaced "Palestinians" with open arms and a bown of hummus. Of course, all the islamic countries in the world couldn't give a pig's ass about the plight of the "Palestinian" people. Their only use is for propoganda and mutual jew hatred - nothing more.
Can't one at least argue, without being accused of vicious antisemitism, that there is a group of people in the Gaza strip and in the West Bank who are not being treated fairly by the state of Israel? Maybe "Palestinian" is just a shorthand for these people who have a common interest or, perhaps in their view, a common enemy. Now, maybe the question of whether Israel is fair in its treatment is debatable; perhaps under the circumstances, Israel's treatment is as fair as can be expected. But to simply color people who have reasoned criticisms as Israel-hating antisemites is in rather bad form.
It may even have been true when she said it, but it is not true now.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
If I win this, will it count for tenure? As much as the Bancroft?
Andrew:
"I am sick and tired of the brain-dead "Arabs can't be anti-Semites because they are Semites" charade,"
Absolutely. "Semitic" is a lingustic term coined by German philologists around 1800. No group of people had ever gone around the Middle East saying, Hey, we are Semites! Are you?
"Anti-semitism" means "hostility toward Jews," not toward Ugarites or Akkadians. Anyone who insists on the "literal" reading of "anti-semitism" should also feel obliged to use the term "economics" only when refering to home-ec.
Is this irony or self-parody?
Calling Khalidi an anti-Semite is over the top, and almost no one here is disagreeing with that. Not Klein, not Goldfarb, and not even you.
It should be noted, these circumstances could be hugely ameliorated if they got on with the business of living, part and parcel of that is giving up on destroying Israel...
...Of course I'd also agree Israel needs to give up on expanding and really should of right contract to her borders of 1949, else war for self-preservation becomes indistinguishable from war for gain.
And since Israel's strategic center of gravity is not in the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or Dimona, but is instead located on the shores of the Potomac, it doesn't really hurt them a bit to refrain from settling (and removing the settlements from) the captured territories.
Of course, Israel can rightly militarize the captured areas in the abeyance of the Palestinians giving up on their destruction.
But yes, the insistence Arabs cannot be anti-semites because they are semitic is...not a well thought out or informed argument.
To be ridiculously generous.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"So take them off and then tell us what you think about DB already."
You have to go first!
So do you think that DB's posts on Obama and McCain have been fair, unbiased, positive, and free of the blinders that he attributes to others?
(Please, I say please read the following in, in Foghorn Leghorn's voice, son.)
If I can provide my right honorable colleagues a citation that refers to the hatred of Jews as "anti-semitism," and the author of the book I am citing is named ***"Rashid Khalidi,"*** can my right honorable colleagues agree with me that we shall never mention Mr. Klein again in polite, I say polite company?
"No, they're not!"
"Oh, yeah. I forgot."
"You have to go first!"
No problemo! Got a forklift handy?
"So do you think that DB's posts on Obama and McCain have been fair, unbiased, positive, and free of the blinders that he attributes to others?"
I've haven't noticed him paying much attention to McCain one way or the other. On Obama, I think he's trying to offer a counterbalance to a discussion he perceives to be tilted the other way. In doing so, yes, I do believe that he has been fair by the usual standards. A Sullivan standard is little more than a standing tu quoque, so doesn't make much sense.
He has encouraged us to forward any examples of unfairness we'd like to raise, so smoke 'em if you got 'em.
The race has gone from a slight Begich advantage to 22 points.
Sure. Though I think Israel treats them just fine, considering they have refused to live peacefully with Israel since it was founded, stating their purpose is to destroy Israel and all the jews in the world. Let's put it this way - if Mexicans were suicide-bombing America on a daily/weekly basis, do you think America would be treating Mexico/Mexicans one iota better than Israel treats the Arabs who refuse to leave Israel yet devote their lives to destroying it? America experienced one terrorist attack and we went wacko, attacking two countries, suspending civil rights, locking people up indefinitely, torturing the fuck out of anyone we felt didn't like us (and taking silly pictures of the torturees for shits and giggles). Considering Israel has a 9-11 every week (adjusted for population it's quite worse than 9-11) I think they've handled the troublemakers maturely and with far more restraint than we would if we were in Israel's shoes. But I don't want to get into a debate about propriety of Israel's treatment of the "palestitians" - some other time, perhaps. For what it's worth, I hate all religion and advocate nuking the entire middle east, so don't see my opinion as coming from a jewish person or israel lover. As long as the holy rocks, holy walls, holy caves, holy temples, holy statues, and holy holes exist in the middle east, there will be violence and terrorism all across the world for control of said holy things. So my opinion re: "Palestinians" and Israel's treatment of them comes from someone who wants to nuke the whole middle east, Israel included. If it's too radioactive to live there, then religious people can either martyr themselves with radiation poisoning or live somewhere else and be unable to fight over ancient holy bricks, caves, stones, walls, rocks, etc. As for the oil, we'd be able to drill through the glass to get to it, thought the oilworkers will have to wear heavy radation suits. My great plan for world peace :)
Maybe "Palestinian" is just a shorthand for these people who have a common interest or, perhaps in their view, a common enemy.
No, I don't think it's a good shorthand for such people because it implies they are from a certain country (at the very least), with common traditions and culture. The only thing they have in common is they feel they can murder infidels at will, but when the infidels fight back then they are being "oppressed" and like to whine about it. I can think of far more accurate and appropriate names to use as a shorthand for such people.
Most PLO members have Arab names, hard to find many Jewish names. Not many Irish either. Some Germans I'm sure.
None of this is authoritative, of course, but neither is Jeffrey Goldberg.
Ooookay. Well, now I'm sorry I took the time to reply to you in the first place. Sir, get thee to a proper education.
DB: Surely, now that we have Bruce_M's argument in your threads and apparently you don't disagree with him, that any time you run for public office, we can bring him up as an example of how you hate the Muslims?
Your question is in the abstract, and in the abstract the answer is, "Of course." But I think Bruce_M was relating his personal experience. My experience is different. I know many people who are very anti-Israel and, I'm quite sure, not at all anti-Semitic. But I'm sorry to report that as the anti-Israel camp of American public discourse has taken on an ever-growing contingent of Arabs, anti-Semitism has become a much more common feature. And allowing it to pass uncriticized has become much too common as well.
Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when sympathy for Palestinians was voiced in this country primarily by Christians and Jews, anti-Semitism would have stood out and been shouted down as quickly as it would today in a conversation about technology or breakfast cereal. That it's infected the debate is troubling. That it's tolerated by many who aren't themselves anti-Semites is even more so.
Excellent post. Two quips:
There's a spelling error in your correction: it's "Goldfarb," not "Goldfard."
Second, you might want to specify that Goldfarb is a politically conservative Jew. Otherwise, wouldn't you be ignoring the origins and typical use of the phrase "conservative Jew"?
This post, the latest as I type, was listed a few minutes before midnight on the last day of October.
The election is 2 days away, it is after 9PM EDT, and there has not been ONE post all day on VC.
Methinks the Conspiracy is very depressed...
"On Obama, I think he's trying to offer a counterbalance to a discussion he perceives to be tilted the other way. In doing so, yes, I do believe that he has been fair by the usual standards."
Wow -- thanks for clarifying your position. I guess you do think that DB has been fair in his treatment of Obama. If you really believe that, and I'll take you at your word, then you sure have a creative definition of "usual standards." By other people's standards, however, DB has been a very partisan supporter of McCain and quick to find negatives about Obama. Just look at the examples listed in the prior posts by Christopher Cooke, JPG, and Mike S. if you're lacking examples. Sure, DB tries to include enough legal analysis and citation of references to give the illusion of objectivity, but DB's lack objectivity is belied by his repetitive choice of anti-Obama topics for his blogs, his selective use of "facts," and his willingness to let McCain off the hook much too easily.
In terms of your argument supporting DB, your own blinders are getting in the way if you think that DB's posts are needed to counterbalance a discussion tilted toward Obama here on the VC. The list of VC bloggers is strongly dominated by anti-Obama types, and DB is one of the most active. I would respect DB's position (even while disagreeing with it) if he simply admitted that he is posting to try to convince as many readers as possible to vote for McCain -- or simply to convince himself that he has made the right decision.
As road warrior99 points out (ignoring a few typos): "This is exactly what this political season does to people. It' polarizes and people buy in way more than they need to. I heard some conservatives saying that Obama and the illuminati are just getting everybody to drink their cool-aid and follow blindly. Maybe. But the conservatives do that same thing. People buy everything they say hook like and sinker. No one is truly bi-partisan in this world it seems like."
I hope that once the election is over and the postmortems have subsided, the VC will return to a more usual level of discourse and disagreement, spirited but at the same time good-humored and respectful. For now, though, I want to state that I am a strong Obama supporter and whoever disagrees with me is an idiot ;-)
I think that mistake is irreparable now, however. Israel is a fact that Arabs are simply going to have to get used to. It's not going away, through force or any other method anytime soon.
I consider myself anti-Zionist, but not at all antisemitic. Why, I even have Jewish relatives of whom I'm rather fond.
Andrew: I'm only half-serious about nuking the middle east. I don't want to kill anyone, just make it impossible to live there. Maybe give them a 2-week, pre-nuke warning. Those who don't leave are the ones willing to die over a holy rock, so the world is better off without them. But ridding the world of religious fanatics is only a pipe dream of mine, I know it will never happen and I don't seriously advocate it. But religion is a deadly, highly infectious disease and at the very least religious people should be quarantined for the safety of all humanity.
You do know that fanatics of non-"religious"-isms kill each other in astounding numbers.
It appears that religion is just another handy cloak that fanatics use to commit evil.
IOW, kill all the religious fanatics, and WTF, there are still evil fanatics!!!
BTW, glad to know you are only serious about getting rid of the "religious fanatics"--the ones who won't follow your dictates.
Objectivity is not the same thing as fairness, and the discussion he's attempting to balance is not confined to the VC.
"I hope that once the election is over and the postmortems have subsided, the VC will return to a more usual level of discourse and disagreement, spirited but at the same time good-humored and respectful. For now, though, I want to state that I am a strong Obama supporter and whoever disagrees with me is an idiot ;-)"
There are worse things to be. Again, I've found DB to be entirely good-humored and respectful, indeed exceptionally so given the shamestorms his posts often engender, which are anything but. That goes for for all the VC posters, with occasional lapses by Lindgren and Post. Shame is a powerful tool, but it should be reserved for when it is truly warranted, lest its power be diluted and so not available when the need is more pressing.
One can have concerns about Obama without being a McCain supporter. I do and I'm an Obama supporter!
In studying the candidates, I found this disturbing information online. As the media has brushed aside these issues, I post these issues together for context.
Obama On Iran –
Obama promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad even though Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad even though Ahmadinejad has said the Zionist regime is an unwelcome guest in the Mideast.
Obama Will Weaken The Defenses Of The United States
Obama On Israel –
Israelis are skeptical of Obama.
Should we be skeptical as well? After all, Barack Hussein Obama clearly presents a different picture of himself publicly to one group, white Americans, than he does in his book of memoirs. Why then should Jewish voters trust his public position on Israel when the L.A. Times reported that Obama praised a spokeman for radical terrorists?
Why of all things would the Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan call Barack Hussein Obama II the Messiah?
Why is Hatem El-Hady raising funds for Obama?
And what about Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi?
Rashid Khalidi 1
Rashid Khalidi 2
Rashid Khalidi 3
Rashid Khalidi 4
Rashid Khalidi 5
Obama on Reverend Wright –
Obama's historical pastor Reverend Wright supported the Muslim terrorists that flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in his infamous rant about ‘America’s chickens coming home to roost.’ It seems to me that the terrorists hate both America and Israel. And if Reverend Wright supports Israel, he certainly does not support the United States which protects it. Black Liberation Theology was taught at Obama’s church– therefore Obama MUST have known and shared Wright’s Marxist (Karl Marx Co-Founder of Communism) and Anti-American views. This is especially true given the founder of the theology of Obama's church was James Cone who combined the radical elements of the civil rights movement and their hatred of whites with his christian faith. The anti-American rhetoric of Reverend Wright and other radicals had an effect of both Barack Hussein Obama's view of whites and also on Michelle Obama's view.
Like rab said, DB never claimed to be unbiased. He's been pretty frank that he's hostile to Obama's candidacy, but not to Obama personally (he hasn't hesitated to point out what he perceives as Obama's virtues), and he's not a pro-McCain partisan, for whatever that's worth. So here's my take on your checklist:
fair - yes
unbiased - no, by his own admission
positive - usually not, but many times yes
free of blinders - no, but that's too high a bar for almost anyone to clear
I wouldn't exactly nominate David for Election '08 Miss Congeniality. He has a sarcastic, often cranky manner that makes a lot of commenters he disagrees with feel provoked. As someone with a similar disposition, I speak from long experience when I say much of the criticism he gets misperceives his motives. [By way of partial explanation, the regional-cultural understanding gap between northern/coastal urban types and everyone else in flyover country flows both ways, and ironically for a coastal non-liberal like David, it's also much blinder to ideological distinctions than those who exploit it for political ends would let on.]
Either we're all imbeciles or maybe there's more than one way to look at many of the assumptions that inform your astonishment.
I'm only saying we treat religion like any other deadly, highly-communicable disease and quarantine those infected by it. Unfortunately, Hitler and the nazis forever ruined the concept of interning people based on their religion (though to be specific they did based on race, not religion). So any attempt at quarantining the 95% of the human population infected with religion will be labeled Nazi (I'm sure someone will respond to this post with that very epithet) and of course the world is so widely infected, there's simply no way 5% could hold the other 95% in internment camps. Plus, there's really no cure for religion, and it's rarely fatal itself (rather it causes the infected people to be violent and kill others, like rabies).
"Jenett:
It astonishes me that 75% of Jewish voters will vote for Obama given his choice of associations.
Either we're all imbeciles or maybe there's more than one way to look at many of the assumptions that inform your astonishment."
No, LM. That would be "3/4 of us are imbeciles," if the astonished VCers are correct.
Bruce_M:
"Unfortunately, Hitler and the nazis forever ruined the concept of interning people based on their religion"
There were internships with the Nazis? Did they give college credit?
"Plus, there's really no cure for religion, and it's rarely fatal itself (rather it causes the infected people to be violent and kill others, like rabies)."
Rabies is--almost without exception--fatal. Probably not the best comparison.
"But religion is a deadly, highly infectious disease and at the very least religious people should be quarantined for the safety of all humanity."
And so you want to make the radicals in the Middle East leave that region and live . . . among us? You might want to give that some further thought.
It would be hard to conceive of anything which would smarten up that three quarters wrt political parties.
I have elsewhere wondered what Obama's supporters are going to have to pretend to like swallowing to justify their support.
Little of it will be a surprise in any objective sense.
It is entirely likely that the three-quarters will have to pretend to care naught for Israel.
First, whether or not 'Palestine' existed as a 'state' prior to WWII is immaterial. There were essentially no states in the Middle East prior to WWI: the region was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, more or less. With a few exceptions as in N. Africa, the Middle East was an undifferentiated area, populated by Arabs who had various sorts of self-identification. The lines between them were drawn both indigenously and by external powers, but none truly qualified as 'states'. There was an administrative area known as 'Palestine' within the Ottoman order of things. The people living there identified themselves in distinction from 'Syrians' (who also resided in what is now Lebanon) as well as from others like Yemenis or Bedouin Arabs.
This population reacted unfavorably to Jewish immigrants dating back as early as the 19th C. They were particularly galled by the ineffectiveness of the Ottoman gov't in enforcing its own immigration policies that had been undercut by a series of 'Capitulations' to European gov'ts. They also did not believe that their land (or rights to work the land) should have been sold off to foreigners. Nor did they believe that a claim to the land, based on 2000-year-old history, gave Jews any particular 'right' to return to it.
Post-WWII, they did not believe they should be pushed off the land in order to assuage Western guilt over the Holocaust. If Germans were the villains, then Germany should have provided the recourse. It's not as though the borders of the Axis states were fixed for all time, after all... the shift of the borders of Poland showed that land could be seized punitively.
Since the beginning of the 20th C., various powers had all promised the Arabs of 'Palestine' and the region in general that the issue of Jews returning to the area and the possible establishment of a Jewish state/homeland would be a negotiated affair. That didn't work out quite as promised, whether the promise came from the French, British, or Americans.
I recommend taking a look at Neville J. Mandel's book The Arabs and Zionism before World War I. Based on records--Israeli, Ottoman, British, American, German, Russian, and Arab media--he cuts through a lot of the propaganda that has arisen since WWII.
Is Joe Lieberman an Israeli nationalist?
Some of the commentary here has simply been way over the top. Bruce_M and Jennet in particular.
I am an Irish-American. If I call myself Irish that means I am an Irish nationalist?
If I supported the cause of the IRA that would not make me an Irish nationalist anymore than if I opposed the IRA.
It seems to me you are simply using a different scale with Khalidi based on loose information.
Moreover, atheism is not its own disease, it is simply the word people use for those not infected with the disease of religion. There's no such thing as a "non-flu" virus that infects you, causing you to be healthy and flu-free.
Depends on the definition of "us" (actually, from my OP, "we.")
Thanks, Richard. You never disappoint.
Hitler was in no sense a Christian. You might want to take this up with Ian Kershaw.
"Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin did not kill people because no god told them to."
Huh?
LM--"Depends on the definition of "us" "
Maybe 3/4 of you are 100% nuts? Or 100% are 3/4 nuts? Or 50% are 100% nuts, and a further quarter . . . well, I can't really exhaust the possibilities in a short post.
A better analogy would be the Indian Wars, which essentially ended in the 1890s after two and a half centuries of conflict. Maybe the Palestinians will stop hostilities by 2150 or so, counting from the Zionist (at that time, not a pejorative) movement of the late 1800s.
At least the Arabs are not collecting Israeli scalps.
It astonishes me that certain people are desperate enough to peddle fiction.
Yes. His ties to the Jewish community in Chicago are deep and go back many years. That's explained in this video.
And what about the $448,873 that McCain's organization gave Khalidi?
Before you said this:
You seemed to be suggesting that Khalidi was not born in the US, and "lived most of his outside the U.S." I'm unclear about whether that's true. Is it?
And if Khalidi is radical and evil, why did McCain's organization give him $448,873?
OK, thanks for the clarification.
You called him an "anti-American radical." Close enough.
Not so fast. Even if "we knew that already," the tape could ostensibly show the friendship vividly. A picture is worth 1000 words etc. So it strikes me as disingenuous for them to claim that they would not put value on this possibility.
Anyway, where is it that "the McCain campaign" made that clear? I never saw that statement.
It's not at all hard to guess how "Obama interacted in that environment." I'm sure the tape shows him being cordial and gracious, the way he would be in any social environment. And naturally McCain would love a chance to add some more names to the wright-rezko-ayers-khalidi mantra. As LN memorably said today on another thread, this boils down to making the following noise:
McCain has been making that noise for a while. Doesn't seem to be helping him much.
Under the McCain definition of "politically damaging," it's a virtual certainty that Obama said things that are "politically damaging." For example, if Obama said "Good morning Mr. Khalidi," within an hour or two McCain would be running a web video saying we can't trust a man who would put the word "good" in the same sentence as the name of an "anti-American radical."
I notice you haven't said anything about the $448,873.
Second, while the blog author thinks himself to have found a logical fallacy in the way in which allegation of antisemitism was denied--khalidi being arab is doubtfully antisemitic b/c he is arab--is again talking rubbish. By any account, the only reason Khalidi could have been called anti-semitic is to describe a view about Khalidi's view of Jews, rather than of Arabs: the allegation is about a way Khalidi feels about Jews, rather than about the way Khalidi feels about Arabs. Given this context, on calling Khalidi anti-semitic--if indeed we have agreed to allow Arabs entry into this category in English, something about which the blog author's bouts of idiocy cannot may yet allow him--one can rightsly object that this term is overly inclusive even if the belief animating the accusation is true. Is George W. Bush, having killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians as of 2006, anti-Iraqi? Perhaps. If we assume that no one denies that George W. Bush loves Texans, calling George W. Bush "anti-human" can be faulted for being untrue because "human" is overinclusive. Of course it is not _logically impossible_ for Bush to be anti-human--he may in fact hate Texans and all people. But no one is really saying that--if Bush is called 'anti-human' because of a belief about his actions toward Iraqis, it makes sense to for someone alleging this belief to call the man "anti-Iraqi" rather than "anti-human." Likewise, while is logically possible that Khalidi is anti-semitic, given that no one is asking questions about Khalidi's attitude toward Arabs, it is silly to call him 'anti-semitic.' (Again, my assumption is that I can use that word to refer to a group in which Arabs are allowed entry--perhaps insurmountable in the find company of this website.)
Third, there is nothing raised here which in the least discusses Khalidi's alleged anti-Jewishness. Where is it? The closest that this blogger comes is the discussion of Khalidi's association with the PLO in the 1980s or mention of the "Nakba," or catastrophe--refering to the establishment of the Israeli state and the Palestinian diaspora. What connection does a reference to the hundreds of thousands who fled in 1948 have to being anti-Jewish? What connection does the Khalidi's connection to the PLO at a time when its charter aimed at a single, secular state-- where 2nd and 3rd class citizenship status would be abrogated in favor of peoples from all three great Monotheistic faiths (and all else) being accorded the same status before law--what connection does this have to anti-Jewishness? Shame on this blogger for suggesting one.
I hope the blogger hosting this website does a better job in future.
Where did David Bernstein "resort to silencing" any uses of language? I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't care if you used "anti-semitism" to refer to Arabs, English or Japanese if you felt like it. Of course then nobody would know what you were talking about since the term is almost universally understood to refer to Jews, but if you want to be unintelligible it's none of my business.
All of which has nothing to do with the subject of this post, which is David Bernstein's objection to the practice by others, in this case Joe Klein, of excluding any use of anti-semitism that doesn't apply to Arabs. In other words, by your reasoning you couldn't agree more with Prof. Bernstein.
(By the way, if standing the reasoning of a post on its head in order to disagree with it doesn't alienate your readers, coming into someone's blog and calling him an idiot probably will. Believe it or not, insulting your host doesn't win as much sympathy for your argument as you might think. You may want to put down the Wittgenstein and give Dale Carnegie a quick read.)
(1) "resort to silencing" was shorthand for declaring a use of a word improper due to its imputed origins, or declaring it "unintelligible," as you do. At one time "human" in any western political or legal context--or for that matter in any context that concerned public life--meant "white male." However, I can today use the word "human" to nclude others than white males. Similarly, while "antisemitism" or "semite" in Britain in the 19th Century may have excluded Arabs from its wake, we are not bound to that error. Come into the 21st century my friend.
(2) If you take the time to read Oy Vey's post, you'll note that this is direcly related to what you call the subject of the post it responds to. He writes quite clearly that while it is certainly logically possible for an Arab to be antisemitic, if what we mean is that he is anti-Jewish (and not self-hating), the label is a little bit silly because it is vague and overinclusive. I mean, if there is a possibility that Hank hate flowers, it seems vague and silly for me to therefore repeat the allegation that "Hank hates plants." Yes, flowers certainly are plants (perhaps even in certain contexts the primary victims of plant-hating) but why don't I just say "Hank hates flowers"? This is all the more true if Hank happens to be a fern.
But this never was the subject of the original post to which Oy Vey responds. The original post passingly defames Khalidi--intnetionally or not--without a shred of evidence, to which I believe Oy Vey quite rightly takes exception. Who really cares that Joe Klein isn't able to defend his uses of speech. How is Khalidi anti-Jewish? Because he happens to believe all the people of historical Palestine are entitled to equality under law? This is all advocates of a secular state advocate. Tarnishing someone else's name via indirect speech is contemptible.
(3) I enjoyed your point about Dale Carnegie! I cannot speak for Oy Vey, but perhaps neither ingratiating himself with the writers and readers of this website nor gaining sympathy is foremost on his mind. I own one of Carnegie's books, someone once gave it to me as a birthday present! Take care.