Notice something about these two passages. Jeffrey interchangeably uses “Israel” and “Jews” in the paragraph above, when it suits him, which makes anyone’s commentary on Israel at any particular time indistinguishable from some grand ethnic or racial statement about “Jews”. For me and most people, there is, of course, a distinction. There is also a distinction between Israel and any particular Israeli government. And that is why strongly resisting the arguments and actions of any one Israeli government is not about Israel as such or “Jews” or “the Jews.” It is about my good faith belief about US interests. By conflating these things so casually, Jeffrey keeps the anti-Semite card fully on the table, chilling criticism of Israel as if it were indistinguishable from bigotry. This rhetorical game really does have to stop.
They don’t want an honest debate on the policies of the Israeli government, so they just try to shut you down by calling you a bigot. This is nothing new. Ask Glenn Greenwald or the “Juicebox Mafia.”
Ugh
See the vicious attacks on J-Street too.
Silver
Oh, Mr. Fifth Column got smeared?
I feel so bad for him, I really do. Maybe he should go smoke a joint or something.
Cat Lady
Joe Klein got the Commentary crowd treatment too. It’s what made him realize the DFHs hiding under his bed weren’t a fraction as crazy as Jennifer Rubin et al.
El Tiburon
-Scott Ritter was a pedophile.
-Julian Assange is a rapist.
-George Soros is a self-hating Jew who sent other Jews to concentration camps
-Liberals are ‘fucking retarded’
-Hamsher is a screeching, lying bitch.
Attack with vitriol and hatred and you don’t have to deal with the actual substance. You win by bullying and hate-mongering. You also show a lack of seriousness and maturity.
Dan
Sullivan is all self-righteous now, but he’s been pretty sloppy himself with the israel/jew distinction. For example, he’s had numerous posts singling out the american jewish community for not doing enough to counter groups like AIPAC. Why does an american jew, one who does not support AIPAC, have some additional obligation to take a public stand against AIPAC?
mark
For a guy who talks a lot about racist dog-whistles you sure let people draw fine distinctions in who they dislike. ‘Zionist’ and ‘israel’ are the ‘strapping young bucks’ if you will. (You won’t.)
I myself abhor the current govt of israel and understand that labor wasn’t much better. But when you hear someone who isn’t jewish talking about these issues you really never know what’s coming next.
Punchy
Until you rename this blog “Balloon Jews”, you’re just a fat, ignorant anti-Semite.
SteveinSC
The bottom line to this is that there is no interest in the current Israeli government in having anything but a rump Palestinian state and constant Israeli expansion. The Netanyahu gang’s (and their US arm, AIPAC) fear of being out-bred by the Arabs will lead to the expulsion of even citizen-Arabs from Israel and perpetual war with Moslems. This “one state solution” approach doesn’t really care about Iran so much as it needs its sponsor, the US, forever militarily involved in the region. The Arabs/Moslems will be pissed to the end of time and the US will bear the brunt of the fury. The fury will ensure reaction and, mutatis mutandi , the cycle will repeat until the US is exhausted.
Zifnab
The game only works if you let it work.
When a media outfit goes into spasms over one of its employees criticizing a particular Israeli politician or state official, the business lends credibility to the anti-Semitic framing.
When a politician dismisses protests by his constituents over his support of another Israeli bombing run or international criminal malfeasance by labeling the constituents as anti-Semitic, he bolsters the anti-Semitic smear.
When a Jewish pundit or policy expert gets dismissed as self-hating by a rival think tank or a competing special interest, and the public buys it, the anti-Semitic focus lives on.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Israel doesn’t mean a God-damn to the US. The only folks who doggedly defend the nation, through every hubristic military assault and unlawful land grab are the folks getting a paycheck from a defense contractor making a buck off selling arms to the Israeli military with US government aid payments.
Israel is the world’s most lucrative tax money laundering operation.
roshan
__
link
joe from Lowell
Actually, it’s a point about writing style and word choice, and it’s a legitimate one.
If you’re talking about the Israelis, you should say “Israelis,” not “Jews.” Using the wrong term just leads to misunderstandings, and opens the door for people acting in bad faith to make the very charges of anti-semitism that you decry, with greater plausibility.
I mean, look at this line from Goldberg:
That’s just fucking awful. I mean, I know what he was trying to say, but just look at that line.
Bad writing.
Dan
What’s tired and old is jews being held to some kind of heightened standard where it is insufficient for them merely to personally disagree with the israeli government, they have to loudly proclaim their opposition. They have to assume that those who criticize israel do so entirely free from any dislike of jews. They have to listen to people like andrew sullivan lecture about what a good american jew should be doing right now without speaking up.
Surely Jeff Goldberg isn’t the person I’d want to rally around. His various errors and failure to apologize for those errors are well known. But it’s easier for posters on this site to use him as their straw man for an argument that non-jews have long suffered under the old jewish smear of anti-semitism, then it is to actually think about the far older and far more virulent smear of real anti-semtism.
liberal
@mark:
Well, for those of us intelligent enough to understand context, it’s really not that hard, actually.
superking
It is often pointed out that one of the marks of anti-semitism is the refusal or inability to distinguish between Israel and Jews in general, i.e. such that the bad decisions and mistakes made by Israel are blamed on Jews. This has to cut both ways.
El Cid
@Dan:
To the extent that there are publicly involved Jewish organizations and individuals in the US, or those who feel a moral responsibility to be involved, with US policies toward Israel and the effects by Israeli militarist policies upon the US, their own population, and the Palestinians, then, yes, there would be a moral and sensible political obligation to confront the overwhelmingly dominant and conformist pro-militarist organization claiming to represent American Jews with regard to Israel.
And also to the extent that such American Jews who do understand that it’s politically necessary to counter AIPAC in order to press for better, less crazy militarist policies, it is also obvious that if this work is not led by people of a Jewish background, it will be (and uniformly has been) dismissed as an anti-Jewish, anti-Israel movement of chauvinists.
Face
Uh….what?
bkny
oh lookie, darryl has his first scalp … and whoever could have guessed it’d be ACORN …. and i’m sure that his stated concern of seeing that taxpayer dollars are well spent will extend all the way to iraq/afghanistan…:
The investigators found that the Urban Fire Initiative did not exist until Acorn officials created to apply for the grant.
āIt is really unthinkable that anyone would use the guise of public safety and helping victims of a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina as a calculating way to inappropriately obtain taxpayer dollars,ā Mr. Issa said. āAs the discussion over how to reign in governmentās growth and spending moves forward, there couldnāt be a more important time to ensure that the grants awarded with taxpayer dollars meet rigorous criteria and are subject to vigilant oversight to ensure that grant recipients are not given access to taxpayer dollars under false pretenses.ā
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/investigation-finds-fema-improperly-awarded-grant-to-acorn-affiliate/?scp=2&sq=acorn&st=cse
debbie
This is probably a distinction that nobody really cares about, but the whole “liberal self-hating Jew” theory was started by Jews from New York who emigrated to Israel and became the backbone of the revitalized settler movement. It was latched onto by conservatives like AIPAC only to suppress the dissent when it came to Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
Dan
Face:
If you read Sullivan, his position (at least over the past year or two) has been that american jews have some kind of obligation to counter AIPAC. So, take me, for example. I’m an american jew. I do not support AIPAC. My views on an israeli-palestinian peace agreement are probably quite simliar to Sullivans, but I am often offended by Sullivan’s writing on the subject.
El Cid: I also don’t think AIPAC has the stranglehold on the government that you and Cole seem to think it does. Maybe that’s where we disagree. But you are also arguing for some kind of heightened standard. Under your line of argument, I have an obligation to speak out against AIPAC to protect non-jews from accusations of anti-semitism?
I also think at some point we need to ask ourselves, aren’t there far worse things than being labeled an anti-semite on Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog?
Zifnab
@roshan:
?!
liberal
@Dan:
Of course, no one is obligated to do that. However, around where I live, the synagogues I see all visibly display banners stating “We support Israel in its quest for peace and security.” You can read that as you like; I think a reasonable reading is “We support the Israeli state.”
Why is there need to assume anything? It’s usually clear from context or history whether someone’s criticisms are principled or not.
Idiotic. We’re not talking here about a balance of suffering between “non-Jews” and Jews. We’re talking about people (not necessarily Jewish) playing the race card in ways that are extremely detrimental to America and Americans, be they Jewish, non-Jewish, purple, yellow, or orange. That can be pointed out while at the same time condemning true anti-Semitism.
liberal
@Dan:
The point isn’t hurt feelings, but rather the chilling effect on political debate.
Ed Marshall
Jeffery Goldberg has a habit of throwing people out of the Jews who don’t agree with him about Israel. He called J-Street, “a bunch of anti-zionists with Jewish parents”.
If you actually put these two thoughts together you wind up with a formula where all Jews want a war with Iran (except Jeffery Goldberg because he doesn’t want a war with Iran even though Ahmadinejad is Hitler and plans on wiping out the Jews, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want a war then, but that’s the Goldberg position). If you think there is a Jew who doesn’t believe the above, you are wrong because No True Semite would ever disagree. Thus all Jews are people who spout nutty zionist claptrap.
GregB
You people don’t understand what kind of an enemy the Israeli’s are up against.
These people are so fanatical they are even against pulp based breakfast drinks.
I blame OJ Simpson.
Culture of Truth
Greenwald will just say you’re worshipping your Dear Leader
Svensker
@GregB:
You made me click on Jihadist Watch? Even as a joke I don’t want to give those bastards any part of my world. Warn next time please.
Ed Marshall
@mark:
Mark, I’m very serious. Tell me how to write what I did above without using the word “zionist”. I can’t think of a more precise way to phrase what I wanted to say without taking away the fact that I think Jeffery Goldberg is full of shit in a very certain way about a very certain subject. Help me out.
Villago Delenda Est
What is disturbing about this phenomenon (the deliberate melding of “the Jews” with “the Likudniks”) is that it inadvertently gives outright antisemitism a free intellectual pass.
Nietzsche was right about taking on the monster. These assholes prove it.
Betty Cracker
@Dan:
I don’t find that unreasonable. Shouldn’t we all assume lack of bias until presented with evidence to the contrary?
mark
@liberal: why are you conflating jews with synagogues? Does an atheist with catholic grandparents need to answer for the church?
Roger Moore
@Dan:
What’s tired and old is Muslims being held to some kind of heightened standard where it is insufficient for them merely to personally disagree with jihadis, they have to loudly proclaim their opposition.
This is hardly something that’s limited to Jews and Israel. It happens to any ethnic group that stands out and has a subgroup that does something bad. The bad behavior gets projected onto the whole ethnic group, and each individual has to stand up and loudly criticize the wrongdoing before they’re accepted as not backing it.
sven
Completely unrelated subject.
Did anyone else catch a story on NPR this morning about resolving the ‘debt crisis’?
It is more-or-less an official endorsement of the Simpson plan. I was driving when I heard it so assumed that I had misunderstood something.
Nope, I looked it up online and it is pure propaganda. The title is Heeding Wake-Up Call Could Mitigate Debt Crisis. From there it makes three main points.
1) We are Ireland unless we do something RIGHT NOW!!!
2) The reasonable bipartisan Simpson plan is both reasonable, bipartisan, and reasonable.
3) If we enact the Simpson plan everyone will get a pony.
Again, listen to the story (the audio is stronger than the text) and tell me if I am exaggerating. I would be happy to admit it if people think I am over-reacting.
Gator90
I looked at Cole’s link to the definition of “Juicebox Mafia” (a term I hadn’t encountered before) and learned that it allegedly refers to people who are “insufficiently deferential to Israel’s Likud party or its agents within the United States” (emphasis added). This, I assume, is a none-too-subtle reference to American Jews who allegedly are “agents” of Israel’s Likud party. It is a variation on a common theme among Israel-bashers, namely, that various American Jewish organizations and individuals are treasonously working (as foreign “agents,” no less) to advance the interests of Israel and/or the Likud Party, to the detriment of the United States. (As distinguished from people of good faith who may be misguided in their beliefs about US and/or Israeli government policies.)
Please note, for the record, that I AM NOT CALLING JOHN COLE AN ANTI-SEMITE. I repeat, I AM NOT CALLING JOHN COLE AN ANTI-SEMITE. But the definition to which he links is illustrative of why some American Jews are sensitive about this stuff.
And, just in case I was insufficiently clear before, please allow me to reaffirm that I DO NOT THINK JOHN COLE IS ANTI-SEMITIC IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT, OR IMPLYING IT, OR HINTING AT IT. Thanks.
Ed Marshall
@Gator90:
Marty Peretz coined “juicebox mafia”, you paranoid git.
Jack
Why Sullivan pays any attention to Goldberg on any topic is a mystery to me.
Gator90
@Betty Cracker:
Sure, I as a Jew will assume that Israel’s critics are unbiased, just as soon as they assume that I am.
Ideally, we would all be entitled to a presumption of good faith and sincerity. But this cuts both ways, and it’s easier to give others the benefit of the doubt if they will do the same for you.
Gator90
@Ed Marshall:
Uh, Ed? Did you notice that I was talking about the definition of the term to which Cole linked? Did you look at the definition? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that it was not penned by Marty Peretz.
cleek
@Culture of Truth:
but you’ll never know until you read the 15th update.
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore:
Christians face the same problems. The Old Testament fundie gits taint the entire brand, and do so rather deliberately, loudly proclaiming that they are the true Christians, and the “mainstream” is made up of DFHs who embrace such “un-Christian” ideas as social justice (insert /rolleyes here).
Dan
Roger Moore: I couldn’t agree with you more. Muslims are unfairly held to a similar standard.
The commonality is that the majority doesn’t always understand how their statements sound to the minority.
Ed Marshall
@Gator90:
It’s inartful and I despise the singling out of the Likud party (it displays a serious lack of understanding the root of the problems which predate the rise of Begin by a long, long, time and have no solution in any Israeli political party), but you are prying words into the authors mouth.
The dig at “agents” is talking specifically about Marty Peretz and Noah Pollack who would disagree that they are acting in some way as a detriment to the United States (which is something you just hopped on the anti-anti-semitism rocket bike and stuck in their mouth, but would either of them seriously deny holding a brief for the Israeli government? I would think either of them would brag about it in the right context.
Dan
For those who care, what first ticked me off about this post was the title “The tired old smear”. It seemed a direct reference to “the tired old canard” that the jews control the media (a canard which outdates cole’s tired old smear by a few centuries).
Dude in Princeton
@SteveinSC: “mutatis mutandis”. Also, it’s not the “current Israeli government” that has no interest in anything but a rump Palestinian state, etc., but rather it’s a foundational element of the state of Israel. Read the history. The early actors like Ben Gurion had no problem speaking their minds.
BobS
@SteveinSC: There is legitimate concern that an Iranian nuclear weapon would likely cause Israel to lose as much as a third of it’s Jewish population to emigration, facilitating the inevitable demographic ‘timebomb’[email protected]Ed Marshall: Goldberg may have lifted that line from Alan Dershowitz, who described Norman Finkelstein as only being Jewish on his parents [email protected]Gator90: Virtually the entire (mostly Christian, some obnoxiously so) US Congress (Knesset West?) fits the description of “its agents within the United States”.
Ed Marshall
@Dan:
I not only didn’t catch that, but I’m like four pages into searching “The tired old canard” and your usage hasn’t came up yet. I think it’s just you. Where would that have come from? The Socia–sm of Fools, maybe? I sort of doubt that’s on John Cole’s reading list.
El Cid
@Dan:
I have no fucking clue how you drew those conclusions for what I said.
Listen, dumbfuck — go read the fucking arguments by people who started, say, J-Street, as to why having Jewish voices on the issues regarding US-Israel were important. Why don’t you lecture them on how awful it is that they suggest some sort of ‘heightened standard’.
That’s literally one of the stupidest fucking things I’ve ever read on this blog. And that says a lot.
God-damnit. Among the set of political and lobby organizations which aim to influence US political policies with regard to Israel, AIPAC is demonstrably the most significant.
This does not mean that the only or even main factor predicting or influencing US politicians on their choices for US policies toward Israel, any more than a massive US business lobbying group, i.e., the Business Roundtable or the Chamber of Commerce, are solely responsible for politicians’ backing exactly the policies they are promoting.
It is also true, as demonstrated over and over and over and over across decades, that those who oppose the most militarist policies of Israel against Palestinians and neighboring states are smeared as being anti-Semitic because it must mean you’re anti-Jewish.
And this charge has notable effects. It’s not uniform; it’s not the same as smoking a bunch of meth and concluding that it’s a mathematical identity 1=1 and therefore there’s no deviation and so on and so forth and me and John Cole think that all the US strings are being pulled by AIPAC puppet masters.
This isn’t some sort of bizarre phenomenon exclusive to worries that Jews specifically are ‘expected to have heightened standards.’
Law enforcement officials, for example, who think that the current model of drug war repression makes their jobs and communities worse off don’t universally (i.e., every single one) have some ‘heightened standard’ to speak out. But in this, the real world, remaining silent and allowing only the punitive drug war approach to be portrayed as the view of law enforcement means that you are helping that view to dominate.
Name the issue, and when an opinion on an issue is purveyed as representing some significant group of people, then dissent from that opinion is easily portrayed as being an opposition to that group of people from outsiders. And it is precisely in those situations in which in the real world it is extremely helpful, or necessary even — though of course it shouldn’t be in an idealized world of rational and empirically based argument — for a member of that group to dissent.
It was significant that after generations of enforced ultra-rightism by Cuban exiles in South Florida (including actual acts of terrorism against dissidents) where anyone who dissented from the most right wing fantasies of overthrow of Cuba and suspicions that Fidelist communists were undermining their freedom, members of that same Cuban exile community — particularly its younger members — began to publicly speak out for a change in U.S. policies toward Cuba.
Was there some sort of unfair “heightened standard” that the brave members of the exile community endured against an entire ultra-rightist establishment (one backed by its own enforcers)? In the abstract, there shouldn’t have been, but in the real world those Cuban-Americans who chose to put themselves forth and using their identities as members of the Cuban exile community knew that there was a need for their actions if there were to be any changes in policies.
Long time pro-death penalty prosecutors or hanging judges who change their mind. I.e., it ain’t just a bunch of naive hippies who oppose the death penalty, real people do too!
Ex-CEO’s speaking out against their own industries’ practices. And so on and so forth.
So I’m not going to say another word about this bullshit “heightened standard” line, because if you have a problem with those American Jews who argue that a strong Jewish presence in American politics and lobbying which opposes the typical pro-militarist Israel policies of US politicians, lobbying groups and organizations, and many media fronts, go fucking tell them how bad they’re making you feel by doing so.
Betty Cracker
@Gator90:
Seems like that could set up an endless game of rhetorical chicken. The only assumption I made about you is that we probably both went to the same university. And I could be dead wrong about that. (Go Gators?)
I think Dan has a point when he says:
Yes, but I still say the only fair thing to do is argue in good faith until your opponent proves he or she is not returning the courtesy. I don’t live up to that standard myself all the time, but I believe it is the right one.
Trevor B
@roshan: Not much information here, as a person who works in the astrobiology field, you should know the field is 90% false positives as we don’t know what it is we are really looking for. The people holding the press conference are very smart people, I am looking forward to any information.
burnspbesq
@Zifnab:
“Israel is the worldās most lucrative tax money laundering operation.”
Say what, now? I do international tax planning for a living, and this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone assert that. Got anything to back up that assertion?
burnspbesq
@mark:
“Does an atheist with catholic grandparents need to answer for the church?”
Around here? Absolutely. Anyone who has a Catholic anywhere in their gene pool is personally responsible for every act of sexual abuse ever committed by a priest, and for every piece of crazy shit ever uttered by a Pope or bishop.
Alex S.
@roshan:
Ooh, interesting!
Although it probably sounds more interesting than it is.
Maybe they found DNA on a comet, or oxygen on an exoplanet.
eemom
oh ferfucksake. This again?
And here I was thinking we wuz all gonna join hands and sing kumbaya now that Julian the Righteous has revealed unto the world that it ain’t just Israel whut iz got it in fer Iran.
D-Chance.
They donāt want an honest debate on the policies of the Israeli government, so they just try to shut you down by calling you a bigot. This is nothing new. Ask…
… any critic of the Obama? Because he’s black, you know. Or so we’re told whenever it becomes useful for debate deflection, which is quite often given the spectacular failure of this administration.
Sister Machine Gun of Quite Harmony
I don’t think you understand what he is saying. He is saying that we are taking tax money, giving it to Israel as ‘aid’, which is used to buy our weapons. So basically, the goal is to funnel more US tax dollars into the defense industry. So frankly, when we look at how much money gets channelled into defense, we should be counting our foreign aid to Israel as money going straight into the defense industry, too.
Comrade Darkness
I don’t suppose Santa would love us enough for a wikileaks dump regarding Israel would he?
What, he’s giving us a Bank of American Fraud one instead? Oh, he does love us.
Comrade Darkness
@Zifnab: The only folks who doggedly defend the nation,
Don’t overlook the political power of the Rapture Ready crowd. Greedy arms dealers are one thing. People actively wishing for the end of the world are a whole other ball game, and they far outnumber the first group.
Silver
@burnspbesq:
That’s just stupid.
Now, if you’re sitting in the pew each week giving money to the kiddy fiddlers and the ex-Nazi armband virgin with the Prada shoes, yes, you have something to answer for.
Tony J
@Alex S.:
Possibly, and both would still have a pretty big wow factor on their own merits. One would provide evidence that some sort of extra-terrestrial life definately did exist, while the other would mean that Earth is definately not the only place life could exist right now.
I’m crossing my fingers for the first Earth-sized planet with an oxygen atmosphere. Once that’s proven to be out there the questions about how we get there are going to move from the theoretical to the mainstream.
OTOH, if they announce that deep-space imaging has revealed the approach of an alien armada, I’m going to conclude that there is a God, and He really doesn’t want me to finish this sci-fi novel I’m dicking about with.
bobbo
I like what Sullivan is saying here, but mostly what I like is an Atlantic Monthly intramural flame war. Makes my heart sing.
Gator90
@Betty Cracker: Agreed on all counts, and yes, absolutely Go Gators (though these are not the best of times).
Unfortunately, the dialogue between a critic of Israel and a Jewish defender of Israel often goes somewhat like this:
Critic: Israel sucks!
Defender: You’re just saying that because you’re anti-Semitic [or self-hating]! Furthermore, Israel rocks!
Critic: Ha! You’re just saying that because you’re Jewish!
And so it goes, with each side presuming that the other’s opinions are derived from irrational biases concerning Jews, rather than from good faith and rational thought.
monkeyboy
Is there a word describing the process of
1) Starting with any discussion (especially if it contains one of the words “Jew”, “Judaism”, “Israel”, or “Zionism”.)
2) Turning the discussion into an argument.
3) Claiming to win the argument by uncovering Antisemitism.
Some people appear to consider winning arguments the only reason for a discussion, and will purposefully steer a one into an argument to be won.
This is a rather childish and content free way to conduct a discussion though it does display some rhetorical skill.
As a general tactic it is non productive and quickly becomes tiresome.
Say for example I am discussing citrus fruit, and the exchange gets pushed to the point that someone thinks Antisemitism can be brought into play. A personal attack on me is one way to discredit my opinion on citrus fruit, but usually the whole point is just the personal attack and citrus fruit is irrelevant.
This sort of tactic only seems to be used with hot-button concepts such as “Antisemitism” and to a lesser degree things like “sohs1alism”, “atheism”, “racism”, etc.
The best general term I can come up with is “hot button harvesting” and maybe for the example case “Antisemitism baiting”.
Is there other names for this sort of rhetorical process?
monkeyboy
(FWP)
Is there a word describing the process of
1) Starting with any discussion (especially if it contains one of the words āJewā, āJudaismā, āIsraelā, or āZionismā.)
2) Turning the discussion into an argument.
3) Claiming to win the argument by uncovering Antisemitism.
Some people appear to consider winning arguments the only reason for a discussion, and will purposefully steer a one into an argument to be won.
This is a rather childish and content free way to conduct a discussion though it does display some rhetorical skill.
As a general tactic it is non productive and quickly becomes tiresome.
Say for example I am discussing citrus fruit, and the exchange gets pushed to the point that someone thinks Antisemitism can be brought into play. A personal attack on me is one way to discredit my opinion on citrus fruit, but usually the whole point is just the personal attack and citrus fruit is irrelevant.
This sort of tactic only seems to be used with hot-button concepts such as āAntisemitismā and to a lesser degree things like āsohs1alismā, āatheismā, āracismā, etc.
The best general term I can come up with is āhot button harvestingā and maybe for the example case āAntisemitism baitingā.
Is there other names for this sort of rhetorical process?
Brachiator
@D-Chance.:
Spectacular failure? Let’s see now, Dubya mired us in a totally pointless war in Iraq and oversaw the near total meltdown of the financial system. What would you call this?
Gator90
@Ed Marshall:
Glad we’re past the puerile name-calling, Ed. That the “agents” dig was allegedly aimed at two specific Jews in no way alters my point. Many Jewish organizations and individuals have been described in the same or similar terms. And I think it’s safe to say that the term “agent” — when used to refer to a person inside a given country acting on behalf of a foreign nation — connotes acting detrimentally to the country in which the agent operates.
If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen or heard various American Jewish organizations or individuals accused of “treason” in the left blogosphere, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because I’d be frolicking on my own private Caribbean island and there wouldn’t be a computer around for miles.
Gator90
@monkeyboy: Sorry, “antisemitism baiting” is taken — it means claiming that one is being accused of antisemitism when in fact one is not. Or prefacing one’s comments with “I’ll probably get called an antisemite for saying this, but…”
monkeyboy
@Gator90:
The rhetorical structures you are talking about already do have some name that I currently can’t recall now. It includes example like:
āIāll probably get called an antisemite/racist/… for saying this, butā¦ā
“I don’t want to be mean/insult-your-intelligence but … ”
Where the speaker is announcing that is the pejorative does apply BUT he is justified in doing so, that it really isn’t pejorative in this case, and thus he can’t be called out for it.
BobS
@Gator90: Most of my time online is spent on the left blogosphere (A Tiny Revolution, Empire Burlesque, etc.) or at the online versions of magazines I subscribe to (CounterPunch, Z, etc.). While I wouldn’t deny I’ve seen the legal term “treason” applied to very specific instances of spying like that of Jonathon Pollard and Larry Franklin, and I certainly wouldn’t deny that AIPAC and similar organizations and publications are frequent targets of contempt, I think your assertion that accusations of “treason” are thrown around frequently (as it is on the right, most recently with American non-citizen Julian Assange) is bullshit.
Pococurante
JC’s post would be cool if it were factual. But it ain’t so it’s not.
Goldberg has repeatedly said he doesn’t consider Sullivan or his opinions anti-Semitic nor anti-Zionist. This would take about five minutes of googling to find a long history backing me up.
I read both blogs, Sullivan because he’s an aggregator who gets some pretty nifty links from his readers and Goldberg since he actually leaves his house to talk with the folks who affect the world and yet manages to blog without interns.
There is a pretty consistent pattern when AS decides to talk about JG: Sullivan says something mildly reasonable but makes shrill shit up about Goldberg, Goldberg responds with a patient link-laden post proving the opposite, Sullivan tears off in a new direction to start the pattern all over again.
If I didn’t know better I’d say the Atlantic has a policy of Jerry Springer cross-linking to boost google stats. Hmm maybe I don’t know better.
Anyway Cole you posted Sullivan’s latest tear with nothing from Goldberg’s blog. Nicely done, welcome to the poo fight and all that.
I don’t think Sullivan is anti-semitic either.
Whatever Goldberg’s past and current politics he is at least a journalist who gets some pretty amazing scoops. He’s repeatedly critical of those same sources and yet somehow gets access.
And that is pretty cool.
Maybe some of you are thinking of the other JG, Jonah Goldberg? Everytime I see folks here going off it sure seems like they have the two confused.
Gator90
@BobS: Well, you’re entitled to your perception. Please understand (just in case you didn’t) that I’m talking about comments as well as blogs themselves. I’ve seen AIPAC and other like-minded (or allegedly like-minded) folks called traitors, told to move to Israel, etc, many times. Many, many times. (I don’t blame you if it jumps out at me more than it does you.)
I think my own mindset is pretty different from that of AIPAC, but about two weeks ago I was told, by a commenter who knows me to be American, that Avigdor Lieberman is “my” foreign minister. Shit like that happens all the time, trust me.
Gator90
@BobS: Well, you’re entitled to your perception. Please understand (just in case you didn’t) that I’m talking about comments as well as blogs themselves. I’ve seen AIPAC and other like-minded (or allegedly like-minded) folks called traitors, told to move to Israel, etc, many times. Many, many times. (I don’t blame you if it jumps out at me more than it does you.)
I think my own mindset is pretty different from that of AIPAC, but about two weeks ago I was told, by a commenter who knows me to be American, that Avigdor Lieberman is “my” foreign minister. Shit like that happens all the time, trust me.
Gator90
Oops – sorry for sticking that up there twice. I’m sure once was enough for all.
Thlayli
Jeffrey Goldberg is lucky that the bar for “dumbest pundit named ‘J. Goldberg'” is so high.
BobS
@Gator90: @Gator90: Charges of “treason” (you’re the one who used quotation marks) are virtually non-existent on the blogs (or the threads they generate) that I read. It’s not my perception, it’s reality. If it’s different in the corners of the left blogosphere that you frequent, please point me to those blogs so that I can confirm the charge is as prevalent as you claim.
Gator90
@BobS: I have seen tbe word “treason” or “traitor” plenty of times, though I did not intend to confine my point to those precise words alone. There are many ways to say a thing. If you can’t discern the implications of an American Jew being told that his foreign minister is Avigdor Lieberman (this was in a recent comment at Glenn Greenwald’s blog), then I can’t help you. When a commenter at Greenwald’s suggested that the US impose a draft solely on Jews in order to discourage them from fomenting wars on behalf of Israel, the word “treason” was not used.
I have read all kinds of lefty blogs & comments, too many to count or remember. I read Greenwald and his comment board regularly (and the majority of the stuff I’m talking about is from some of the commenters there, not Glenn himself). I read comments here fairly often. I used to read Yglesias & comments but got sick of the aforementioned crap.
BobS
@Gator90: You wrote that if you “had a dollar for every time Iāve seen or heard various American Jewish organizations or individuals accused of ātreasonā in the left blogosphere, we wouldnāt be having this conversation, because Iād be frolicking on my own private Caribbean island”, suggesting the attitude was somewhat ubiquitous among bloggers on the left. You moved the goalpost to comment threads (where any asshole can say just about anything), but I’ll still play.
As it happens, I read most of Glenn Greenwald’s posts and, every once in awhile, the subsequent comment threads (I generally get tired having to click repeatedly and give up 4 or 5 pages in). While some commenters (frequently the same few people repeatedly on an individual thread) use the forum to vent spleen (anti-Israel, anti-Muslim, etc.) with hateful rhetoric, it’s hardly the anti-Jewish free-for-all on the “left blogosphere” you originally depicted.
In fact, your slur of the “left blogosphere” is the kind of disingenuous stereotype one might expect from David Horowitz or Mark Steyn.