I was reading Spencer Ackerman’s attempts to shame people for their use of terminology he dislikes in this exceptionally tedious debate about the smear campaign started against CAP and others (Glenn has a good piece on it), and came across this:
On Tuesday, writer Max Blumenthal used a gross phrase to describe Goldberg: “former Israeli prison guard.”)
Jeffrey Goldberg worked in an Israeli prison. He wrote a book about it that was critically acclaimed. He talks about it all the time. How is this a smear? It’s part of who he was.
schrodinger's cat
Is calling Tunch
fatbig boned, a smear?ETA: We want a photo of the tubbeh kitteh with a tabbeh tail. Pretty plz with a cherry on top.
Steve
Reminds me of how the WSJ always calls Paul Krugman a “former Enron advisor.” It’s true, but still kind of tedious.
JGabriel
John Cole:
I just wanted a smear of cream cheese on my toasted poppy seed bagle. Is that so wrong?
.
Villago Delenda Est
If I call Ackerman a shithead hack, is that a smear, or an accurate assessment of him?
schrodinger's cat
@JGabriel: Plz not to be toasting beagles. Puppies is frendz not fud.
Yutsano
Cue Derf ranting about JC’s Greenwald obsession in 3…2…
trollhattan
“Newt Gingrich, former small child” only calls unwarranted attention to his current rubust manframe. This vile slurring must stop at once!
O/T, California Republicans lose another redistricting round. How are youse guys liking your scheme so far?
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/supreme-court-a-matter.html
EconWatcher
Sully (yeah, I visited his blog today, but I’m not proud of it) seems to agree with Ackerman that it’s antiSemitic to call someone an “Israel firster.” It seems to be that if someone thinks that the interests of Israel should be the primary focus of US foreign policy, it’s a fair description, and to me doesn’t sound particularly pejorative. But maybe I’m missing something. I don’t mean that in a snarky way; I really might be missing something.
Villago Delenda Est
@EconWatcher:
Failure to be a full-throated supporter of anything Israel does, to include roasting Palestinian children alive, makes you a guard at Auschwitz.
You can no more win with these people than Obama can with birthers by producing a DVD of him popping out of his mom on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
JGabriel
EconWatcher:
Accusing Jews of a treasonous allegiance to Zion/Jewish Interests/Other Countries/Israel is a common theme in historical anti-semitism. To the extent that Israel Firster echoes that trope, it can be interpreted as anti-semitic.
That’s what you’re missing.
.
jibeaux
I would have thought that the obvious implication was that the prison was in Israel, and that he used to work there as a guard, but hey, I’m not Jewish.
jeff
Because I speak English, I think that people who put Israel’s interest first are Israel Firsters. This is an analytic judgment, and does not imply nazism.
dedc79
I am, like Cole it seems, sick of this whole back and forth. I don’t know why people, whether its the right wingers who went after CAP, or the Greenwalds, can’t just let the argument speak for itself and avoid inflammatory language. Even if you don’t think the language is so bad, if it becomes such a distraction that you can’t have a rational argument, then maybe lose the term and make your argument less emotionally. And this shouldn’t just apply to Israel-Palestine, it applies to arguments of all kinds.
Everyone is so busy policing what everyone else is saying that nobody ends up arguing the substance.
If you don’t like Israel’s actions – explain why instead of calling them Nazi-Fascist-Apartheidists. Lay out what they did, explain why you think its wrong and leave it at that. If you don’t like what an israel critic is saying – don’t blanket label them apologists for terrorism or anti-semites, explain why you think they are wrong.
dedc79
As for why many find “israel firster” to be offensive, look back at the things some people were saying about JFK’s allegiance to the catholic church over the US. There was a presumption that because he was Catholic (and possibly as well because he at least publicly observed certain Catholic traditions) his loyalty to America was suspect.
Mattminus
@dedc79:
But what if my explanation for why I don’t like Israel is, you know, all the apartheid.
fasteddie9318
The term “Israel firster” does arguably* trade in some age-old anti-Semitic tropes, but it takes serious balls to call people out for using insensitive terminology in a column whose accompanying graphic equates those people with Hitler.
* on second thought, I’m not even sure it’s arguable
dedc79
@Mattminus: Well, if you want anyone to listen to you other than people who already agree with you, I’d suggest avoiding the term, and criticizing the actions the Israeli government has taken that you think are wrong. You’ll avoid a side argument about what is and is not “Apartheid-like” and yet you still get to make your point.
Calouste
@dedc79:
Apartheid is a fairly succint summary of why I don’t like Israel’s governments’s actions. A recent example of that Apartheid is that the Israeli Supreme Court upheld a law that some people who are married to Israeli citizens can never become Israeli citizens themselves, solely based on their national origin.
jpeg
The fact that someone who is a complete asshat first used a word as a pejorative before other people used it as an accurate description causes said word to be forever poisonous never made much sense to me. Every word a racist uses to spew its hate is poisonous.
Suffern ACE
Missing in all the name calling and silencing and a discussion of how this makes writers feel, is that the US is pushing some very harsh sanctions on Iran. And has been more successful in pushing those sanctions than it has been in many years. I am still wondering where exactly our serious leaders hope this gets us.
dedc79
@Calouste: Look, i’m not angling to get into an argument about what is or is not apartheid. My only point is that however accurate a descriptor you think it is, you’re not going to get people who disagree with you to engage with your argument when you use it. They’ll give you a hundred reasons why Israel is different than South Africa.
And for what its worth (and this may not be true for you), I often get the sense that when people use that analogy they are doing it precisely to get under the skin of the people who disagree with them.
eemom
@fasteddie9318:
It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of who’s smearing who
as a what. How about we just mush them all together as tedious assholes?
parenthetical
FWIW, Goldberg also thought Ackerman’s description of “former Israeli prison guard” as a “gross phrase” was strange. As Goldberg points out, it’s technically not true, but basically accurate and not at all offensive.
fasteddie9318
This use of Jeffrey Goldberg’s last name in an obvious attempt to identify him as a Jew is the most vicious anti-semitic smear I have seen in the last couple of minutes.
fasteddie9318
@eemom:
Oh, eemom. You know who else mushed people together like that? Don’t make me go there. You’re on notice.
Mattminus
@dedc79:
Ok, is it better if I say “crimes against humanity committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime” instead of apartheid?
Angry DougJ
@Steve:
Imagine if Krugman wrote primarily about Enron, insisted Enron’s enemies had weapons of mass destruction, advocated that the United States bomb Iran on Enron’s behalf, and called everyone who disagreed with him an anti-Enrite.
Then it would be wise to refer to Krugman as a former Enron adviser.
John M. Burt
@jeff: Sorry, Jeff, but “Israel Firster” does not mean simply putting Israel first, just as putting U.S. interests first does not make you an “America Firster”. There is such a thing as history.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Pat Robertson’s ire at the “bigoted slur” of calling him a “television evangelist”. I’ll never forget how weird that incident was. It’s not like someone had called him “Marion” . . . .
fasteddie9318
@Mattminus:
The term is already overloaded with connotations and its use will preclude any chance at substantive discussion, is the point I think. We just need a new name for Israel’s apartheid that isn’t “apartheid.” “Flarg” might work. Or something like “kepshprong,” or “urdlorb.” Yes, “I oppose the Israeli government’s continuing practice of urdlorb” works for me.
Amir Khalid
@dedc79:
There’s one difference, though: Catholics have a Pope who is head of a sovereign state, the Vatican, and thus wields secular power. If I remember my history right, back in the day the Pope wielded quite a lot of such power. Judaism doesn’t have such a figure.
For what it’s worth, it seems to me a legitimate criticism to call out an American who believes some other nation’s interests should be the paramount consideration in America’s foreign policy. As with any nation, America’s foreign policy needs to strike some balance between its global obligations and its own interests.
It’s certainly possible to smear someone by mislabeling him an Israel-firster. But we’re always free to look at what he says, and form our own opinion. My occasional reading of Jeffrey Goldberg tells me he is more sympathetic to Israel than I, but it doesn’t make me think he puts Israel ahead of America.
Suffern ACE
@fasteddie9318: What that word where you give people a homeland and call them reservations and then mess with them with constant policy changes that make their lives miserable, sometimes more, sometimes less, so they stay away from you. Americans did it. I think the Russians used to do something like that, sometimes to Jews, but then any group could be moved around to if a place wasn’t sufficiently loyal or the land too nice not to be unrussified.
The Moar You Know
@trollhattan: Ahnold left the California GOP this giant steaming turd in their punchbowl as payback for them repeatedly dragging the legislative process to a halt in California (sound familiar? What’s playing out nationally is what we in the Golden State have been dealing with since Ahnold’s second term). Payback is a bitch. Ahnold put that on the ballot knowing it would pass, and he knew something the California GOP didn’t – it was going to destroy them forever.
Wouldn’t want to be on that guy’s bad side. He thinks for the long term, doesn’t forget who crossed him, and makes sure that the payback is worse than the original offense. Very LBJ in that respect.
Would love to find a Democrat who operated like him.
burnspbesq
Yawn. Jews ripping other Jews whose support for Israel is seen as less than 1,000 percent perfect. Has there been even a single day since 1947 that has been free of this nonsense?
fasteddie9318
@Amir Khalid:
It seems safe to say that over the course of Christian/European/American history there’s been considerably more anti-Jewish violence based in part on the perception of Jewish disloyalty to the national interest than there has been anti-Catholic violence based on similar charges.
Lojasmo
@The Moar You Know:
Chicago called. It has some words for you.
fasteddie9318
@Suffern ACE: I have no problem calling what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians “ethnic cleansing.” The Soviets used to move populations internally all the time, but I don’t know if there was a term for it.
Amir Khalid
@fasteddie9318:
Agreed. He should henceforth be known as Jeffrey Mountgold. (During WWI the Earl of Battenberg, a member of the extended British royal family, changed his family’s name to the less-Germanic Mountbatten.)
FormerSwingVoter
Er, I don’t think you understand. Holding Republicans accountable for the things they say and do is, by definition, a smear.
I’ll get you the AP style guide so you can review how this works, but you really should know all this by now.
Sad Iron
Weird? Don’t you know that you are not allowed to discuss Israel in unapproved ways? Once Goldberg and Ackerman give you the okay, then you may have opinions about whether or not you are even allowed to evalauate how your country supports a foreign nation. Jesus, man.
Tony J
Maybe Ackerman should give some context to his complaint by taking the time to explain why he finds the – accurate – phrase “former Israeli prison guard” to be so “gross” in regard to Goldberg, who actually is a “former Israeli prison guard”, and was proud enough of it to write a book about his experience.
IOW, What’s so bad about being a “former Israeli prison guard” that Ackerman thinks it’s gross to label someone as one?
Does he think that, maybe, for some unknown reason, there are a lot of people out there who might see that combination of words put together and think badly of the person it describes?
Yeah, he might have something there.
Angry DougJ
@burnspbesq:
Did you see Bibi calling the NYT Israel’s greatest enemy?
Spirula
There is so much fail in this.
A gross phrase has 144 characters in it.
Everybody knows that.
Heliopause
A few days ago I read a post on another blog that contended that the following paragraph from a Gawker article implied collective Jewish guilt:
I didn’t dispute the offensiveness of the paragraph, just explained that I took it differently and could he please give an alternate rendering that would not be offensive.
His response was that the paragraph should be deleted entirely. I then pointed out that this wasn’t feasible because the paragraph communicated essential information in the context of the story. Again, I didn’t contest his taking of offense but asked for an inoffensive rendering of the same information. Unfortunately I didn’t get a response that time.
If Spencer Ackerman took offense at “former Israeli prison guard” then he took offense. I haven’t read the Blumenthal article but if its subject is someone who used to be a prison guard in Israel then that information seems highly relevant to the piece. The question for Ackerman would then be, do you have an alternate rendering of this information that is not offensive?
Klaus
There is another word for apartheid: segregation. But that somehow was superceded, maybe because a certain nation didn’t like its historical connotations…
srv
@Angry DougJ: I don’t know where everyone else goes, but when I want to know about the social, political and cultural aspects of Muslims, Persians and Islamic nations, I’m glad our media only goes to white Christians or Jews.
The Atlantic and Charlie Rose always deliver for me.
Tony J
I withdraw #40, Heliopause said it better at #43.
IM
@Heliopause:
What is offensive about that? My first thought was that Adler is some crank and his jewish newspaper a self appointed one man enterprise, probably just a website. So looking how real the newspaper is is necessary information.
He is still a crank, but someone who captured a venerable, if small jewish institution.
Like Foxman the ADL.
kindness
Apartheid is an accurate description of current Israeli policy. That isn’t racist. Currently and since 1967, Israel has controlled the West Bank. Israel has taxed the people of the West Bank yet it gives them no voting rights. Israel doesn’t recognize West Bankers property rights. Israel frequently will not allow West bank citizens zoning permits to improve their houses.
What about that is different from what blacks in South Africa faced?
slim's tuna provider
it is shocking how a little phrase “israeli prison guard” cuts to the heart of the issue in a millisecond. there are really two sides here: (1) “you can’t say “Jew” out loud in a negative or even neutral sense, because of the Holocaust and 1500 years of persecution, because the Jews are special and the West owes us” and (2) “no, the fact that you’re the most persecuted white people in recent history doesn’t make you special, shut up.” there is really is no point discussing anything else, and honestly not much point discussing this either. you can just try to be tolerant and try to not jump down people’s throats too much.
Roger Moore
@The Moar You Know:
It was never clear to me that he meant it specifically as a hit against the GOP. My impression was that it was aimed at extremists from both parties. The idea was that Sacramento was broken because everyone had been gerrymandered into safe districts that tended to give the advantage to extremists, and that was as true of the Democrats as Republicans. That’s why we now have both a non-partisan redistricting commission (that the Democrats were apparently better able to game than the Republicans) and jungle primaries. I’m actually interested to see how the jungle primaries interact with the redistricting; things may not be as predictable as everyone expects.
It’s certainly unclear to me how much of the disadvantage to the Republicans is from redistricting and how much is because demographic changes are inherently making them irrelevant. They might well have fallen into irrelevance a few elections ago if they hadn’t managed to gerrymander things as effectively as they did in the last round of redistricting.
Mnemosyne
@fasteddie9318:
You haven’t read much about the Reformation in Europe, have you? There’s a reason why the really mass witch-burnings didn’t begin until Catholics and Protestants started fighting in earnest.
If you want to say that the anti-Jewish violence persisted past the end of Catholic/Protestant religious wars and continued into the 20th century, that would be more accurate, but you can still get your house in Belfast firebombed on an accusation of being on the wrong side of the Catholic/Protestant dividing line.
Gator90
@dedc79:
Of course. And if that doesn’t work, a Nazi analogy is usually next. Really puts those Israel-loving Jews in their place.
The Moar You Know
@Roger Moore: Couldn’t agree more. But there was no way that commission wasn’t going to end up hurting Republicans a lot more than Democrats. I remember when the California GOP figured that out a couple of weeks before the vote.
There was some delicious howling that day.
Alex
John I really think you might be on the wrong side of this terminological debate (not the prison guard nonsense, which is indeed mystifying). Language is important. The term “Israel-firster” originated exclusively with anti-Semites like David Duke, and it was used exclusively by anti-Semites for decades in this country to dehumanize American Jews. In other words, the term has (justifiable) baggage indistinguishable from the superficial content of the term itself. It would be akin — not identical, but similar — to calling any prominent African-American in public life today “self-righteous.” The phrase simply cannot be segregated from its origins, and one must suspect the motives of those that employ it. I happen to believe Glenn, et al, have the better arguments in the larger debate over the actions of the Israeli government vis a vis domestic American politics. However, he and his compatriots have chosen, not too cleverly, to hide behind an unduly literalist interpretation of this term. Just as l’affaire nun rape, it is too bad he has backed himself stubbornly into yet another needless corner.
FlipYrWhig
@Heliopause: I don’t get what’s offensive about that paragraph. Not at all. I’ve reread it a bunch of times to look for the bad part and have no idea. Does it have to do with the context of the rest of the story?
Alex
I might add that this obscurantist “just so” literalism is perfectly exhibited by “jeff” in comment 12 above. It could be parodied as such: “Because I speak English, I think that people whose skin is the color black can be called colored. This is an analytic judgment, and does not imply racism.”
FlipYrWhig
@Alex: “Israel first” doesn’t seem like it would “dehumanize.” It might question their loyalty and patriotism — they put Israel first instead of America — but that’s not “dehumanizing.”
Alex
@FlipYrWhig. While I think you might be downplaying the cumulative sociological effect of persistent questioning of a certain ethnicity’s national loyalties, would you perhaps accept the word “delegitimizing”?
FlipYrWhig
@Alex: Probably. I think that there’s a bigoted history to the idea, but I would reserve the word “dehumanizing” for the implication that the group doesn’t deserve to live, like what David Niewert calls “eliminationist” rhetoric.
daveNYC
@dedc79:
Which rates up there with the people who were totally OK with gays getting married, just as long as what they got wasn’t called marriage.
EriktheRed
Is it possible he thought Max was talking about Doughy Pantload?
Jay
Cole, c’mon. You’ve had no problem accepting the fact that folks like ABL have been dog – whistled for being black. Based on that, you should not reflexively dismiss those who claim they’ve been dog – whistled for being Jewish.
Simple.
not motorik
When called an “Israeli-firster,” the logical rejoinder from an American would involve demonstrating that they do not, in fact, put Israel’s interests before American interests.
But the people who are called “Israeli-firsters” can’t easily do that, so they come up with reasons that the allegation should be out-of-bounds.
Bad reasons.
kindness
@Jay: But that isn’t all it is. Part of the problem (and Ackermann talks about it) is that now days if someone criticizes a certain Israeli policy, there are those who will immediately pull out and throw down the anti-semetic charge. I understand why, it’s an easy out. Some people really don’t want anyone talking about Israel unless it’s in glowing terms.
As an ex-NYer who (is a Niner fan & going to root for Brady & the Pats) has several Jewish people in my family I support Israel, but not it’s current leaders and not those who treat people of other faiths differently than they would there own. Kind of a riff on the Golden Rule, you know?
El Cid
I have indeed known people who were more interested in the success of (a particular and militarist view of) Israeli political and military power than that of any combination of “U.S.” interests, whether conventionally defined under nation-state political terms, or the U.S. population as a whole, or whatever.
In fact, some of them were quite clear about that.
I was never drawn to the use of a term such as “Israel-Firster”, not least because like the term “Pro-American” it never represents my notion of the interests of Israeli civilians as a whole, or even of the majority of actual Israeli Jewish interests sensibly defined.
Likewise, you have the opposite, where some group is dedicated to the opposition to the power of some nation-state system at the expense of sanely defined U.S. and/or U.S. population interests, say, the most fervent of the U.S. Cuban exiles who desired any conflict or attack upon the Cuban government (and nation, whether they admitted it or not) no matter what the other consequences.
It’s often the case, however, that they simultaneously believe that — like the austerity fetishists — the suffering of pain by U.S. peoples or others as a consequence of their policy preferences is in their interests any way. Whether because it would be better (in their view) for the soon-to-be sufferers in the long term, or just better for them morally.
I liked the little cartoon at the top of Ackerman’s post showing a person typing “Israel Firster” into a computer to emerge from the thought bubble as Hitler. You know who else blah blah blah…?
Sad Iron
Much of this thread simply performs Greenwald’s main point. In case it be forgotten, Greenwald provides an example of ACTUAL CENSORSHIP in his article, which is, well anti-American, and strangely, that doesn’t seem that important when we could be discussing anti-semitism instead. The CAP piece was censored by people who feel Israel’s image is more important than an American journalist’s fundamental constitutional rights. But that’s okay, what’s really important here is that we focus on a specific historical context that can be narrowly applied to a phrase that clearly has no intention of invoking that context. Awesome.
Alex
@not motorik: You appear to adopt, ironically or not, the orthodox McCarthyite position. In what other political disputes would you invert the burden of proof such that the objects of political accusations bear the onus of proving a negative? Do you similarly contend that all Muslims should be presumed sympathetic with al Qaeda? Do you think some of them might have “bad reasons” for objecting to such an inquiry? I don’t think you have thought this through.
Roger Moore
@The Moar You Know:
I think the post 2010 Census redistricting was going to be very bad for the Republicans no matter how it was handled. The previous round of redistricting resulted in a “safe seats for all” compromise because the Democrats were unsure of themselves. That wasn’t likely to happen this time around, if only because the Republicans were negotiating from such a weak position and the prize for the Democrats getting 2/3 in both houses is so great.
My impression was that the commission was the Republicans’ attempt to forestall the Democrats from doing a really nasty partisan gerrymandering. Their second thoughts are mostly a result of looking at the maps and hoping against hope that they must be able to get something better than this somehow. It doesn’t really matter that it isn’t true. They’re at the panic and clutching at straws stage.
Alex
@kindness: Your comment, though well-intentioned, is a red herring. Whether some people abuse the term “anti-semitic” in American public life doesn’t in turn justify the employment by putative liberals of anti-Semitic tropes themselves. Observing the laughably post-modern manner in which some commenters on this post have tried to deconstruct and rationalize an epithet with an indisputably bigoted etiology has been instructive. I look forward to Cole dismissing those who object to Newt labeling Obama as a “food stamp president” as “attempting to shame Newt for using terminology they don’t like.”
kindness
@Alex: Dude….
WTF dude? What are you trying to say? Please do so in a less erudite manner.
And I don’t think my comment was a red-herring. I wasn’t trying to cover for bigots. I was trying to say that SOME folk will slap you down if you criticize some Israeli government policies that I myself disagree with. Me? I think it should all be one state and every one of them should have a vote. Will that create problems? Maybe. We do OK here in the States & we have all kinds of folks.
Sad Iron
Don’t worry @Kindness–what’s laughable is his use of the terms “postmodern” and “deconstruct” as pejoratives. If by postmodern one means, not letting an authority set the terms of a debate, dictate the power, and tell you when you can speak and in what capacity, then I’m on board with that version of Postmodernism (as was Derrida, who was a champion for social justice).
Roger Moore
@kindness:
I think he’s saying that when they call you an anti-Semite because you disagree with them, you shouldn’t prove them right by calling them by an anti-Semitic slur. Try to come up with some other way of saying that they care more about what happens to Israel than whether it benefits the US. Even better, point out that they’re not necessarily after Israel’s best interests, either; they want us to support the Israeli right wing in anything they do, even if it goes against the long-term interests of the country.
Alex
@kindness: Sorry — I was typing on the run and garbled a bit of what I wanted to say. Basically what Roger Moore said. I only responded to you that way because Jay’s comment about dog-whistles was essentially accurate. One can’t help but notice a double standard congealing in regard to “progressive” treatment of anti-semitism versus other forms of traditional bigotry. Cole and others will go to great lengths to find racial overtones in everyday political speech. He’s spoken quite admirably about how “white privilege” can unconsciously shape his perspective. I thus get frustrated when he and others here blithely dismiss a classic anti-Jewish epithet. I mentioned your response because I don’t think the fact that many advocates of Israeli governmental policies irresponsibly abuse the term “anti-Israel” justifies any of that.
@Sad Iron: Wouldn’t want to get into a boring discussion about post-modernism, but that is not how I was using the term. I was referring to the idea that the phrase “Israel-firsters” as a political accusation can be evaluated on its own terms, devoid of its history and the context of its origin. I don’t agree that these phrases can take a life of their own and be justified on a case-by-case basis. The phrase, like “young buck” or “colored,” is simply indelibly marked by those who authored it.
Benjamin Franklin
@jpeg:
The fact that someone who is a complete asshat first used a word as a pejorative before other people used it as an accurate description causes said word to be forever poisonous never made much sense to me. Every word a racist uses to spew its hate is poisonous.
Sad Iron
@Alex. To your point “I was referring to the idea that the phrase “Israel-firsters” as a political accusation can be evaluated on its own terms, devoid of its history and the context of its origin.” Those two things are not exclusive–you can evaluate the usage on its own terms (meaning, its current context) while still having/recognizing knowledge of the contexts of its origin. To me, that’s called simple interpretation. I think Kindness is making a very reasonable point. But more importantly, Greenwald is not anti-semitic, even if he were to use the term “Isreal-first” a thousand times–the context of his discussion is foreign policy specifically, not race/religion/heritage. Yes, you take issue with the term, I respect that, but it doesn’t dictate the discussion, nor should it. And to go all boring and postmodern, if there’s anything postmodern analysis/deconstruction should teach us, it’s exactly what you point out–who takes into account the history of single words, and their evolving contexts, more than such critics?
not motorik
The Zionist propagandists howl because the phrase is effective, not because of its history.
If “Israel-first” offends you, too fucking bad. Prove that it is false.
Heliopause
@FlipYrWhig:
The author of the post was J.L. Wall at LOOG. He said the Gawker piece, which is here, was “trying like hell to blame the Atlanta Jewish community as a whole.” To my first inquiry he replied, in part, “The way that they then introduce the circulation numbers and date of founding of the paper imply that it is a reasonable possibility that he was, in fact, speaking on behalf of that community as well as himself… What would I have done? I’d have cut the graf.” I disagree that you could simply “cut the graf” and maintain the contextual integrity of the piece, as it amplifies one of the “five Ws”, so again my question would be, how could this essential information have been written so as to eliminate the possibility of offense? It’s an honest question, and I think it’s also an honest question to ask, if one were writing about Jeffrey Goldberg how would one phrase his biographical information so as not to cause offense?
eemom
@not motorik:
You’re an all-purpose hating asshole, pure and simple — as has been evidenced by just about everything you’ve ever posted here, but perhaps most charmingly when you crawl out of the woodwork for no other purpose than to attack ABL on threads she has nothing to do with.
@Sad Iron:
I’d like to hear an example of some other phrase that was coined as a hate-mongering epithet, but somehow ended up serving a useful purpose in constructive dialogue.
Take your time. We’ll wait.
Jay
@kindness:
“Part of the problem (and Ackermann talks about it) is that now days if someone criticizes a certain Israeli policy, there are those who will immediately pull out and throw down the anti-semetic charge. I understand why, it’s an easy out. Some people really don’t want anyone talking about Israel unless it’s in glowing terms.”
I have noticed that a not – insignificant number of people who are hawkish about Israel’s security have no problem with the view that POTUS is weak on same (or even hostile to Israel and Jews), eventhough so much evidence points the other way. The hawks have often lied to advance their view, and continue to do so. I do not tie the…er, hawkishness of the Israel hawks to their race or religion. That is nonsensical to me (indeed, every major GOP Presidential candidate save Paul is an Israel hawk fond of saying POTUS isn’t, facts be damned, and not one of these people is Jewish). Instead, I think it has more to do with the hawks’ raw anti – Obama racism. They think American Jews will buy into the view that Liberal blacks want to do nothing more than kiss Farrakhan’s ring, so Israel itself becomes a dog – whistle. I mean, can anyone remember Israel hawks suggesting-as often as they now suggest the same about Obama-that Bill Clinton hated Israel and Jews? Yes, it was suggested that Clinton was a bumbler in the peace process and friendly to Arafat, but an anti – Jewish bigot?
I’m not a hawk on Israel, but a pragmatist (there’s alot to unpack in that word, and not all for this thread), close to Obama, but not all the way there. I wish, for example, he had not supported the use of air power by Israel in Lebanon, as that specific tactic does not appear to have been a strategic plus, but I have no problem with POTUS publicly criticizing Israel over the settlements (indeed, I think that was a smart way for the president to remind Bibi that the PM’d better stop doubting Obama’s guts, given how much the PM needs him to do things like fight Israel’s deligitimization in the UN).
I’ve read alot of Ackerman’s stuff. He strikes me as a solid reporter and I don’t think he was trying to elevate his background above anyone else’s. He was trying, rather, to communicate his discomfort with a certain phrase, and he did so, in part, by giving a brief history of it. He did his homework, yet he was dismissed by Cole and others here. He deserves better, and he should’ve gotten something better based on the fact that, as Alex @69 suggests, there is also an ugly history to reflexively associating black people with something like food stamps. Cole has called the likes of Newt out on this in the past, even the fairly recent past, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to insist Jews also get a fair hearing.
As for me, based on the history of phrases like “dual loyalties” and “Israel Firster,” I avoid them, and Ackerman, under all the sarcasm, wrote a good post about a week ago urging people to do the same. It reads, in part:
“From now on, everyone gets an allotment of times they get to say or imply someone else is either an anti-semite or an Israel-firster. We are going to cap it at three. You get to play that card three times in your entire career. Think of it like lives in a video game; only there is no Konami code for extra men.”
The point, I think, is that it is so difficult to find hard evidence for the kinds of charges mentioned above that people should only bring them up on an EXTREMELY limited basis, if at all.
I agree. Someone like John Hagee has publicly laid out support for Israel so warped that it makes him an anti – Semite (we learned during the ’08 Presidential campaign, for example, that the “Pastor” loved him the Holocaust), but he’s one guy who’s presented inarguable hard evidence.
Similarly, one can’t argue with what a Jonathan Pollard did, and as I’ve written elsewhere, the likes of Andrew Adler shouldn’t expect anyone to care about his delicate fee fees, given that he dreamed of a Presidential assassination.
There you have it: rare cases in which “anti semite” and “Israel Firster” can be used, if only because the evidence is so strong and you’re looking for a way to forcefully condemn a clearly bad person. If you’re going to bring the rhetorical bazooka, though, it doesn’t strike me as wrong to first show people you know how to use it properly, so you don’t wind up spraying civilians.
SMALL EDIT: Sorry for the wordiness on the whole post, but one more point on how we talk about Israel: I’d love to see the “Hawk/Dove/Pragmatist” labels displayed universally. They strike me as smarter than “Bibi’s Lackey” or whatever else is floating around out there.
Benjamin Franklin
@eemom:
Who’s ‘We?
Enquiring minds demand to know..
eemom
@Benjamin Franklin:
Your vast and attentive audience, of course.
btw, I deleted the @you because I realized you were quoting someone else.
Sad Iron
@eemom: No reason to wait. How about we start with the word “nigger,” which, both in and out of the black community, has been the source of a lot of productive and meaningful dialogue, especially regarding conflicts within the black community about this very topic–what it means to transform the meaning of a word or phrase based on its context. Was that fast enough? We could also extend that to the reasonable discussion of the word “nigger” as it related to the occupy protests, where there was debate about a woman holding a sign that read “the woman is the nigger of the world,” which was also a productive dialogue that wasn’t shut down immediately by the type of tactics you prefer. Would you like me to go on?
eemom
@Sad Iron:
That is NOT an example of the type of usage you seemed to be advocating above — and what others who champion the usage of “Israel-firsters” are certainly advocating.
You’re talking about using the word “nigger,” in all of its ugliness, to prove a point about some other type of bigotry. What the “Israel firster” lexicographers are saying is that that term should be used as a legitimate ADJECTIVE, not a pejorative.
Kind of like saying, hey, what the hell is wrong with “darky”? I mean they ARE dark, aren’t they?
Benjamin Franklin
@eemom:
I demure to your opinion
Sad Iron
@eemom: No. This is what you asked for: “I’d like to hear an example of some other phrase that was coined as a hate-mongering epithet, but somehow ended up serving a useful purpose in constructive dialogue.” That is what you got, without delay. The word “nigger” has indeed served a useful purpose in constructive dialogue. Period. Full stop. Now, you can try to shift your original request, as you do above, by simply pointing out the obvious–that the examples are not exactly the same. Agreed. But why don’t you ask, say, Mos Def if “nigger” is only a pejorative, rather than a legitmate adjective in his lexicon.
Alex
@Sad Iron: I will gladly concede your superior knowledge of post-modernism, if that forwards the debate in a constructive direction. I believe I made myself clear. I reject the effort by some on this thread who’d like to dissect “Israel-firster” in a vacuum. As if the term wasn’t (and isn’t) used in a particular way by those who coined it and their acolytes. Not motorik exemplifies this endeavor in a lovingly articulate way. I would again draw a comparison to racially-loaded language that is often used regarding welfare, ACORN, and voter fraud. Sure, conservative rhetoric on these matters could be assessed on its own terms — maybe Tea Partiers are indeed worried about the corruption of the voting process, et cetera. But I think you’d agree that would be unjustifiably literal and near-sighted. It sure isn’t the direction taken by FPers at this blog. Similarly, I don’t think lobbying around the accusation “Israel-firster” can be justified simply by determining whether those to whom it is directed actually place the interests of the State of Israel before that of the USA. The term is inherently branded by its history.
I do not claim Greenwald is an anti-semite. When he is confronted with what he regards as an attempt to narrow the margins of acceptable political debate, he usually digs in, on matters both important and not. This is often admirable. It doesn’t mean that he is not trafficking in anti-semitic terminology.
Sad Iron
@Alex: I see your point and concede to a lot of what you say here. (Did you mean to type: “Now motorik”?)And I do understand your point about ACORN and dog whistles,etc,but my main point is you can do both at the same time–point out the loaded lexical history while debunking the literal context it’s couched in (voter fraud is, well, a fraud). Still, your argument reaches me. That said, if Greenwald is trafficking, it’s non-intentional.
Alex
@Sad Iron: I think we’ve probably clarified our positions sufficiently. Greenwald is actually a collateral matter for me. He wrote today that he has only ever used that term once, and I take him at his word. I do not actually believe he any bigoted inclinations whatsoever. However, he can sometimes be tone-deaf, and remarkably stubborn, on matters like this one. Again, I sometimes like this about him. But I do recall not too long ago where he got in a needlessly extended spat about whether he could legitimately compare some pro-Obama blogger to Leni Riefenstahl. Rather than drop the matter, he issued jeremiad after jeremiad about the relative merits of Godwin’s Law. This was unfortunate because it distracted people away from his core point about the thoughtlessly tribalistic tendencies of devoted Obama supporters. I think something similar is happening here. He justly resents the instinctive temptation of many to smear critics of Israel as anti-Semites, and he has a visceral dislike of Jeffrey Goldberg in this regard. I believe he has permitted these impulses to back himself into a corner where he is defending a largely indefensible term.
fasteddie9318
@Mnemosyne:
I’d guess the more likely scenario is that you haven’t read much about, well, any other aspect of European history because, wow, we’re really going to argue that European Christians took it worse, post-Reformation, than European Jews took it from, basically, back when the Romans decided to go Christian up through the middle of the last century? Because it seems to me there’s quite a bit of daylight between the Catholic/Protestant wars (“wars” as in, “violence on each side against the other”) after the Reformation and the 1700 years or so when “hey, let’s go burn and ransack the Jewish quarter” was a legitimate entertainment option on a slow Friday night in just about every European city with a Jewish population.
kindness
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying (wrt Israel & Palestine) that both groups have missed many opportunities to create peace. Arafat did it when they offered him the 98% of the West Bank & he balked. The Israelis, well, I can understand the fears that some Jews have in not being in control. Pretty much every country in Europe has screwed them at one point or another. The big issue I have is right now the Israeli’s are doing to the Palestinians what the world previously did to the Jews. They both have big faults. But I really do think the Palestinian people and the Israelis share much. They both are family centric. They both prize education. Sure there are cultural differences. Are they worse than what we face here in the states? No, but the stakes are higher over there. They are gonna have to find peace. They have to. They can’t be enemies and live, not just right next to but inside each other.
I guess it was me earlier saying the current Israeli policy is one of apartheid that some here are saying is insulting Israelis. Well, I’m sorry but look up the definition of apartheid. It’s exactly what’s going on over there now. No one here in the States would put up with they are over there. No one. We’d be in open shooting revolt if a government treated us like the Palestinians are treated. It doesn’t justify shooting rockets into Israel or kidnapping or murder or land confiscation for new settlements, but if we were in their shoes. Well, I’d be really amazed if Americans wouldn’t be worse. We’ve had it easy. We haven’t been occupied and powerless for over two hundred years. They got to find a way and we should be doing everything we can to help those that want peace and everything we can to marginalize those that don’t (I’m looking at you Bibi & Hamas). That isn’t racism. That’s real.
wilfred
Israel Firster is starting to sting. Good.
Alex’s comments are good examples of the lawlery and manipulative hasbara that emerges when people start to shed a little light on Israel Firstism.
The term stands, get used to it.
Alex
@Wilfred: Not like I needed to deny nor affirm it, but I am neither Jewish nor Israeli. I’m not even particularly taken with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But I fear you reveal far, far more about yourself than whom you critique when you arbitrate the validity of a political term by how much it “stings” the Zionists.
wifred
@ Alex:
More hasbara.
The term Israel First is gaining traction because more and more Americans question the sense of blind support of Israel over their own interests as American citizens.
The rest of the argument is the usual overdetermination guilt manipulation.
eemom
I will say that the discussion on this thread has been much more intelligent and nuanced than most on which this topic has come up. Thanks to Alex, fasteddie, Roger Moore, Jay, and others who are capable of comprehending nuance.
Sad Iron
@Alex. Agreed.
eemom
@Alex:
I’m not either — and yet I’ve been smeared as a “tribalist” when I’ve opposed the demonization of Israel. Funny that.
Sad Iron
@Alex: And I’d also make clear just the core of my position, outside of the specifics here–I think it can, at times, be equally dangerous to restrict present expression soley based on historical example/precedent. (All that said, I appreciate the discussion. Thanks.)
Nutella
Let’s stipulate that Israel Firster is an offensive phrase for historical reasons.
What then is an accurate and reasonable term for the many Americans today, some Jewish and some not, who think that the current government of Israel must be supported politically and financially and must not be criticized no matter what? There are a lot of people who refuse to permit criticism of Israel. What is a good way to describe those people and that political position?
Jay
@Sad Iron:
Thanks for bringing up recent arguments about “nigger” (FYI: I’m a very white guy from a rural east coast town in which the word was regularly used by right – wing whites and those of us who objected, like me, were bullied into keeping our mouths shut. The fact that I was a kid at the time does not excuse my relative cowardice, but it does explain it).
You mentioned Mos Def and I wanted to riff off that.
Take note, white people: recent discussions on the word, “nigger” have been led by blacks. The hip – hop community is a mainly black community, but that is changing. I have not lived, not even close, the history of institutionalized bigotry and violence behind what James Lipton called “the ugliest word in the English language,” so I just don’t feel qualified to lead a discussion on the word. Yes, I’ve contributed to such discussions, but I’ve done so knowing full well that a contributor only chips in on what others are saying, without leading the way. I don’t think it’s totally impossible for one who isn’t black to lead a discussion on “nigger,” but that person had better read up, and he had better include in the discussion people who’ve been targets of the word.
Now, what Ackerman was doing, I think, was trying, as a Jew, to lead a discussion on a couple of phrases of which Jews have long been the primary targets, and that have long wounded them. I’m not Jewish, and after following the free – wheeling discussions, among parts of black America, about the word “nigger,” I disagreed with Ackerman right off when he started his op/ed by saying “there is a right way and a wrong way for Jews to talk to each other,” but I didn’t take that as an excuse to stop reading. I have no doubt that Ackerman has been on the receiving end of at least some of the ugliness that so often accompanies phrases like “Israel Firster” and “dual loyalties,” so I’m going to shut up and listen, as I would in the case of a black person who’s lived the word, “nigger.” I can air my disagreements after the person in question has made his or central case. And non – Jews: do I think discussing all this stuff is out of bounds for us? No. I just want to stress, one more time, the importance of actively seeking out those most likely to be affected by such loaded language. It’d be cool to see a Spencer Ackerman or an Emily Hauser guest – blog here.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT A HAGEE OR A POLLARD IS UNDESERVING OF HARSH LANGUAGE, JUST THAT WE MUST BE CAREFUL TO TRAIN IT ON THOSE TYPES OF TARGETS ALONE.
taylormattd
You have the gall to call Spencer Ackerman’s piece “tedious” while simultaneously citing to that vomit-inducing, finger-wagging, holier-than-thou propagandist Glenn Greenwald? Really??
taylormattd
Oh, and for christ’s sake, did you read a single fucking word of Ackerman’s piece?
Honestly, you are such a fucking dick sometimes. This is the kind of shit that explains why it took so long to finally renounce your republican bullshit. If you actually read and consider what he wrote, it is entirely harmless and accurate. The problem for St. Greenwald is, of course, such a piece infringes upon his right to hysteria.
not motorik
@eemom: Uh, who? ABL?
You mean that shitty blogger who removed herself after she realized that she didn’t belong here?
not motorik
I reject the Zionist censors’ attempt to restrict the use of a descriptor that doesn’t even necessarily refer to Jews or the Jewish people; for example, there’s a legitimate argument to be made that Michelle Bachmann or other Christian evangelical nuts could be fairly labeled “Israel firsters.”
If the epithet could reasonably be applied to non-Jews, it’s not anti-Semitic, plain and simple, no matter how much huffing and puffing Lt. Col. Goldberg and American Jewish censors run around and point fingers.
It’s astounding that Americans who have the temerity to put another country’s interests first feel like they can tell people what to call them. They’re lucky it isn’t “traitors.”