A note to Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters Magazine.
I noted with some interest your recent editorial discussing American / Israeli relations and the reasons for same. I was remarkably impressed by how easily you were able to shrug off both Bush’s call for a Palestinian state and recent criticisms of Israel in your drive to indicate that the neocon movement was both running the the WoT and dominated by Jews, especially your dedication in determining and indicating those Jewish members of the ’50 most influential neocons in the US” (whether they would identify themselves as neocons or not). How – lucky – for you that half of them turned out to be Jewish! Why, it couldn’t have come out better if you had assembled the list deliberately!
Now, I am not myself a neoconservative, although I agree with a fair number of their policy positions. As for Judiasm… well, to echo Professor Tolkien when he was faced with a not completely dissimilar situation, “…I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.” Nevertheless, please note this symbol (regrettably made nortorious by certain other individuals dedicated to searching out hidden Jewish influence and power) –
– anyway. I find the thought of confusing people like you about just who is and who isn’t Jewish around here to be a strangely compelling one. Not to mention probably a mitzvah.
Moe
PS: Shorter Moe Lane: Kalle Lasn, Geh kak afen yam.
Via Spartacus. Wait, no, he’s Spartacus. Or maybe he’s Spartacus. Or him, although he may not have formalized it yet.
With my name, I’ll probably have trouble fooling anyone. But with the pink patch on one shoulder, I probably do need a star of david on the other to keep from walking in circles
Matt Yglesias has two posts up on this – yesterday he was outraged, now he’s more “well, they’re idiots”.
I incline to the latter.
Incidentally, Moe, I appreciate the solidarity. Just keep an eye out for the Gibsons.
I am O’Spartacus. . like a napalm baum! Shalom aleikhem mal’akhei hasharet.
I have to guiltily admit to being a onetime suscriber to Adbusters. Its primary theme, the moral and spiritual degradation of modern consumer culture, is one I find important. And I do not recall views like these seeping into the magazine. However I eventually stopped subscribing due to the incessantly despairing tone. I thought the story of freeing oneself from the meaningless daily grind was fundamentally a happy one, but it was always stories of nihilistic outrage and victimhood.
So I don’t recommend it.
Also, as if I have to make this point, the little black dot next to the names of the Jews is in extremely poor taste.
You know, the Yellow Star is also closely associated with the Pink Triangle…
Both have come to mean something rather different in the aftermath.
Shorter Moe Lane: Kalle Lasn, Geh kak afen yam.
Shorter James Casey: What?
Longer James Casey: What?
Even longer James Casey: Could I have a translation so I know what I’m agreeing with?
There are two separate issues here being morphed into one.
First and foremost is the very distasteful list, and despite the editorial’s lame attempts to rationalize it, I find its overall intent horrific.
Second, however, is this:
So they called it. And there’s a perception here I think needs to be corrected before this sort of thing dies like it should. The perception is that one cannot criticize Israel without being considered anti-Semitic. I know the President has done so, but I’m talking about John Q. Public.
I’m not saying they’re not anti-Semitic (I think the overall effect of what they’re doing is indeed anti-Semitic), but I think there’s not much room for real, rational debate on the central issues of Israel and Middle East peace.
I have two close friends who are Jewish. One insists there is no room for debate. Israel is 100% right and that’s that. Pressed to explain herself, she’ll cite the Holocaust and insist any weakness…any at all…will ensure the death of all Jews.
The other (who’s quite proud of his Jewish-American heritage, make no mistake) feels Israel is out of control.
Guess which one is afraid to voice their true feelings?
There’s something wrong with that too.
“The perception is that one cannot criticize Israel without being considered anti-Semitic.” This is true, and it’s a disgusting tactic used by those who don’t want to talk about real issues, I don’t think it applies here.
As far as I know, none of the people on the list (and surely not a large number of them) are Israeli. They’re just Jewish. And to say that one requires or even implies the other is the dual-masters strain of anti-Semitism.
It’s the equivalent of being suspicous of Colin Powell’s influence when we’re engaged in Africa.
Edward, I do believe it’s often a question of context. Yes, I cannot safely criticize Israel in the middle of the Celebrate Israel rally, but neither can I strip naked and shake my endowments at adoring womyn. Move the action to the most recent Gay Pride Day I attended, and the appropriateness becomes reversed.
I remember Yehudit posting something similar: Jews who’ve never participated in communal Jewish life (I don’t myself, but the story makes sense to me) showing up to call Israel an apartheid state and declare that Sharon is worse than Hitler, and then being shocked, shocked! that they are not welcomed with open arms.
Jews who’ve never participated in communal Jewish life (I don’t myself, but the story makes sense to me) showing up to call Israel an apartheid state and declare that Sharon is worse than Hitler, and then being shocked, shocked! that they are not welcomed with open arms.
Excellent point Angua. You’re right about context of course. I can get really hot and angry with my brother the fundamentalist about religious issues at the family house, but it would be crass and totally inappropriate to do so at his church’s fundraiser.
What about online, however…where are the boundaries, do you think? I often find I’m in the same situation regarding Israel that I am regarding abortion. I’m officially pro-choice (meaning I vote pro-choice), but personally much more uncertain about whether a fetus is entitled to any rights (being an individualist).
Likewise, when it comes to Israel, I’m officially pro-Israel and vote as such, but personally I dislike the settlements so much it makes me angry sometimes. Mention this, however, and bring the wrath of many posters down on your head.
Does this mean I have no conviction on these issues? I prefer to believe it means I appreciate how complicated they are.
Also, I have to vote one way or the other, so I choose.