Ask Pajamas Media

One of the defining characteristics of US politics and media is that there is little or no sanction for casual and groundless accusations of anti-semitism.

Aside from the fact that Hitch has some Jewish blood, he was not so much anti-Israel (not anti Jewish) as pro-Palestinian in his leftist days.
Now he has shifted to the right and fully supports Bush. However, Hitch, unlike the dummy(ies) at the site given knows that one can not simply say that whatever a president does is ok because we are at war. Now, it would be more to the point if so
many who talk about NSA etc first read up on what they do or did and how they do it. Then ask why the FBI is currently complaining about the loads of “leads” they scoop up (NSA) and dump on FBI. After all, aside from thefact that the FBI sayhs nothing of anyh value has thus far come from NSA snooping, isn’t the FBI supposed (also) get court order to tap phones?

Hitch, then, as do many others, nows that what and how NSA gloms material is not how they were mandated to do things (see Bamford two books), and that they have on their own taken on new duties and subsequently had these moves approved by Bush.

Hitchens’ Kissinger book had an anti-Semitic whiff, but maybe it was just vivid writing. It was one of three amusing slam jobs (Di and Mother Theresa being the other two).

A lot of Red State people are in Pajamas, and some of the Red State attacks on Soros had a bad odor too. The guy finally explained that Soros was intellectually bankrupt because he followed JS Mill rather than Aquinas.

I’ve never understood why the Democrats haven’t matched their sugar daddy against the wingnut sugar daddies — Moon, the Koches, Scaife, and Murdoch. Soros is by far the most admirable one in the bunch, and Scaife and Moon show signs of actual mental illness.

Actually I do know. Soros fits the Jewish stereotype too well, and he’s not a “friend of Israel”. The Republicans would hit him with both hands (he’s already been accused of being a Nazi collaborator for something he unknowingly did, once, when he was about 15.

If Kissinger had died about the same time that Di and Theresa, Hitchens could have written a “Bad Luck Comes in Threes” book> As it is, #3 was President Mobutu of the Congo / Zaire, and it just didn’t work.

“Hitchens’ Kissinger book had an anti-Semitic whiff”

Can you justify this claim?

What do you mean by “*the* actual quote”? There was plenty more in the article, some of which comes much closer to explicitly accusing Hitchens of anti-semitism.

…Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound.

Or its larger meaning gets lost:

Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. In a Biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah’s eldest son. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral Nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Jews and other Semites settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine.

Present day speakers of Semitic languages are as diverse in physical, psychological, cultural, and sociological characteristics as are speakers of Indo European languages. The most prominent Semites today are Arabs and Jews. They are different in many ways, and they have absorbed a variety of European traits through centuries of migration and trade. The origin of Semitic languages, however, and many similarities in the stories of Islam and Judaism reflect a common ancient history.

Many years ago when I was in college we sponsored a symposium on the Mideast. Moshe Dayan spoke one day, Ashraf Ghorbal, then Egptian Ambassador to the US spoke another day and on the third day we had a panel consisting of a PLO representative (whose name escapes me), Ambassador L. Dean Brown and Dr. Hans Morgenthau, the International Relations Academic. I believed Morgenthau (who was pissy the whole evening long) made a comment alleging anti-semitism by the PLO rep, which drew the response from Brown (a smart, approachable and affable man) that it would be hard for a semite to be anti-semitic.

Oh my, this has become a veritable honeypot…

Abb1: Michael Neumann writes

Here’s what Michael Neumann also writes:

Michael Neumann on “reasonable antisemitism”

In a correspondence with the antisemitic web site “Jewish Tribal Review”

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumann2.htm

I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don’t care. This is not to say there isn’t plenty of room for legitimate disagreement about whether a direct attack on the Jewish lobby and Jewish influence generally is tactically sound or not: we disagree on this, and the issues are too complex to argue here and now.

And… on antisemitism in Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.

Randy Paul,

Antisemitic is simply anti-Jewish. “Antisemitism” was invented for and aimed exclusively at Jews. The meme that other “semites” can’t be “antisemitic” is a recent invention and a product of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has no basis in the term’s origins or history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

Otto: I could have once, but I don’t have the passage here. His vividly-written descriptions of Kissinger sometimes seemed to play to anti-Semitic stereotypes. This was brought to my attention by an American Zionist friend before 9/11, when Hitchens was still a leftist in good standing. he expected me to defend Hitchens since I was a leftist (as I still am) but I saw his point.

Some of the anti-Semites I know of are also anti-Muslim. They’re nativists, palaeocons, and militia types, and they interpret “anti-Semitism” their own way.

A little off topic, but if anyone here knows of a good grad student casting about for a dissertation subject for a doctorate in rhetoric, have the student check out the Maryland Moment at firedoglake.blogspot.com and the thousand comments which are stripping the Washington Post bare (and dropping its stock price.) Truth and its advocacy are displayed in a brilliant variety of language and tones shaded from humor to vitriol. It’s an Aristotilian Symposium and Clinic, which will reward a reader.

Soru
The point of Tran Dac Loi’s comments is that ‘the Iraqi resistance (are like) the many aborted attempts to end French colonisation of Vietnam before World War II.’ What he is arguing is that: ‘Iraq needs a unifying political figure like Ho Chi Minh. ”You need a political figure who can introduce a long-term objective that’s in the basic interest of the majority of the people.”’

Avoiding the obvious fact that he would say that, wouldn’t he, do you agree with him? Are you arguing that what the Iraqi resistance needs is a Ho Chi Minh figure? Are you also arguing that ‘a programme in Iraq similar to Vietnam’s revolution … based on |a single political party, aimed at throwing out the aggressor, defending the unity of the country and the country’s economic and political sovereignty’ is what is desirable?(emphasis added). And are we to infer that if such a resistance did grow up (as it did in Vietnam) you would then support it against the Americans and British?

If not, why did you post this link?

Brendan: Avoiding the obvious fact that he would say that, wouldn’t he, do you agree with him? Are you arguing that what the Iraqi resistance needs is a Ho Chi Minh figure? Are you also arguing that ‘a programme in Iraq similar to Vietnam’s revolution … based on |a single political party, aimed at throwing out the aggressor, defending the unity of the country and the country’s economic and political sovereignty’ is what is desirable?(emphasis added). And are we to infer that if such a resistance did grow up (as it did in Vietnam) you would then support it against the Americans and British?

I’m not a frequenter of these forums, so I’m not sure if I’m being trolled. I’ll reply in good faith.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally, agree that “defending the unity of the country and the country’s economic and political sovereignty is what is desirable”. I’m not clear on what your goals might be if you disagree with that notion.

From that notion (note the word sovereignty) flows self-determination.

Notice that none of this has anything to do with U.S. goals.

I do think that Vietnam is more notable in contrast rather than comparison, but that said, there are a number of lessons learned there that are being ignored (or rather, left for later mop-up).

And from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, I don’t support those who fight against us. I do empathize with the reasons why they do so, and attempt to better understand their reasoning. Lest someone lash out, I believe empathy and and understanding of local propaganda are sited in a certain textbook of war that many seem to like to quote in support of this latest one.

Franco,

I was commenting on how it’s larger meaning (being against semites) got lost. By the way, L. Dean Brown (neither Arab nor Jew) made the comment in 1975, so people recognized it even then.He also didn’t say it would be impossible for the PLO guy to be semitic. He was making the point that Arabs and Jews have a common history in some regards.

Kind of reminds me of hearing Carmen McRae singing the song, “Am I Blue.” When she get to the line “Was I gay?”, everyone laughed and she made the verbal aside “Well, either you are or you’re not.” No one thought she meant happy.

Rilkefan:

I thought a Jew was someone who practices Judaism. I’m Roman Catholic, but I’m proud to say I’m of Jewish ancestry on my father’s side.

Hey Franco, since you’re still here, maybe you could explain why you posted those Neumann quotes – what do they have to do with his point that the term ‘anti-semitism’ has been inflated to the extent of being meaningless.

Thanks.

Whatever the original intent of “anti-Semitism” was, it’s a word which has a literal meaning. My guess is that most of the original anti-Semites were also anti-Arab, and it would surprise me enormously if anti-Semitic literature didn’t suggest that Jews are really a Middle-Eastern, non-Western people like the Arabia.

Anti-Arab anti-semitism was fairly irrelevant 150 years ago, but it isn’t nowadays, so perhaps we need a new vocabulary and a new typology. Right now we have anti-Jewish Arabs, anti-Arab Jews, Western philo-Arabic Jew-haters, Western philo-Jewish Arab-haters, and also true Western anti-Semites who hate both Jews and Arabs.

So maybe the new reality needs a new terminology.

I don’t think it’s useful to take a word like “anti-semitism” which normally means “anti-Jew” and redefine it to mean anti-Jew and anti-Arab. I won’t bother getting into the original meaning of the word–it doesn’t matter. It’s got a clear meaning now. Besides, it’s silly to say a person can’t be an anti-semite (meaning anti-Jew) because he’s a semite (meaning Arab). There are people who hate Jews and that’s what the word “antisemite” means to most people. People who hate Arabs are called “racists”. Or should be. They aren’t called it often enough, in my opinion.

But I think it’s obvious that false claims of antisemitism are often made to shut down harsh criticism of Israel even though accurate. Hitchens and all other lefties who write about what happened to the Palestinians are inevitably going to be tagged with this label.

I’d have to go back to the Kissinger book to see if I could pick out an antisemitic theme. The problem I have with that accusation, off the top of my head, is that Kissinger really is an amoral conspiratorial guy with massive amounts of blood on his hands, so any truthful description of him is going to make him out to be a stereotypical villain. Since he’s Jewish, it’s a short step to claiming the description is “antisemitic”. It’s like anyone who criticizes evil capitalist bankers is automatically using antisemitic code language. Sometimes they are and sometimes they’re just talking about evil capitalist bankers.

———————————————–
I think one of “Hitch”‘s old buddies, Alexander Cockburn, said it, so poignantly, best:

“What a truly disgusting sack of shit Hitchens is…”

He’s definately more clued-in than anyone over at Pajamas Media, not that that says much, considering the quality of ‘journalism’ it purveys.

I think that makes his sneering and snivelling attacks on the peace movement all the more deplorable. I get the impression that he has to first convince himself of his position – dictated of course by whatever is his political cabal of the moment – before attempting to convince others of it.

I don’t know if Hitchens is an anti-Semite, though he’s not afraid of painting others as such, including Cindy Sheehan (and painting her as much more besides).

He’s certainly anti-Catholic, unashamedly so, and in fact he seems to revile in his bigotry: his snide rejection of the Ramadan ‘pause’ during the Afghanistan war of 2001 was summed up with the assertion that, “I don’t stop insulting the Christian coalition at Eastertime.”

I suppose his hatred of religion stems from his Trotskyist history: “I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity,” he asserted. A “horrible, repulsive” act, he called it, reflecting less on those who believe in God than on his own nature.

Then again, as his political leanings shift with the wind, it’s hard for anyone to derive any truth from what Hitchens says. The real truth is in how he says it, and perhaps more importantly than that, when: because this paints a clear picture of the man and his motives.

He is a man who has deep personal regard for the writings of George Orwell, and perhaps at one stage shared some of that man’s convictions, though none of his ability nor personal integrity.

He at one stage despised the “Reagan junta”, and hoped rather than an ideological American victory over communism, for a “socialist renewal in the Soviet Union.”

And in the case of the late Pope John Paul II, widely regarded as anti-Communist, it’s not hard to see why Hitchens charmingly calls him “an elderly and querulous celibate, who came too late and who stayed too long.”

Hitchens called the Reagan White House “a regime of crime and corruption”, at the time when his sympathies lay with another power. That power having since eroded, his positions have softened. The sneers are now targetted at “Islamic theocratic fascism”: less organised and powerful than the USSR of course, and indeed than the United States.

It’s not hard to see why, even considering the ideological similarities between the US administration then and now, Hitchens’ tone has changed so much. Not because he is so viciously against “fascism”, as manifest by a religion (as if to him there were any other kind), but because he needs a base to stand on.

Perhaps his tone will change again should conflict emerge between the United States and China.

Hitchens says he “can remember a time when the peace movement was not an auxiliary to dictators”.

And he sees neoconservatism as a “distinctively new strain of thought, preached by ex-leftists, who believed in using US power to spread democracy.”

He believes that if neoconservatism “can become dominant within the Republican Party, it can turn US power into a revolutionary force.” Perhaps his ideals haven’t changed so much after all – only the powerbase at where they are to lie.

But who would they revolt against? Or target more likely? Hitchens’ has some people in mind:

“The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represent all the most reactionary elements on earth. … However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this.”

I don’t know if he believes it or not, but this is beside the point: turn the tables around, wait a few years, and Hitchens will be reserving such bile for the next group of “fascists”, as long as their fascism is manifest by a power less than that to whom he’s sidled up with.

And as I said, his political blusterings are hardly a reflection on what he really believes.

Does he really think Paul Wolfowitz is a “bleeding heart”, as he so affectionately labelled him, without a hint of the biting sarcasm for which he’s made himself known?

Occaissionally he lets something go that seems almost honest and it is from here and the timing of his statements that we get an accurate portrait of the man:

“We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.”

Indeed.

————————————————

http://www.amconmag.com

If those who hate Arabs are called “racists”, why shouldn’t those who hate Jews also be called “racists”?

And if exaggerated criticism of Israeli government actions is a virulent contemporary form of anti-semitism leading to firebombing, then how come exaggerated criticism of, say, Syrian or Iraqi government is not a virulent contemporary form of arabo-phobia also leading to (much deadlier) firebombings? This is a paragraph from the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban (removed from the final document):

We are concerned with the prevalence of anti-Zionism and attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel through wildly inaccurate charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, as a virulent contemporary form of anti-Semitism leading to firebombing of synagogues, armed assaults against Jews, incitements to killing, and the murder of innocent Jews, for their support for the existence of the State of Israel, the assertion of the right to self determination of the Jewish people and the attempts, through the State of Israel, to preserve their cultural and religious identity.

I saw a gigantic poodle the other day, and turning to my wife said, “It’s not a toy poodle, it’s a …” suddenly realizing there’s no antonym of “toy” (in the sense of “object children play with”).

It might be rhetorically inconvenient for the abb1s out there that there’s a useful, emotionally-loaded word to describe racism against Jews and only the generic, emotionally-laden “racism” for racism against Arabs, but too bad.

“but I wouldn’t call him careful.”

To clarify, I meant careful with words, not facts. That is, I doubt that he would publish something with overtly antisemitic code-words or phrases, even if he actually is antisemitic.

I meant:

any truthful description of him is going to make him out to be a stereotypical villain. Since he’s Jewish, it’s a short step to claiming the description is “antisemitic”. It’s like anyone who criticizes evil capitalist bankers is automatically using antisemitic code language.

The question is whether Hitchens used code language or distorted his description to point up stereotypically Jewish characteristics. You’re saying there’s a short step, then assuming there’s none.

Probably if you had phrased your point more along the lines of, “There’s more overlap between an antisemitic and a factual portrayal than usual, given K’s villany and his unquestioned interest in taking over the world, so one should be esp. careful in examining accusations of portrayals of him as antisemitic”, I wouldn’t have objected.

john, I can’t see the wisdom of tossing out clear, specific, useful words with imperfect etymologies (in effect weakening the language) while keeping the broad, nearly meaningless ones. I’ve no IR or whatever background, but it seems reasonable to me to break “imperialism” up into narrower categories and name them after the PMs or Secretarys of State or philosophers who espoused them – the only people who’d lose would be obscurantists (and students forced to memorize more terminology, of course). “Imperialism” would still be available as a catch-all.

“You’re reading my post with more precision than it deserved.”
Well, you do seem like a careful writer. No doubt overparsing is a hazard of reading poetry. Also having doctrinaire views of language and how to maintain it.

Semitism was the original word and anti, being a prefix can be added to any noun to be in opposition.

Randy, the original word was “anti-semitism”, derived, as I explained above, from a distortion of the parallel theory of languages. Anti-semitism is the original and classic term for Jew-hatred. There was, at the time, no “semitism” to oppose, only Jews, but “anti-semitism” had a more scientific ring than Judenhass. And, as I also explained above, unless you are referring to linguistic groups when you say “Semitic peoples”, your usage smacks of pseudoscience.

abb1, consider what a straw man you’re stuck attacking. Think for a moment about the history of the last century. Think for a moment about the unextinguished prejudices of our time. Please. I’m trying not to think worse of you.

I don’t say it’s special, execpt to the extent that it describes attitudes of immense historical importance. Fact is, the word exists, and the only reason I can see one might have for opposing its existence is to inhibit its appropriate use, or both its appropriate and rhetorical uses.

If you want to argue that there are no races and therefore we should do away with the word “racism”, I’ll listen to you with less prejudice.

I’ve been reading Horsefeathers for years, and as I reminded my readers this morning, having Stephen Rittenberg claim you’re an antisemite not quite like him observing the sun rise in west. Prior to the war, he wrote (at http://www.doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives/000107.php#000107 ), “Anti-semitism, either straightforwardly spewed from mosques, or covertly expressed in the chanceries of Europe, is the force that unites the peace mobs of the left with totalitarians like Saddam.” Jimmy Carter is also an antisemite under his formulation.

anti-semitism

Emereson, weren’t dictionaries created to avoid conversations like this one.

One big advantage of changing termology and finding a new typology would be to avoid discussions like this one.

Is this plan to rationalise and reform the English language going to be performed wholesale, all at once, or just one word at a time?

soru

“We’re talking about this one word right now, Soru. Do you have a problem with that?”

If you want to not look like you’re attacking this particular word out of antisemitism, you ought to at least advocate a consistent approach to language.

“Jet, you can’t win an argument by pointing at the dictionary.”

Of course he can. He just did.

“there’s been a change in the realities”

The reality that there was antisemitism hasn’t changed; the reality that there is antisemitism hasn’t changed, and seems unlikely to. The reality that no sensible prescriptivist operating under the mistaken view that there’s a problem with this word would advocate abandoning its simple, clear, specific, useful, settled meaning isn’t going to change.

You can’t win an argument by referring to Wikopedia either, for Christ’s sake. How is Wikopedia edited, anyway? “This usage has not been generally accepted” isn’t a refutation of the usage; it means that there’s controversy. I do not claim that my point is generally accepted.

Or is your plan to go off and change the encyclopedias along with the dictionaries?

Jesus fuck, soru, you’re talking about Wikopedia. Wikopedia is changed every minute of the day. That’s what Wikopedia is all about.

I’ve read one of Bernard Lewis’s books (The Muslim Discovery of Europe) and had problems with it. It was based almost entirely on fairly recent Ottoman sources and focussed on a negative presentation of the evidence against the Ottomans. I had been looking forward to something much more interesting. SO his opinion is not definitive for me.

Rewriting dictionaries is what lexicogrphers do. It’s not a crime against nature. I am not a lexicographer but am suggesting that it might be a good idea to come up with a new typology and a new term.

Rilkefan, the fact that “anti-Semitism” is a word with meaningful elements which can be meaningfully and unambiguously parsed, combined with the fact that the parsed meaning is misleading, combined with the fact that the discrepancies between the conventional and the parsed meanings directly impact contemporary political issues, means that maybe new terminology is needed. It isn’t an absolute case, but it’s a reasonable one.

You have intimated that maybe I’m antisemitic. Please clarify what you meant by that.

My argumentative instinct wants to continue. I think that there are reasons why the etymological peculiarities of the word anti-Semitism are more important than those of other words. That’s because there is a substantive political issue having to do with Arabs, Jews, Israel, and Palestine. And this is likewise the reason why the issue becomes heated.

A second reason is that we’re not talking about Latin or old Anglo-Saxon derivations; “anti” and “ism” are currently active word-formers with fixed meanings, and “Semite” has a definite meaning including but not limited to “Jew”.

And dictionary definitions do not win arguments. Much less, Wikopedia definitions.

On the other hand, my own personal Mr. Language Person, Steve at Language Hat, agrees with Rilkefan and the others.

This might be one of those political arguments like “negro” vs. “black” vs. “African-American”. I believe that it’s fallen out that way here. Steve has a consistent policy on this kind of question, but anti-anti-semitism (conventional meaning) was one of his motives.

So anyway, I’m going to let it drop, and without conceding everything, do not claim to have won the argument.

Best site on the net.