Via the Volokh lads, news that those tiresome Internet purveyors of laboured satire at Adbusters have made the startling discovery that, in general, Jews are more likely to have strong opinions about Israel than, say, Norwegians. Oy gevalt, as they say up the road from me in Golders Green, who’d have thought it. Christ knows what may happen next week when they spot the connection between the Northern Irish republican cause and the Church of Rome. Jesus.
Actually, what might be a lot more use than Adbusters’ idea would be a list of American pundits who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel, but nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide. (Or for that matter, people who haven’t visited Europe since student days but still regard themselves as experts on trends in anti-Semitism there). I can think of a few names off the top of my head, and I daresay CT commenters can think of others …
{ 27 comments }
marky 02.25.04 at 6:24 pm
Pat Robertson comes to mind….
Rob 02.25.04 at 7:03 pm
I don’t know if George Will is worse when he writes about what he doesn’t know in politics or when he writes about what he doesn’t know in baseball…
Liam 02.25.04 at 7:08 pm
Why stop your list-making there? How about Europeans who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel but have picked up a Yiddish phrase in Golders Green and think it qualifies them to dispense “friendly advice” to Jews and/or Israel? As they say up the road from where I come, oh sweet Jaysus!
Vinteuil 02.25.04 at 7:28 pm
I would be quite interested in seeing a list of “American pundits who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel, but nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide.”
Do tell. Please justify your answer.
Ted Barlow 02.25.04 at 7:29 pm
Dan, I don’t know if you meant it this way, but as I read you, you seem a little dismissive of legitimate complaints about the noxious “name and shame the Jews” tactic in the Adbusters article. You might want to consider adding a sentence to clarify.
Decnavda 02.25.04 at 7:45 pm
Um, might I sheepishly suggest that while yes, it is natural for people with a connection to a place to have a greater interest in it than those who don’t, those with such connections are not neccessarily the most *objective* sources of information. I have a number of close Indian friends and in-laws who are all good and intelligent and decent people, but none of them seems to consider the idea of giving the people of Kashmir a vote as to what country they want to be part of to be worth even serious consideration. I have never left this continent, who am I to disagree? For the same reason, I guess I have no reason to question the information given to the U.S. by the Iraqi exiles who urged us to war. It’s their country, they should know.
decnavda 02.25.04 at 7:49 pm
Clarification – I am NOT defending the anti-semites making lists of Jews. I am questioning the implied snear in this post about people expressing opinions about places they’ve never been. We are all world citizens, even those who can not afford world travel.
Dan Simon 02.25.04 at 8:00 pm
On more than one occasion–and at least once in comments on this blog, in fact–I’ve defended France from rabidly anti-French rhetoric spouted by pugnacious Americans. Does that mean I’ve mistaken myself for someone qualified to act as a spokesperson for the Gallic cause worldwide?
Or is Israel the only country whose defenders must show their qualifications in order to speak in her defense?
Kurt 02.25.04 at 9:00 pm
Actually, what might be a lot more use than Adbusters’ idea would be a list of American pundits who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel, but nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide. (Or for that matter, people who haven’t visited Europe since student days but still regard themselves as experts on trends in anti-Semitism there
Actually, I’d be a lot more interested in substantive responses to the actual arguments these pundits might make about Zionism, or European anti-Semitism, rather than concerning myself with the pundits’ “qualifications” to make the arguments. But maybe I’m funny that way.
Sebastian Holsclaw 02.25.04 at 9:05 pm
Sheesh, this is like the third post on Jews on crookedtimber that initially smacks of defending anti-semites. I know you guys aren’t anti-Jew, but I would think you could take just a little care when you address the topic. Take it from a conservative who is willing to talk about race: if you want to talk about a subject that plays into stereotypes about people of your political persuasion (race for conservatives, defending anti-semites for European intellectuals) and if you don’t actually agree with those stereotypical beliefs, for God’s sake take pains to make it clear.
GMT 02.25.04 at 9:15 pm
I’d be a lot more interested in substantive responses to the actual arguments these pundits might make about Zionism, or European anti-Semitism, rather than concerning myself with the pundits’ “qualifications†to make the arguments.
But that’s precisely the point. If only these pundits would make substantive arguments!
The conversation seems already to have moved on to figuring out how disconnected from the realities of these issues the pundits are, and from there to how they are expected to know much of anything.
Did I miss anything?
Colin 02.25.04 at 9:21 pm
“Oy gevalt?” Do they really say that in Golders Green? Between mouthfuls of salt beef, I imagine. And only to true friends. Colourful people up the road, there, Daniel. Too bad they have such an attachment to that “shitty little country” in the Middle East. It’s even led them to listen to some un-Europeans who’ve planted all sorts of subversive ideas in their heads. Who? Here… “I have a list!”
Kurt 02.25.04 at 9:33 pm
The conversation seems already to have moved on to figuring out how disconnected from the realities of these issues the pundits are
No, we still haven’t reached that point. I don’t take it as a given that a gentile is necessarily “disconnected from the realities” of issues relating to Israel, any more than I think a northern white liberal in the 1960’s was necessarily “disconnected from the realities” of the Jim Crow south, and therefore unqualified to act as spokespeople for blacks in the south. I also don’t think that people who never served in the military are necessarily “disconnected from the realities” of military engagement, and therefore unqualified to share an opinion on it.
I’m definitely surprised to see someone on this site advocate for dividing people into those who are qualified to speak to a given issue, and those who aren’t.
James 02.25.04 at 9:33 pm
“tiresome Internet purveyors of laboured satire” is pretty dismissive, no?
Conrad Barwa 02.25.04 at 9:40 pm
Actually, what might be a lot more use than Adbusters’ idea would be a list of American pundits who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel, but nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide.
I have to say bollocks to this; it isn’t my job or desire to engage in this absurd kind of list making. I absolutely detest the idea that anybody needs to act as some sort of ethnic policeman; I am not a hyper-ethno-nationalist so I see absolutely no reason to indulge in this kind of fruitless and counterproductive activity. Who does and who does not belong to any ethnic community is much less important than what is being said within a debate. Singling out divisions like this is how most of these problems start in the first place and I really dislike the suggestion that it can play any positive role.
Sebastian Holsclaw 02.25.04 at 9:57 pm
“tiresome Internet purveyors of laboured satire” is pretty dismissive, no?”
Not really, in context with the rest of the post. Especially considering the fact that this particular AdBuster article is most specifically not a satire.
GMT 02.25.04 at 10:13 pm
I don’t take it as a given that a gentile is necessarily “disconnected from the realities†of issues relating to Israel, any more than I think a northern white liberal in the 1960’s was necessarily “disconnected from the realities†of the Jim Crow south, and therefore unqualified to act as spokespeople for blacks in the south.
I would agree, I was just explaining a point of view that I don’t happen to share.
I think the real issue is the development of an opinion industry, not in some lack of connection, mythological, metaphysical, etc.
Benny Red 02.26.04 at 12:10 am
How about a list of people who turn up at a blog, miss the point completely, and post furious responses in the comments section?
Hal 02.26.04 at 12:16 am
So… has anybody come up with a list? You know, American, non-Jewish, Zionist, pundits “who have never set foot in Israel“? Has anyone come up with a single name that fits this bill?
dsquared 02.26.04 at 7:39 am
Hal: Glenn Reynolds (a fine Irish name, begorrah) is the name that comes to mind; if anyone can dredge up a package tour to Eilat he’s taken I’ll happily retract but I don’t think so.
Ted: Consider this my clarification. I’ve always thought Adbusters were silly and unfunny and this story of theirs was downright sinister as well. Contra Adbusters, there is nothing sinister or noteworthy about Jews being interested in Israel, any more than Scots being interested in porridge.
I thought that was clear, but I guess you can’t write anything these days which doesn’t say hurray or boo in capital letters without some arsewit like Sebastian Holsclaw misinterpreting it.
FWIW, by the way, if someone’s counting, I’ve been to Israel on five separate occasions during the last five years (used to do a bit of business with Bank Leumi there).
Colin 02.26.04 at 8:37 am
Daniel,
Of course… Glenn Reynolds, if he’s been out of his armchair at all, would have been sunning himself in Eilat while you were in Tel Aviv on serious business with Bank Leumi. Drive a hard bargain, do they? BTW, did you manage to pick up the Hebrew for “oy gevalt”?
dsquared 02.26.04 at 11:38 am
All I remember about Israeli finance is that, as a holdover from the 1970s hyperinflation, they still produce sets of accounts in inflation-adjusted terms, making them incomprehensible to anyone other than an Israeli-trained accountant. It’s the most wonderful example of professional standards as protectionism.
Mrs Tilton 02.26.04 at 12:39 pm
they still produce sets of accounts in inflation-adjusted terms
OTOH every Israeli firm I have had dealings with, save one, published consolidated accounts prepared IAW US GAAP (with no hyperinflation-related funny stuff), using Israeli GAAP accounts only for tax purposes. The one exception had used US GAAP but opted to change to IAS (as they then were) because they wished to consolidate some >50% subs proportionately rather than accounting for them at equity.
So, the need to use Israeli GAAP in preparing statutory accounts might well be a good way of ensuring that Israeli firms hire Israeli accountants (on the odd chance they were tempted to engage, say, Papua-New Guinean accountants instead). But even if Israeli GAAP is incomprehensible to any but an Israeli accountant, the US GAAP (or IFRS) accounts these companies prepare should be pretty accessible to anybody who has done the basic homework; it’s not esoteric wisdom.
I concede that Israeli firms uninterested in accessing international capital markets might, for all I know, use Israeli GAAP alone and that this might well be truly incomprehensible to non-Israelis. But then, if they are not interested in attracting capital from afar, Israelis is who they’ll be getting their capital from, so I don’t see this as a serious problem.
Mrs Tilton 02.26.04 at 12:43 pm
By writing ‘>50%’ just above there, I meant, of course, ‘<50%'. Apologies for any confusion, but it all makes perfect sense under Israeli GAAP.
dsquared 02.26.04 at 1:53 pm
This was back in 1999, and I seem to remember that Leumi had only recently started producing US GAAP numbers. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have inflicted non-US GAAP accounts on myself if I didn’t have to.
The point about protectionism is that there are lots of Israeli CPA firms that would have been taken out years ago if it weren’t for Israeli GAAP.
Mrs Tilton 02.26.04 at 2:17 pm
I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have inflicted non-US GAAP accounts on myself if I didn’t have to.
Come now, IFRS isn’t that bad… I see your point, though. I take it Leumi aren’t listed abroad (or at least hadn’t as of 1999 or so)?
I’m not certain that Israeli GAAP serves to protect Israeli CPA firms, though. Most of these will be small and local because most accountancy firms anywhere are small and local. The firms catering to the big machars will be local partnerships of the usual suspects (and again, this is how it is pretty much everywhere else in the world as well). Indeed this is much the same pattern one sees even in, say, IFRSland. Though one’d think accounting firms in countries using IFRS should be one big smudgy happy transnational lovefest, in fact what one finds is that German firms are staffed with Germans, Swiss with Swiss etc. etc. (though large local partnerships of international firms might well have a Yank on hand as SEC Guy in Residence); and all this without a bizarre local GAAP as a barrier.
IOW, though I am sure you are correct that Israeli GAAP is effective as a protectionist barrier, I am not at all convinced that it is necessary as a barrier.
Sebastian Holsclaw 02.26.04 at 6:03 pm
“I thought that was clear, but I guess you can’t write anything these days which doesn’t say hurray or boo in capital letters without some arsewit like Sebastian Holsclaw misinterpreting it.”
For someone hyper-sensitive to context in other people’s post, you seem somewhat lazy about it in your own.
In the first paragraph of your short post you are dismissive of Volokh’s concerns about Adbusters. You show this by describing Adbusters as “purveyors of laboured satire” (suggesting quite wrongly that the article in question is a satire). I’m sure you think that I missed your flip comments about how obvious it is that Jews are interested in Israel. I didn’t, it just misses the thrust of both the Volokh post and the Adbusters article. Volokh was suggesting that the linkage is obvious and normal, so obsessing about it the way Adbusters does smacks of anit-Semitism–especially when Adbusters plays the old ‘divided loyalties’ game.
And then, right after sending your readers to an article about hidden motivations and sinister intentions you jump right into non-Jewish Americans who “nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide”. Which so far as I know is none, but we will give you some license for rhetorical exaggeration. So to use a style that I believe you first made famous in this corner of the world…
Shorter d-squared:
“Volokh complains about an anti-Semitic article.
I will of course use that to complain about American defenders of Israel.”
Comments on this entry are closed.