Michael J. Totten: Responding to hatred

March 18, 2006

Responding to hatred

The London Review of Books has published an attack on Americans Jews under cover of a supposed critique of the "Israel Lobby." The London Review of Books has previously made available the repellent views of Anatol Lieven.

Interestingly, the London Review of Books receives public assistance thanks to the Arts Council. Why are British taxpayers and punters subsidizing prejudice?

The response to this chauvinism, as to the similar bigotry that others have been on the receiving end of, will be reason and ridicule, argument and analysis. No embassies will be burned down in responding to this hated filled evacuation.

Andrew Apostolou (birthday suit blogger).

Posted by Andrew Apostolou at March 18, 2006 07:51 AM

Comments

No embassies will be burned down in responding to this hatred filled evacuation.

Well clearly someone has not been learning their lessons, here.

Burn,baby,burn.

The only trick to the technique is that you must be both sufficiently numerous to be viable at the process, and demonstrably 'committed(nutbar) enough to follow up at every opportunity.

If you do not meet the admittedly low criteria, then the 'authorities' will consign you to the 'criminal' sphere wherein you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If however you can join the 'club', then all you need fear is those tedious 'negotiation' sessions wherein you will be bored to death as the 'authorities' attempt to 'understand' your pain, and remonstrate with you that burning down things is just not done. So if you could just please stop, I'm sure we can work things out for you.

Posted by: dougf at March 18, 2006 09:11 AM

“The London Review of Books has published an attack...”

Michael Totten is providing the secondary link. This one is the original:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

Yup, it’s Harvard University! Larry Summers was forced out of his leadership post at this vastly overrated school partially because of his defense of Israel. This is also the same Harvard that accepted money from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/12/fight_fiercely.php

Posted by: David Thomson at March 18, 2006 09:12 AM

Thanks for the info on Alwaleed bin Talal!

Posted by: Apostolou at March 18, 2006 09:22 AM

The pro-Israeli lobby (often pro-Likud, rather than merely pro-Israeli) is a special interest, like any other. And yet it is not treated like any other. It has managed to be placed in that special category of "protected interest" in which any criticism is instantly labeled racist or antisemitic. It is simply impossible to carry on a thoughtful discussion of Israeli issues in the United States political arena without either expressing absolute agreement, or being slimed.
This post is yet another example of this type of political correctness. No engagement with the issues, no critique, no acknowledgement of valid points - just name calling. Shameful.

Posted by: IrvT at March 18, 2006 10:36 AM

We'll stop the anti-semitism when they stop eating our children.

Posted by: Mike#3or4 at March 18, 2006 11:23 AM

IrvT is right. MJT is embarassing himself letting fools like Andrew post this crap. Attack or defend on the merits, don't toss around loaded terms like "chauvinism" and "prejudice" just to win cheap debating points. Grow up.

Posted by: Vanya at March 18, 2006 01:46 PM

“It has managed to be placed in that special category of "protected interest" in which any criticism is instantly labeled racist or antisemitic.”

This is outrageously untrue. There is no such thing as a monolithic position required of those who support Israel’s right to exist. For instance, some of us supported Israel’s Gaza settlement pullout. Others vehemently disagreed.

“It is simply impossible to carry on a thoughtful discussion of Israeli issues in the United States political arena without either expressing absolute agreement, or being slimed.”

Why don’t you provide specific instances when folks like myself allegedly refused to engage in “thoughtful discussion of Israeli issues?” Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: David Thomson at March 18, 2006 01:47 PM

Will the person who posted this "We'll stop the anti-semitism when they stop eating our children" have the courage to post under their real name?

Posted by: Apostolou at March 18, 2006 04:01 PM

It was a joke Apo.

Posted by: Mike#3or4 at March 18, 2006 06:18 PM

Ok.

Posted by: Apostolou at March 18, 2006 06:21 PM

This is typical of the way that the pro-Israel lobby deals with anything that is critical of Israel: there can be no engagement or debate with critics, instead they are inevitably demonized as anti-semetic, with the result that Israel becomes, as the article contends, immune from any criticism.

This piece is meticulously researched, moderate in tone, and packed full of undeniable facts. Which is why for someone like Andrew Apostoulou, the only possible way to respond to it is to thow around smears like a cheap thug.

But I guess this is not the place one looks for courage or intelligence.

Posted by: J.B.S. at March 19, 2006 01:09 AM

1. It is Apostolou, not Apostoulou. 2. The epithet "cheap" is inaccurate. Love the anonymous comments though, are my pyjamas that frightening?

Posted by: Apostolou at March 19, 2006 03:46 AM

“This is typical of the way that the pro-Israel lobby deals with anything that is critical of Israel.”

You sound like a Democratic Party operative. Your sentiments are definitely shared by members of its so-called mainstream community. Were you even possibly on the presidential campaign staff of John Kerry? The Republicans shoved Pat Buchanan and David Duke out of the door. When will the Democrats also get rid of its Jew bashers?

Posted by: David Thomson at March 19, 2006 12:07 PM

What in the article attacks Jews? I read it, and it was talking about JINSA and a couple other think tank-like organizations. Unless JINSA represents all American Jews...

Posted by: Evan at March 19, 2006 11:30 PM

In the spirit of offering constructive criticism, I suggest people read Dan Drezner's piece, which Andrew has linked to in the next pots. That is a nice piece of reasoned rebuttal to the W&M article. If you want to convince people the Drezner approach is very effective. If you want to simply make your co-ideologists happy that you're all on the morally correct side of the issue, than by all means continue to sling around accusations of bigotry.

I'm also curious why Lieven is "repellent." He is certainly one of the more insightful analysts when it comes to Russia and the former Soviet bloc.

Posted by: Vanya at March 20, 2006 08:26 AM

1. It is Apostolou, not Apostoulou.

My apologies

2. The epithet "cheap" is inaccurate.

Really? Who's paying you to behave like a thug?

Love the anonymous comments though, are my pyjamas that frightening?

Not remotely. But let's think for a second. You are trying to scratch out a reputation in a field crowded with hacks of similar hue and talent. Anything you can do to increase your name recognition helps your cause. So what you are doing here by decrying anonymity is making a virtue of a necessity. Many of our personal "brands" (for job or other reasons) would be hurt and not helped if people came to know us primarily for our political views, no matter how reasonably or eloquently expressed. It is perfectly reasonable for us to shield our names. In an internet full of strangers, it can't possibly make a real difference if I use my real name, a fake name or a set of letters that may or may not be my initials.

Striking, by the way, Andrew, that for all this, you still haven't managed to write a single sentence of fact-related rebuttal of the article or any commenter who has expressed sympathy towards it.

Posted by: J.B.S. at March 20, 2006 01:08 PM

So JBS Ain't your name? "Just Bull sh*t"?

Posted by: Anon at March 21, 2006 08:25 AM

Michael -- So an attack on AIPAC's power and effectivness in Washington is an attack on American Jews? By attack, you mean like, a pogrom? By Jews, you mean people people like Noam Chomsky and Norm Finkelstein? An attack on AIPAC is like a pogrom against Noam Chomsky?

I disagree with you. And from what I gather, according to you, this make me a "twit".

David Thomson -- I'm sick of refuting your lies about the Democratic Party, time and again, only to have you ignore what I say, and then post near identical comments later.

Reps. James Moran, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard are good examples of what the mainstream Democratic Party does with people who question the views on Israel that are shared by 95% of the Congress. Moran lost his leadership post, and the DCCC and DNC made a concerted effort to challenge him in a primary. Hilliard and McKinney were taken out by DNC orchestrated challengers in 2002.

American Jews and gentiles who agree with AIPAC and want to support it have every right to do so, proudly and openly. What they don't have a right to insist that disagreeing with AIPAC is inherently an expression of antisemitism.

Posted by: markus at March 21, 2006 11:49 AM

Silly of me not to realize that Michael did not post these comments, Andrew Apostolou did.

Posted by: markus at March 21, 2006 11:53 AM

As far as I can tell Mearsheimer and Walt make some thin arguments, and some compelling ones, but I am struck but the virulence and shallowness of much of the criticism of the article here and elsewhere. The irony is that many of the commentators are unwittingly proving the authors' points.

Diaspora lobbies are notoriously heavyhanded and maximalist. They are often corrupted by their home countries. The lobby of the Jewish diaspora in the Washington as well as more generally the Pro-Israel lobby should not be immune from the criticims routinely leveled at other ethnic lobbies.

Certainly AIPAC as well as its think-tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have a right to practice advocacy. Heck, I agree with them more often than not, but they are directly and monetarily influcenced by Israel and especially certain section of the politcal spectrum there. They then have a reverse effect (as do all ethnic or country advocacy lobbies) where they actually lobby their home countries toward hard line positions.

I find it strange that what can be written in the Jerusalem Post, Ha'artz, and indeed the Jewish American press, can't be said in an article out of Harvard without shrill accusations of Antisemitism.

Posted by: Nathan at March 21, 2006 09:00 PM

Whew! An exposive issue. Here is a great site of a jewish yet anti-zionist journo in Australia.

http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/

enjoy!

Posted by: GreginOz at March 21, 2006 09:24 PM

Please do not be rude to JBS. I respect JBS's right to cowardice.

Posted by: Apostolou at March 22, 2006 05:15 AM

Apostolou, quite an elegant swish of the backhand.
Think that will be borrowed. This is going too far however,...

Blogger slander warning

Internet blogger ordered to pay £10,000 damages
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 16:20 by Andy Holliday

http://itvibe.com/news/3989/

A judge has ordered an internet blogger to pay £10,000 in compensation after she accused a Parliamentary candidate of being a 'racist bigot' and 'sex offender' in a landmark case.

Tracy Williams, from Oldham, Lancashire (North-West England), used an alias identity on her blog and also a chatroom. The decision was made earlier after the comments were made around April 2004 about a former Conservative Party member who last year fought a UK Independence Party seat. Michael Keith-Smith said Williams proverbially attacked him in an internet chatroom over a debate in which the rights and wrongs of the war on terror in Iraq were discussed.
[Andy Holliday] TG
10words

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 02:07 PM

By no stretch of the imagination were her comments fair comment. She also ignored the legal process, see this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2097470,00.html.

Posted by: Apostolou at March 22, 2006 02:32 PM

The Online Sports Bettor ::

Bet on the NFL Super Bowl ::

Blackjack Expert ::

Best Online Casino Bonus ::

Online Casino Gambling ::

Online Gambling God ::

How to Gamble ::

Online Casino ::

Online Gambling Forum ::

100 Best Poker Rooms ::

Bet on the World Cup ::