Greenwald, Podhoretz, neocons, Jews, and where danger lies http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/greenwald-podhoretz-neocons/ Why it’s important to defend neocons even when they’re wrong. en-us rkampeas@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-09-13T;08:27:00-05:00 Comment by ASC asc@njjewishnews.com On the narrow point—did Podhoretz say a good Jew would suspend his/her domestic politics and other issues in service of picking the best candidate on Israel?—I side with Greenwald. Podhoretz isn’t the only one saying this. Safire did it a few years ago, and it was the main thrust of the RJC’s advertisng campaign last year. As for his other point—that this sort of one-issue politics extends to all necons—Kampeas wins. But is single issue politics necessarily dual loyalty? You can probably name a dozen blocs of voters who vote their pet issue above all others, and sometimes at the expense of other things they hold dear. Some make the “if not us, then who?” calculation that only they have the understanding and motivation to vote “correctly” on their narrow issue. Israel happens to be another country, but you can put its safety and security high on your list of priorities without surrendering your U.S. citizenship. All of US foreign policy is premised on the idea that American citizens have a keen interest in what happens in far-off lands. Usually it’s self-interest, to be sure, but tinged with the belief that we have at least a cousinly interest in what happens in fellow democracies. Acting and voting on that cousinly interest doesn’t make you a traitor. On the narrow point—did Podhoretz say a good Jew would suspend his/her domestic politics and other issues in service of picking the best candidate on Israel?—I side with Greenwald. Podhoretz isn’t the only one saying this. Safire did it a few years ago, and it was the main thrust of the RJC’s advertisng campaign last year. As for his other point—that this sort of one-issue politics extends to all necons—Kampeas wins.

But is single issue politics necessarily dual loyalty? You can probably name a dozen blocs of voters who vote their pet issue above all others, and sometimes at the expense of other things they hold dear. Some make the “if not us, then who?” calculation that only they have the understanding and motivation to vote “correctly” on their narrow issue. Israel happens to be another country, but you can put its safety and security high on your list of priorities without surrendering your U.S. citizenship. All of US foreign policy is premised on the idea that American citizens have a keen interest in what happens in far-off lands. Usually it’s self-interest, to be sure, but tinged with the belief that we have at least a cousinly interest in what happens in fellow democracies. Acting and voting on that cousinly interest doesn’t make you a traitor.

]]> 2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00 Comment by Michael Pitkowsky mpitkowsky@gmail.com For Norman Podhoretz, what he understands as stronger Republican support for Israel should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  If everything else hasn’t convinced you as a Jew to vote Republican, then this issue will.  As Podhoretz himself said in the WSJ op-ed, “there were reasons” and “because of all this...”.  It is not one issue, but a number of issues, of which support for Israel should be the knockout punch.  Wieseltier makes the same point.  Support for Israel is Podhoretz’s nuclear option, if nothing else has worked, this one should.  Regarding Joe Klein’s columns, he does not bring one citation from any neo-con that the primary reason that they supported the war in Iraq was because it was good for Israel.  That it might have been one of the reasons, what’s wrong with that.  I guess that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are still trying to plot how they can lead the US to war on behalf of Israel. For Norman Podhoretz, what he understands as stronger Republican support for Israel should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  If everything else hasn’t convinced you as a Jew to vote Republican, then this issue will.  As Podhoretz himself said in the WSJ op-ed, “there were reasons” and “because of all this...”.  It is not one issue, but a number of issues, of which support for Israel should be the knockout punch.  Wieseltier makes the same point.  Support for Israel is Podhoretz’s nuclear option, if nothing else has worked, this one should.  Regarding Joe Klein’s columns, he does not bring one citation from any neo-con that the primary reason that they supported the war in Iraq was because it was good for Israel.  That it might have been one of the reasons, what’s wrong with that.  I guess that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are still trying to plot how they can lead the US to war on behalf of Israel.

]]> 2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00 Comment by Glenn Greenwald GGreenwald@salon.com I’m perfectly content to let Podhoretz’s words speak for themselves, as they prove that he’s making exactly the argument I attributed to him:  that the primary reason he thinks Jews should vote Republican is because of what (in his view) is best for Israel. But if it’s creepy and dangerous and terrible and dishonest for me to say that, then you should issue an equally strident condemnation of The New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, who wrote the following in his lengthy NYT review of Podhoretz’s book this weekend: Wieseltier:  Jewish-Americans’ “steadfast allegiance to the Democratic Party, Podhoretz insists, now flies in the face of Jewish interests. . . . The Jewish interest that makes Podhoretz most desperate for a Jewish defection to the Republicans is Israel.” That’s exactly what Podhoretz is arguing.  That’s exactly what I said Podhoretz is arguing.  And that’s exactly the argument that will subject one to smears of anti-semitism if one points out that neocons like Podhoretz believe this (even as they explicitly argue it).  So I’ll look forwards to your aggressive attack on Wieseltier for his creepy views on Israel. And, of course, Time columnist Joe Klein has gone even further, explicitly accusing neocons of harboring what he called “divided loyalties” and wanting the Iraq War to benefit Israel (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/neocons_gone_wild.html and http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/24/surge_protection/) As for this - “Keeping a light on what they really are, and are not, is vitally important” - I made very clear what I meant:  what neocons are is a radical and extremist group guided by their view of what’s best for Israel, but what they ARE NOT is representative of the views of most American Jews or the arbiters of what is and is not “pro-Israel.” I’m perfectly content to let Podhoretz’s words speak for themselves, as they prove that he’s making exactly the argument I attributed to him:  that the primary reason he thinks Jews should vote Republican is because of what (in his view) is best for Israel.

But if it’s creepy and dangerous and terrible and dishonest for me to say that, then you should issue an equally strident condemnation of The New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, who wrote the following in his lengthy NYT review of Podhoretz’s book this weekend:

Wieseltier:  Jewish-Americans’ “steadfast allegiance to the Democratic Party, Podhoretz insists, now flies in the face of Jewish interests. . . . The Jewish interest that makes Podhoretz most desperate for a Jewish defection to the Republicans is Israel.”

That’s exactly what Podhoretz is arguing.  That’s exactly what I said Podhoretz is arguing.  And that’s exactly the argument that will subject one to smears of anti-semitism if one points out that neocons like Podhoretz believe this (even as they explicitly argue it).  So I’ll look forwards to your aggressive attack on Wieseltier for his creepy views on Israel.

And, of course, Time columnist Joe Klein has gone even further, explicitly accusing neocons of harboring what he called “divided loyalties” and wanting the Iraq War to benefit Israel (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/neocons_gone_wild.html and http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/24/surge_protection/)

As for this - “Keeping a light on what they really are, and are not, is vitally important” - I made very clear what I meant:  what neocons are is a radical and extremist group guided by their view of what’s best for Israel, but what they ARE NOT is representative of the views of most American Jews or the arbiters of what is and is not “pro-Israel.”

]]> 2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00 Comment by David david.ehrens@gmail.com Kampeas provides a couple of trivial examples where neoconservatives had nuanced differences with Israel, and then uses them in his thesis: that linking neconservatives with pro-Israel positions is a “smear.” And he chooses a particularly incoherent necon, Podhoretz, as his example of inconsistencies that could not possibly be pro-Israel. Kampeas attempts to suggest that pointing out the FACT of necon identification with Israel is a prescription for cutting off dialog with those we hope to petition. What Kampeas is saying here is that opponents of neoconservative thinking—and only they—should refrain from describing the truth as a tactic in getting what they want. I don’t even know where to start with this dumbass notion of his. At the end of this nonsense, Kampeas says that those who criticize neoconservatives are replicating their evil ways. More crack house logic. By this token, Hannah Arendt was as evil as Eichmann. I hope people with more time rip Mr. Kampeas a new one. I am constantly amazed by his illogic. Kampeas provides a couple of trivial examples where neoconservatives had nuanced differences with Israel, and then uses them in his thesis: that linking neconservatives with pro-Israel positions is a “smear.” And he chooses a particularly incoherent necon, Podhoretz, as his example of inconsistencies that could not possibly be pro-Israel.

Kampeas attempts to suggest that pointing out the FACT of necon identification with Israel is a prescription for cutting off dialog with those we hope to petition. What Kampeas is saying here is that opponents of neoconservative thinking—and only they—should refrain from describing the truth as a tactic in getting what they want. I don’t even know where to start with this dumbass notion of his.

At the end of this nonsense, Kampeas says that those who criticize neoconservatives are replicating their evil ways. More crack house logic. By this token, Hannah Arendt was as evil as Eichmann.

I hope people with more time rip Mr. Kampeas a new one. I am constantly amazed by his illogic.

]]> 2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00