Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘martin-peretz’

Marty “Party” Peretz Severs Ties to TNR, Closes Blog

Saturday, February 12th, 2011
Marty Peretz

'Marty Party' in Israeli exile (Amit Shaal)

Recently, the NY Times actually sent a reporter all the way to Israel to document the weirdness of Marty Peretz’s life (Martin Peretz: Not Sorry About Anything).  Among other things, the profile revealed that senior editors at The New Republic, which he used to own, are mortally embarrassed by his flaming racism.  At the time the story was being preapred for publication, they were seeking to oust him from any direct editorial involvement with the publication.  The Calcalist story that follows reveals that this has happened, though Peretz denied in the Times that it would.

In some sense, both the Times profile and the Calcalist interview I cover below are premised on this agent-provocateur-type statement from Peretz’s now defunct blog, The Spine:

Last September, in the wake of a number of bombings, Peretz posted: “Muslim life is cheap” and “I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

The Israeli online finance-economics blog, Calcalist, features a riveting (as in watching a car accident happening before your eyes) interview with ‘Marty Party’ (as the headline calls him) in which he tosses off racist bon mots like there’s no tomorrow.  Here are some of the more choice ones.  This is a defense of his racist comment about Muslims and the First Amendment:

I didn’t say anything I hadn’t said 100 times before.  Lives of Muslims are cheaper than those of other religions.  They’re much more likely to kill.  What IS true is that I wrote one stupid sentence.  To say that they aren’t worthy of enjoying the privileges of the First Amendment is idiotic.  I simply wasn’t thinking.  That’s the problem with these blogs.  You write and done’t read what you’ve written and then hit “Send.”

Clearly Peretz has a finely developed sense of victimhood and no shame whatsoever.  Imagine a blogger who admits he doesn’t read what he writes before he publishes it!  I freely admit I make mistakes in writing this blog at times, but at least I proof what I write and edit it before hitting MY Send button.

The interviewer questions Peretz on his pro-Israel advocacy as integral to the editorial slant of TNR:

I asked him whether it was true that he refused to employ writers who criticized Israel.  ”Yes,” he said without hesitation.  I don’t see what’s so shocking about the owner of a newspaper who hires writers who support Israel.  It’s what happens at all newspapers.  An editor wants people who will serve his [editorial] slant.

Actually, that’s not the position of most editors, certainly not newspaper editors.

The Calcalist interview reveals that Peretz has severed virtually all ties with TNR, which is news:

One month ago, after the storm broke out [over his comments] he decided, with the advice of his partners, to resign from an active role in the publication, close his blog, and take a long holiday in Israel.

Among Peretz’s many hates is Jerusalem:

He hates the disgusting high-rises, the Haredi problem and the “Arab problem.”  On the other hand he loves Tel Aviv, which has no Arab problem, no Haredi problem and high rises that don’t disgust him.

He appears to be a fan of Bibi.  In this passage, he also throws in some absolutely absurd judgments of Obama’s “bond” with Israel:

I’ve known him for 30 years.  Ever since we did a trip to the Negev in the 70s we’ve kept in touch.  He’s a smart man who likes to talk.  He faces a situation that isn’t easy.  Obama is the first president since Eisenhower who has no emotional bond to Israel.

While he may like Bibi, he loves Barak and doesn’t understand the loathing many Israelis feel for the man.  The fact that Peretz compares him favorably to Larry Summers, another controversial and loathed individual, is telling:

It’s simply disgusting.  You can’t say anything good about him at dinner [with friends] and leave in peace, he says with a smile.  He’s [Barak] one little smart guy.  Like Larry Summers, there are few in politics who can think as quickly.  In the U.S. Army they love him.  But you [Israelis] hate him.  He has personality problems, sure.  Nobody’s perfect.

Peretz compares Ehud Olmert, past mayor of Jerusalem, favorably to Teddy Kollek, because the latter:

…Liked to be seen drinking coffee with Arabs while garbage was strewn in the streets.

Because Kollek raised substantial sums from rich Jews, this becomes a flaw for Peretz, who calls him an “ass-licker.”

The worst thing about Shimon Peres is that he:

Sells people this idea of the “new Middle East.”  What a fraud.  He lets fly with all these statements and all this bullshit in spite of the fact that he, and everyone, knows there will be no peace agreement anytime soon.

Nice to know that Marty detests the peace process and not only doesn’t want it to work, doesn’t believe it will.

On Obama’s “pro-Muslim” agenda:

I made a big mistake when I believed him when he said he would be committed to Israel.  He isn’t driven by the Jewish narrative.  He’s driven by the Muslim narrative.  Throughout his presidency he’s expressed support for the hijab four times.  If you’re a western liberal president, at least don’t say anything.

When asked why Obama supported the Egyptian Revolution, Peretz revealed his support for the recently overturned Egyptian Pharaoh, Hosni Mubarak.  Peretz also underscores his absurd ignorance of contemporary Iranian politics:

Because it’s based on Islamist principles.  Look at the Iranian [Green] Revolution which he refused to support [!] despite the fact that the Iranian regime hates the U.S.  But the Cairo Revolution he supported despite the fact that Mubarak demonstrated loyalty to the U.S.  The reason is simple: in Iran the revolution was secular and sought to erase Islamist influence [!].  In Egypt, on the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking an active role and when Mubarak leaves, they can take over the government.

When you read nonsense like this you wonder how this guy managed to have the ear of an audience for as long as he did.  How did he have the respect of anyone who was serious?  It’s fine to be a provocateur, but at least make a minimal effort to know something about your subject before you make an utter fool of yourself.

Thanks to Ofer Neiman for pointing me to the Calcalist story.

Wieseltier: Brissers, Birthers and Bellyachers

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

I can virtually assure you that you will never read another positive word in this blog about Leon Wieseltier than what you’re about to read.  Don’t get me wrong: Wieseltier is a very smart, very engaging, very literate and charming fellow.  He has an inimitable prose style which upholds the finest tradition of the great literary stylists such as Edmund Wilson and Jacques Barzun.  He’s simply a brilliant fellow.

But I can’t stand his politics.  It’s liberal in the style of Michael Walzer, and hearkens back to other great Jewish literary liberals like Irving Howe.  But in this day and age liberalism, when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, is hopelessly adrift.  If Wieseltier lived in Israel he’d be a former Meretz voter or perhaps he’d support Labor or even Kadima.  He probably also quite likes Peace Now or did at one time before he was mugged by the reality of the first intifada.  The problem is that Israeli liberalism is dead as a viable political movement.  Wieseltier, when it comes to Israeli politics, represents an empty shell.

Part of my issue with his politics is that he writes for The New Republic, and though his are more sophisticated than Marty Peretz’s, he must be under the great ego’s spell.  No doubt Marty feels quite magnanimous allowing a raging lib like Wieseltier to remain on his staff.  So they seem to have this strange dialogue–one being somewhat of a humanist when it comes to Israeli politics and the other being a Neanderthal.

All the more surprising then, to discover, thanks to a reader, this partially wonderful piece from Wieseltier in which he explores the “self-hating Jew” meme in the guise of Bibi Netanyahu’s gibes directed at David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel for their alleged betrayal of Israel during White House policy deliberations.  Though the analysis in this passage isn’t necessarily completely right, it is very suggestive nonetheless:

The accusation of ethnic infidelity is an old feature of the political culture of the Likud. The defenders of Greater Israel have values, but the critics of Greater Israel have motives. Perhaps the nether regions of the Israeli right will soon follow the nether regions of the American right, and alongside the birthers we will have the brissers: I mean, any man who opposes Jewish settlement in the West Bank must have a foreskin. It is important to understand that for the paranoid mentality that regards disagreement as betrayal, all of Emanuel’s Israeliness–his name, his Irgun father, his Hebrew, his service in an Israeli army program for civilians during the Gulf War–makes him more, not less, untrustworthy.

…Jewish self-hatred is another term for Jewish anti-Semitism, for the internalization of the standpoint of the enemy; and this is a genuinely grave charge. Jews who fling it about for political ends are desperate and disgraceful.

I took pleasure too in reading this passage attacking David Mamet’s impoverished view of Jewish identity.  Here the TNR editor defends Axelrod from the charge of being a race traitor:

I am aware of no grounds for the suspicion that he has committed “race treason.” (I take that charming phrase, which sounds like it was translated from Treitschke, from David Mamet’s thuggish book The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews. Mamet is another one of the Most Jewish Jews of All.)

Wieseltier also propounds some sharp-eyed analysis of Bibi Netanyahu’s political motives:

There is no reason for Israel not to stop the settlements, unless it intends to keep the territories. My own opinion is that this is Netanyahu’s intention, his Bar- Ilan oration notwithstanding. No, he does not plan to annex them. That would throw Israel’s relations with America into serious crisis. Netanyahu makes peace with Americans, not with Palestinians. His sudden conversion to the idea of a two-state solution is a peace process with the Americans, and nothing more…I see no evidence in Netanyahu of Begin-like or Rabin-like greatness. Politics will always keep him from history. His diplomatic strategy is to postpone diplomacy or to bog it down. He will prevaricate–proposing freezes, denying freezes–on behalf of the status quo, in which the time is never right for the recognition that the Jewish state may be destroyed not by a Palestinian state but by the failure to allow one to come into being. There is nothing visionary about this. A look at the fertility rates on the west side of the Jordan River tells the tale. The continued appeasement of the settlers, and the continued alienation of the Palestinians, and the continued cartographic distortion of the West Bank, are in no way good for Israel.

Interestingly, when it comes to discussing the situation among the Palestinians, all of Wieseltier’s wisdom and eloquence deserts him.  He instead lapses into Goldbergian shallow thinking and despair.  I’d hoped for more and better from Wieseltier.  Instead his thinking is clear only as far as his analysis of Israeli politics.  When it comes to understanding Palestinian politics or even what the Obama administration’s policies should be, the TNR writer fails utterly and completely.

Leaving aside the fact that Hillary Clinton, Aaron David Miller and others who were there deny an agreement existed, who’d have thought that a liberal such as Wieseltier would defend the notion that Barack Obama must honor alleged oral deals made between George Bush and Ariel Sharon?  I’ve never understood why the pro-Israel crowd raises this as a supposedly legitimate claim.  Even if it is true (which it isn’t), it’s utterly lame to expect that one administration must honor an improvised, unwritten agreement by a previous one.

Here is one especially lame passage in which Wieseltier somehow convinces himself that Obama’s Cairo speech convinced the Arabs that all they had to do was sit back and wait for the U.S. to force Israel to give them everything they want (seriously!):

Obama’s great opening to the Muslim world, a strange blend of realism and multiculturalism, seems so far only to have imbued the Muslim world with the sense that in the cause of reconciliation with Israel it need exert itself no more, because it has at last been understood. I am not one of those Jews who are maddened by American “pressure” on Israel, but I do not take kindly to it when it is accompanied by a bow to the Saudi king.

The notion that Barack Obama is paying obeisance to Saudi royalty comes right out of Mort Klein and Baruch Marzel’s playbook.  It is shameful that an otherwise intelligent individual would stoop to such pandering.  Not to mention the fact that Wieseltier conveniently neglects to acknowledge that the very same Saudi king he so despises is the one who put forward the most promising peace offer from the Arab states in decades, one which Israel itself, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon and then Ehud Olmert, dissed and dismissed.  So much for not exerting oneself for peace.  When Israel exerts itself half as much, then Wieseltier can talk.  Till then, his analysis is simply shallow and Israel-serving.

Pro-Israel Family’s Control of ‘New Republic’ in Jeopardy?

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Canada’s Asper family owns the largest newspaper empire in that nation, along with the New Republic, in which it bought a controlling interest from fellow pro-Israel cheerleader, Marty Peretz.  The N.Y. Times reports that CanWest Communications is nearing default on its loan obligations:

The company…has until Friday to renegotiate a credit facility of $241 million. This week, DBRS, a Toronto-based credit rating agency, said that failure to cut a deal would put the company, which has an overall debt of $3.1 billion, in default.

…Several analysts speculated that the Asper family, which founded CanWest and still controls it through a special voting share, might soon find itself on the outside.

Ironically, the multi-billion dollar deal that got the company in trouble involved buying the Canadian newspaper domain run by another now-bankrupt Canadian pro-Israel cheerleader, Conrad Black.

While the Aspers have long been known for their support for Canada’s Liberal Party, their views about Israel are quite right-wing, a phenomenon common to wealthy American Jews as well.

Things appear bleak for the Aspers:

Divisions among the creditors have led several analysts to believe that the company would be given time…to seek a deal…Few of them, however, expect that CanWest will be successful and able to avoid a reorganization or even bankruptcy, either of which would be likely to end the Aspers’ control.

I wonder how this will effect Marty Peretz and his property? Does he get it back? In the event that the Aspers lose control, does the magazine get sold to another party? And in this economic climate, who would be interested in buying a faltering print publication? Even if he wants it back, given Peretz’s market losses can he afford it?

I wouldn’t lay odds against TNR but, aside from its writers, editors and Peretz, would many miss it?

Marty Peretz and the Assault on Tikun Olam (and J Street and Ezra Klein)

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

No, I haven’t had the honor of Marty Peretz attacking this blog yet. But he has gone after J Street, Ezra Klein and the misuse (to his feeble Jewish mind) of the term tikun olam. I knew the attacks on J Street would come fast and furious, so I’m not surprised that Peretz has jumped into the fray. I am a bit taken aback that he has widened the attack with a vicious and ignorant assault on both Ezra Klein–for invoking Heschel in his support for J Street–and that long-standing Jewish phrase. Thanks to Gershom Gorenberg, who has weighed in on the debate himself, for bringing the interesting story to my attention:

If you suspect you see a charlatan in a Jew wait for him to utter the words, “tikun olam.” “Repair of the world.” Big idea, revolutionary, utopian, progressive. In the mishna torah where the phrase first appears it really means tweaking, at best, adjustment. Imagine how many silly sermons and speeches have been given with this deliberately falsified phrase as their text.


First, you’ll notice that Reb Marty has somehow secured smicha and is opining on Jewish mysteries about whose meaning he has no special interpretive aptitude. Tikun does not mean “tweaking” or “adjustment.” It means mending or repairing. And as Gershom Gorenberg, a Jew well-versed in traditional texts, points out the term doesn’t appear first in the “mishnah torah,” but rather in the Mishnah. That little mistake makes Marty off by only 1,000 years give or take a decade or two since the Mishnah Torah was written by Rambam a thousand years after the Mishnah was compiled. Marty–before you try commenting on Jewish tradition you might want to take a few adult education Talmud courses with your local rav. I’d also urge him to read Rabbi Elliot Dorff’s seminal work on this issue of tikun olam.

I’ve always thought Marty was an intellectually coarse individual. But in the following passage he shows that he is just plain coarse. In fact, this is language I’d expect to find at Masada2000 and not in the pages of The New Republic:

Heschel marched with Dr. King…But, believe me, he had his standards, and he wouldn’t have marched with the two-bit Jewish leaders [those uttering the phrase tikun olam] who are still excited to utter Arafat’s name. (In 1993, they were so were so excited to see him at the White House that they almost pissed in their pants…and in their panties.)

I don’t know many Jewish leaders, two-bit or otherwise who “are still excited to utter Arafat’s name.” I suspect this is a bit of Marty’s typically overblown and nonsensical politically incendiary rhetoric. I do know many people, Jews, non-Jews, a president, cabinet secretaries and members of Congress who were quite excited to see Yitzhak Rabin and Yaser Arafat shake hands at the White House. Maybe those are the people he’s referring to who were pissing in their pants and panties??

All of us who write blogs sometimes write infelicitous, awkward phrases which we edit when we notice them. Marty has done this in spades but hasn’t noticed what a mess he’s made of the English language here:

It isn’t as if Heschel hadn’t written of the Israel that is a Jewish sovereign state and which sovereignty, it is my guess, that truly troubles Klein…

If you try you can sort of follow Marty’s meandering mind, but he sure makes it hard.

With the remainder of the above quoted passage, Peretz in his typically pugilistic way accuses J Street board members Ezra Klein, Matt Ygleisias and others of being anti-Zionists. Can anyone take this idiot seriously:

…and Matthew Yglesias and many of the other cold Jews or almost Jews or non-Jews who cannot stomach Zionism because it is of this world.

J Street is actually a group that is pro-Israel. Says so all over its website. But Marty doesn’t let that stop him. He uses the anti-Zionism trope as a sword to slay a dragon that isn’t even there. Typical.

I also take strong exception to Peretz’s distortion of Heschel’s notion of the impermissibility of neutrality in the face of moral evil. The former, in this quotation, seems to believe that Heschel would be as coarsely pro-Israel in the current iteration of the conflict as Peretz himself:

Having wrestled Heschel’s idea of neutrality out of context, Klein wants his Jews and others not to be neutral towards Israel. Klein wants them to feel anger towards Israel, while Heschel wanted them to love the land as the people, the miracle as the commonplace…

Of course Heschel would take sides in the conflict. He would take Israel’s side…and the Palestinian’s side. He would be critical not of Israel, but of Israeli policy. He would advocate for peace, for tolerance; against bloodshed, against hatred. Any Jewish simpleton with the faintest idea of Heschel would know this. But not the morally blind and obtuse like Peretz. For him, Heschel would be roaring like Jabotinsky for Jewish victory in its war against the Palestinian people.

If we need any further proof of where A.J. Heschel would stand on this issue we have only to look to his daughter, Susannah Heschel, his familial and spiritual heir. Her commitment to Jewish social justice and Israeli-Palestinian peace speaks volumes about where her father would come down on the issue.

Marty–go hang your head in shame. You’re the one who’s the “charlatan.” You don’t know Jewish tradition. You don’t know your Heschel. What do you know?

Returning to the phrase tikun olam, Gershom correctly notes that the phrase in the Zohar and Kabbalah connotes the Jew’s yearning to perfect the world and bring messianic redemption by performing mitzvot. There has always been an element of social justice involved in the performance of certain mitzvot. Indeed, the social justice imperative is at the heart of Judaism going all the way back to our Prophets and farther.

Contemporary Jews have adapted this ancient phrase for today and used it as shorthand to denote the Jewish commitment to perfecting the world through acts of justice and lovingkindness. For right-wing Jews like Marty who are deeply offended by such perversion (in their eyes) of an ancient tradition–all I can say is that even God is not on their side. In the Talmud, there is a debate between a rabbi and his colleagues about a particular point of halacha. The rabbi says God is on my side and summons a bat kol (“heavenly voice”) to confirm this. His fellow rabbis are not impressed. The law sides with them. Even God, who should know what his original intention was regarding halacha, is bested when the rabbis innovate.

Innovation is allowed in Jewish tradition. Consider Rabbenu Tam, prozbul and scores of other innovative halachic concepts which rabbis devised to deal with new social and economic conditions. At the time doubtless there were rabbinic figures who objected to what they saw perhaps as creating legal fictions. But in time, the new interpretations were accepted, even embraced. Jewish law is not immutable as Antonin Scalia would have you believe the U.S. constitution is. It is an ever-changing set of concepts always firmly rooted in the text but never frozen in time.

Tikun Olam is a phrase we can be proud of and our use of it is fully within our tradition’s legacy of both change and continuity.

Obama Campaign Hints AIPAC List May Have Been Used to Spread Obama Muslim Smear

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

Let me start this post by saying that I support Barack Obama. But when Marty Peretz starts saying nice things about your candidate you know something’s up. Marty Peretz is the worst type of pro-Israel propagandist. He’s so far out in right field when it comes to Israel that there’s only a shade of difference between his views and those of Avigdor Lieberman or Bibi Netanyahu. In fact, if I was a bit more conspiratorial I’d say that an embrace from Marty is sort of like the Don’s giving you that fatal final hug before his henchmen mow you down in a hail of bullets. Maybe Marty knows how people like me would react and has deliberately made nice with Barack to make us hold our noses when we think of voting for him.

But seriously, a Marty Peretz endorsement is very troubling. With friends like him you don’t need enemies.

In the Jerusalem Post column Peretz actually argues with a straight face no support whatsoever that Obama would be more “pro-Israel” (read, pliant) than Clinton. His bile against the latter is astounding. This type of statement makes you wonder what Peretz is smoking:

…Even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won’t work.

I’m not one to give praise to the New Republic(an) in this blog. But I have to give them credit for publishing Gregory Levey’s story about Obama’s testy relationship with the pro-Israel Jewish community. He begins with the e mail smear campaign recently sweeping the inboxes of Jews throughout the country. Interestingly, an Obama staffer conjectures on the source of both the e mail and the mailing list used to circulate it. This passage begins with an especially telling quotation from Mort Klein which I couldn’t pass up:

A little while ago, I told Mort Klein, president of the influential Zionist Organization of America, that I was writing an article about Barack Obama.

“You mean Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama?” he asked, laughing.

Klein quickly stressed that he was joking, and that he didn’t put any stock in the anonymous e-mail circulating that claims Obama is not only a closet Muslim–and that his middle name is Mohammed–but also that the senator from Illinois is part of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy the U.S. by winning its highest office. He had, however, certainly received the defamatory e-mail, as well as another that alleges that Obama’s church is a racist and anti-Semitic institution that is more committed to Africa than to the United States.

Klein is far from alone. The Internet libel seems to have been directed in part at the Jewish community, and in recent weeks, these two emails have landed in the inboxes of thousands of Jews across the country. In fact, an adviser to the Obama campaign told me that he suspects the emails were originally sent using the mailing list of a Jewish nonprofit in Washington. He added that they may have originated with Middle East hawks skeptical about Obama’s approach to the region, but because the e-mail campaign has ramped up in both intensity and scope following Obama’s victory at the Iowa caucus, he believes that the candidate’s political foes may be pushing it.

“One can draw inferences on who might have interest in this spread,” he said.

Indeed one can. Can we surmise which “Jewish nonprofit in Washington” might’ve been the source of the e mail list? Would its acronym consist of five letters beginning with “A?” I think so. Then the question becomes: how did the spreaders of the smear get AIPAC’s list? Were they given it by staffers or key volunteers? We may never know the answer. But this sure smells of the type of chicanery for which AIPAC is famed/notorious.

Unlike Peretz’s tripe in the Jerusalem Post, Levey’s piece is well-worth reading and thoughtfully articulated. He deftly characterizes AIPAC’s schizoid attitude toward Obama:

Several other people connected to Middle East lobbying in Washington have told me…that they believe there is a rift between the official positions of AIPAC on Obama and the feelings of a good deal of its membership, possibly including some of its major donors. Because AIPAC doesn’t endorse candidates directly, but often encourages its very active membership to get involved in campaigns and fund-raising on their own, how the AIPAC rank-and-file acts is not a matter of diktat; it’s an accurate barometer of how it feels. And according to The Jerusalem Post, “When it comes to the Jewish establishment of campaign donors, fundraisers, and political players, support for Clinton is estimated to be twice that for Obama (except in his home state of Illinois, where he has deep connections with the Jewish community).” With regards to the AIPAC bigwigs, one former AIPAC official recently said to me that he believes that Obama’s stated willingness to diplomatically engage with some of Israel‘s most avowed enemies makes much of the organization’s leadership “uncomfortable”–though they would never say so publicly because of a reluctance to sour their relationship with a potential future president.

There you have it: Obama’s willingness to entertain dialogue and negotiation is what scares the pants off the AIPAC crowd. They’d much rather a George Bush who does nothing for six years and then scurries around in his final two like a chicken with his head cut off trying to appear to be doing something. That type of lassitude regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel is far preferable in AIPAC’s eyes to a president who actually wants to engage in the issues and resolve the conflict. For AIPAC knows that to resolve the conflict Israel’s interests will have to be compromised (as will the Palestinian’s). Any compromise of Israel’s interests whatsover is treif.

Michael Lerner has also dealt with this “war for Obama’s soul” over I-P policy in a recent e mail which he sent to his Tikkun supporters:

Obams’s problem is that his spiritual progressive worldview is in conflict with the demands of the older generation of Jews who control the Jewish institutions and define what it is to be pro-Jewish, while his base consists of many young Jews who support him precisely because he is willing to publicly stand for the values that they hold. We can expect that this tension will be central should Obama win the nomination. But once in office, whether Obama actually pursues policies that are in accord with his highest beliefs as a spiritual progressive, or whether he finds it “too unrealistic” to try to buck the spineless Democrats who will bow to the Israel Lobby automatically, depends on whether we can build a powerful enough movement of ordinary citizens to push for a peace that provides security for Israel and justice for the Palestinian people. Obama has made it clear he would want to do that.

Justin Elliot at Mother Jones writes a column that treads similar ground to Levey’s but with a decidedly more downbeat take on the prospects for Obama actually standing up to the Lobby should he ever become president.

The World According to Marty [Peretz]

Friday, September 28th, 2007

It’s a might strange world, that’s for sure. A hat tip to Joachim Martillo for pointing me to this post from Ethan Stanislawski’s blog about Peretz. Stanislawski is the son of Columbia Jewish historian Michael Stanislawski, who once had a close relationship with Marty Peretz. What is delicious is that the younger Stanislawski chronicles the gradual alienation that developed between Peretz and his father, a good deal of which revolved around the issue of Ahmadinejad’s canceleed speech at Columbia last year and his rescheduled speech of last week.

He begins with a Peretz rant against Columbia in The Spine. To read Marty Peretz is to watch a grown man make an utter fool of himself. And Peretz does it virtually every time he opens his mouth, especially if he’s talking about Israel. Here are some of the non sequiturs, howlers, distortions, lies, myths and just plain errors which both Stanislawski and I note in his post:

Columbia is “reeling,” reads the headline in Wednesday’s New York Times. Columbia is the Sulzbergers’s university, and they had traditionally put a wordy buffer between what really happened at the institution and their paper’s readers. Of course, that’s virtually impossible to do these days.

Note the notion that the Sulzberger family has an ownership stake in Columbia, making it of course responsible for all the university’s sins in Peretz’s eyes.

…It is not the Times that has excelled in reportage on Columbia during the past few tempestuous years. It is the Sun which has taken on that burden — and, with some pleasure, I would think, since the university is a model of what the upstart daily thinks of as paradigmatic of the cowardice of liberal institutions in general. Or worse, the pusillanimity of liberal institutions when their very liberalism is being undermined from within.

This is Peretz hailing the journalistic courage of one of the scummiest neocon rags in the nation, the New York Sun. What Peretz admires is the Sun’s yellow journalistic pursuit of the Arab studies professors at Columbia; and the Sun’s obssession with, and distortion of the the anti-Semitism meme. You’ll note that Marty Peretz, proud possessor of one of the finest liberal arts educations money could buy from Harvard and later a professor at that august institution derides Columbia, and by extension all liberal arts institutions with the phrase “the cowardice of liberal institutions in general.” Methinks he bites the hand that fed him so well for so long.

Rashid Khalidi has not been heard from on the A’jad matter. He has bigger fish to fry: making sure that…the Barnard tenure aspirant, Nadia Abu El-Haj, who believes that archeology proves there were never any Hebrews in the Holy Land, also is tenured. My guess is that, this time, the gang loses.

I’ve read many distortions of Abu El-Haj’s scholarly oeuvre but I don’t think any quite match Peretz’s for sheer outrageous audacity. She doesn’t even come close to believing “there were never any Hebrews in the Holy Land.” But this is certainly characteristic of the academic character assassination launched by Campus Watch, Shulamit Reinharz, Alexander Joffe (formerly of Campus Watch and currently with the David Project), Paula Stern and others. Their motto seems to be there is no lie too great for the purpose of stopping Abu El Haj from getting tenure.

The notion that Abu El Haj is Khalidi’s academic pawn in an Arab campus power grab is noxious and insulting. Also ludicrous is the notion that Peretz predicts that Massad and Abu El Haj will not get tenure when Lee Bollinger, who he spends the entire post insulting, is the one who will make the final decision in the matter.

…It is not only Columbia that is reeling. It is Bollinger himself. The faculty see this; the students certainly see this; and the trustees who typically will give a president enough rope to hang himself see that he has. My conclusion is that Bollinger is on his way out. The mandate of heaven has deserted him. He has no authority, least of all moral authority.

Note Peretz’s prediction of Bollinger’s imminent demise. Of course, he presents no facts to support his claim. In his grandiosity, Peretz need only want the event to happen for that to make it the truth. Also, note how the Spined One alludes to Bollinger as an academic emporer (“the mandate of heaven…”), more scenery-chewing overstatement on the writer’s part.

I also have a speculation about why the earnest protestations of Jewish students and others who were pro-Israel never could touch Bollinger about their terrible experiences in classes in the Middle East: he himself is Jewish, maybe an ambivalent Jew, maybe a frightened Jew, but a Jew nonetheless.

Stanislawski points out Peretz’s gaffe in that Bollinger is NOT Jewish. Too bad Ethan had to spoil the party. Marty was having such a good time spinning his fantasy about Bollinger not being able to feel the pain of those poor pro-Israel students because he himself was allegedly Jewish.

John Coatsworth, whom Bollinger lured from Harvard…What can one say about Coatsworth without having oneself strung up as a McCarthyite? Let’s leave it at this: at least since graduate school at the University of Wisconsin he has been extremely radical.

I don’t know much about John Coatsworth’s acaemic background. He is currently the dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and issued the Ahmadinejad invitation. But to think that any dean of any major school at any major national university could achieve such a position by being “extremely radical” strains credulity. And knowing it is Peretz making such a claim automatically dismisses the charge.

Richard Bulliet is the Columbia historian who negotiated with the Iranians for their president’s visit…Bulliet was a supporter of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Again, I don’t know much about Bulliet as a historian. But to claim he “was a supporter of the 1979 Iranian revolution” without supplying any evidence in support of the charge also strains credulity.

In the following passage Peretz gratuitously insults Michael Stanislawski, calling him Bollinger’s “court Jew,” and wonders what the Jewish historian thinks of his alleged patron, Bollinger inviting Ahmadinejad to campus:

I wondered what Stanislavski made of Bollinger’s canceling A’jad last year, giving permission for his speaking this year…There is in Jewish history the figure of the court-Jew. This Jew did financial and commercial business for the prince. Sometimes he was a medical doctor and cared for the prince and his family. He also tried to intercede for the Jews when trouble was coming their way. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed. I guess Michael failed. But Jews no longer need court-Jews, and they haven’t for at least a century. It must be sad trying to fill a function that has been obsolete for so long.

Ethan Stanislawski notes in his blog post that Peretz spells his father’s name wrong. Gee, you’d think that the least you could do for an old friend when you’re insulting him is spell his name right.

What surprises me is that Stanislawski and Peretz could ever have been friends–though I suppose that people can change radically over the course of time & someone you loved or respected when you were young can turn into something else entirely when you’re older. That’s certainly true of Peretz though I liked him neither when he was younger nor older.

What Marty Peretz doesn’t realize is that the less he says or writes the better off he is. The more drivel flows from his mouth or pen the more lies, distortions and outrageous myths flow along with them. But Marty likes the sound of his own voice too much and so makes a fool of himself serially.

Marty Peretz Sells Stake in New Republic

Thursday, March 1st, 2007

A welcome piece of news reported in today’s NY Times: Marty Peretz, who’d retained a 25% interest in The New Republic under its new ownership by CanWest Global Communications, has just sold out. However, CanWest has retained him as editor in chief. One can only hope that this title will become honorific and the new owners will lay out a clearer, and more liberal political vision for the new New Republic. As the Times earlier reported, there is some reason to hope that this may happen:

CanWest, the biggest newspaper company in Canada and the second-biggest private broadcaster, is controlled by the Asper family, which is well known for its support of the Liberal Party in Canada

It wouldn’t be a moment too soon either. The magazine has been wandering forlornly for so long under Peretz’s “leadership.” The only thing you could be certain of was his hysterical rightist rantings about anything related to Israel.

I’d suggest to Marty that instead of trashing a former liberal icon like the New Republic with his next media purchase, he may want to invest his new-found riches in a pro-Israel rag like the Jerusalem Post. Then, if he wants to run it into the ground the world will only be losing a publication read by Israel’s English-speaking right-wingers, a relatively small breed.

But seriously, I’m hoping that this welcome news will reduce the decibels coming from Marty in the Israel debate in this country. He’s one of the more noxious pro-Israel journalist-ideologues around. Here’s a recent example of his viciousness directed against one of his betes noire, George Soros. Well, I guess if you include Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, they’d have to give him a run for his money on who was the most intellectually obnoxious.

UPDATE: This Forward article I just read dashes all my hopes for moderation at the New Republic:

Some CanWest editorial staff complained that they were barred from running articles and editorials that were critical of Israel…

In 2004 the Aspers attempted to buy The Jerusalem Post, but the deal soured after Leonard Asper worried that his co-owners would not stick to the paper’s “conservative political position,” according to court papers.

The relationship between CanWest and Peretz may be able to grow on more common ground, given their shared support for Israel and antipathy for Israel’s detractors. During a speech in 2003, Asper criticized what he described as the anti-Israel bias of most media.

“I do not lightly come to the conclusion that antisemitism is part of the reason for the anti-Israel bias of the media,” Asper said, “but the evidence suggests it is indeed a major factor.”

Looks it’ll be more of the same at the New Republic and that Marty has found a match made in pro-Israel heaven.

‘Left-Leaning’ New Republic??

Saturday, February 24th, 2007

Things may be changing at the New Republic with their new owner. But what was this NY Times reporter thinking when she wrote:

The New Republic, the thinning, left-leaning weekly magazine…

Left-leaning? In her dreams.

And given this news, how much can The New Republic really change?

Martin Peretz, the magazine’s editor in chief, known for his neo-conservative bent and support for Israel, will retain his quarter interest in the company.

Can anyone explain how a magazine with a “neo-conservative” editor in chief can be “left-leaning?”

Mr. Peretz, who said he had disagreed with many of the magazine’s editorials over his 33 years there, said he was not troubled by Mr. Foer’s moves [away from neoconservatism]. “I don’t fear or feel that my voice will be eclipsed or comparable voices will,” he said.

I’ve disagreed with almost every word Marty Peretz has ever written. My old friend used to call the magazine the New Republican. Not only funny, but fitting.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE