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.
You make a major concession to the propaganda of hard-line Zionists when you refer to them as “pro-Israel.” Joe McCarthy called himself a great patriot, waved the American flag incessantly, and denounced his opponents as anti-American, but history has shown that McCarthy was the one who undermined America and her values. The Zionist fanatics are pro-Israel the same way Joe McCarthy was pro-America. So please stop calling these chauvinist phonys pro-Israel.
As for Can-West, Juan Cole had a post about the pernicious effects of the Asper family’s growing acquisition of Canadian media (so far they own 128 local papers and 14 big market papers, roughly 60% of Canada’s newspapers). Quote from the editor of the Montreal Gazette:
“We do not run in our newspaper Op Ed pieces that express criticism of Israel.”
Augie: I take your pt. So provide me another easy way to refer to people like Peretz. The problem is I haven’t been able to figure out a better shorthand way to label their views. Sometimes I use the term “hardline pro-Israel” or “pro-Israel advocates” to distinguish them fr. people like myself who, as you say, consider themselves “pro-Israel” while being willing to criticize Israeli policies which are bad for Israel.
Thanks for the Juan Cole link. I’ll check that out.
Sometimes I use the term “hardline pro-Israel” or “pro-Israel advocates” to distinguish them fr. people like myself
The point I was making is that they aren’t pro-Israel, so that term shouldn’t even be used. I call them Zionist hardliners or anti-Israel activists (that one really pisses them off).
‘Zionist hardliner’ is a good one. I’ll try that. I’m sorely tempted to call them “anti-Israel” & like your term very much. But I’m afraid it might confuse my readers who are used to thinking of anti-Israel activists as being anti-Zionist. I also like the term I read at someone’s blog “pro-Israelism,” which distinguishes itself clearly from being “pro-Israel.” But unfortunately you can only use it as a noun & not an adjective. I guess I could try to create another new term, “pro-Israelist” but it sounds a little quirky to me.