Attacks on Judt, Soros Reveal Blind Spots

[Classical_Liberal]

Attacks on Judt, Soros Reveal Blind Spots
Middle East Crisis
VIEWPOINT
Ami Eden

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. government released a deck of cards featuring the faces of its most-wanted enemies. Next came the anti-war movement's edition, topped by President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These days, it increasingly feels as if Jewish hawks would like to release a deck of their own, with historian Tony Judt and philanthropist George Soros in a tight battle for the Ace of Spades.

Judt ignited a firestorm last month with a 2,800-word essay in The New York Review of Books arguing for the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Soros, for his part, has drawn ire over comments during a charity luncheon that critics describe as an attempt to blame the Israeli and U.S. governments for antisemitism.

Both men are accustomed to stirring controversy, and both provided plenty of fodder this time. More revealing than what either of them actually said, though, is the inability of some outspoken segments of the Jewish community to tell the two men apart.

Judt is a respected historian, head of the Remarque Institute at New York University, who set out to pen an intellectually compelling rejection of Zionism. Soros, on the other hand, is a businessman known for his prodigious charitable work in Eastern Europe; his controversial remark on antisemitism came as an off-the-cuff response to a question in front of what he thought was a private audience......

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.28/news14.html

[Paschall]

1. Interesting

<snip> It's possible to draw too many conclusions from the flaws of one article. But the Post article reflects a trend. And not merely about Soros and the vitriolic response he evokes. In general, it seems, hawks have a hard time holding to a consistent line of argument on Israel-related issues. </snip>

Isn't that called editorial understatement?

[Lexingtonian]

2. How amusing

What a cute attempt to speak of the absurd and the ridiculous in a civil manner.

Soros's major sin, in the eyes of his hawkish critics, was to suggest that American or Israeli behavior could impact levels of antisemitism in the world. Never mind that Israel's chief military officer and four of its top former spooks said as much. In fact, the same sort of argument is constantly being put forth by hawks — when it fits nicely into their overall worldview. They do not hesitate to argue that Israeli concessions or American support for the peace process rewards terrorists. That is, you may say that policy decisions in Jerusalem and Washington are capable of fueling Arab aggression against Jews and Israelis — just make sure you don't blame the policy decisions of the right.

Gnostic type thinking of Manichaean absolutist extremes is never wrong. Except when it is absolutely wrong, which is: unbearably wrong.

In the end, there's plenty of room to debate whether specific policies have helped trigger a spike in antisemitism. What seems indisputable is that the continuing intifada and war on terrorism are taking their toll on the collective psyche — and the civility and self-control — of key swaths of the Jewish community and Israeli political spectrum.

Now that last sentence- THAT is editorial understatement.

[bemildred]

4. Mr. Judt seemed to be out to pick a fight.

Mr. Soros was speaking in passing.
To equate them is odd, or at least simple-minded.

It is telling that almost all of the dialog about
this mess is circumscribed by taboo and restricted to
threadbare cant and propaganda; and that does not bode
well for the future.

The sudden plethora of "plans" is a sure indication that
the existing justifications are no longer convincing.

[xchrom]

3. israeli and u.s. hawks

are behind a growing curve.
more people are waking up to the fact that western thinking about israel and the middle east will result in ashes.
now all that is left is to crucify those with the temerity to see and publicly point out the obvious flaws.