Israel Spat Divides Former New Republic Colleagues

(AP Photo/Oded Balilty)
You wonder whether there is a history between these two going back to the time when Sullivan edited the magazine - in fact, he was the youngest person ever to edit the New Republic. Whatever the circumstances, Wieseltier seized on Sullivan's Jan. 13 blog post - among others - as evidence to support his charges. Sullivan wrote: "Most American Jews, of course, retain a respect for learning, compassion for the other, and support for minorities (Jews, for example, are the ethnic group most sympathetic to gay rights)...but the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing–that celebrates and believes in government torture, endorses the pulverization of Gazans with glee, and wants to attack Iran–is something else. Something much darker."
Wieseltier, who has little sympathy either for Goldfarb, the former online editor of The Weekly Standard, or Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist, was perplexed by Sullivan's decision to hold both writers up as representing anything other than themselves.
"I was not aware that they comprise a "wing" of American Jewry, or that American Jewry has "wings," he wrote. "What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan. That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews–a practice with a sordid history."
No doubt a bad choice of words by Sullivan, though it's difficult to use that to extrapolate baser motives. Charging someone with being an anti-Semite is the equivalent of fire in the hole. There will be an explosion and Wieseltier knows that this particular topic rouses particular passions. Especially when the charge gets mixed up with larger geo-political questions about the Middle East and U.S. backing for Israel.
The liberal-left, desires a more neutral U.S. position when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians while the conservative-right fears such a shift would be the prelude to increased regional instability. Wieseltier didn't need to wait long for the reaction. Playing their parts with kabuki-like predictability, the critics poured scorn on his essay which they said falsely conflated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In Gawker, Alex Pareene ripped Wieseltier as a "first class B.S. artist." Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias called the essay a hit piece that "suffers deeply from schizophrenia," and M.J. Rosenberg in the Huffington Post dismissed Wieseltier's prose as "impenetrable."
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 194 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 359 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups 70 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 421 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 337 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare 47 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people














You seem determined to ignore 50 years of continuous threats.
But core to the progressive conviction that the US must be "neutral" is that if we don't favor Israel, we won't be targeted by jihadists. I think this is pure wishful thinking and if Israel were to be wiped out tomorrow their attention would turn to us.
Like it or note, that hatred that states like Iran have for the US is based on the very culture you so cherish, one of free sexual expression, drug and alcohol consumption, music in public (see that Taliban for that example) and just the freedom of expression we all enjoy.
"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States," Bachmann said at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Los Angeles on Feb. 6.
Of all the Arabs convinced of Hitler's coming triumph, none was so eager as Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the Hitler years. Haj Amin converted the Palestinian cause into a local branch of Hitler's worldwide anti-Jewish persecution. Fleeing from the British, he spent the war in Berlin. A friend and admirer of Himmler's, he raised a division of Bosnian Muslims for the SS.
Fanaticism had led Haj Amin into utter delusion. Hitler, the expected savior, had in reality the settled conviction that Arabs were Untermenschen and he had no intention of doing them any favors. On that racial ladder of his, Arabs occupied a servile place, held in much the same contempt as the Jews. All sorts of Arab leaders were to follow Haj Amin's example and fall into the racist trap Hitler set for them, including Gamal Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat, the Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.
Probably most Arabs accept Israel as a fact of life, created by the millions of individual choices which make up history, and over which nobody has any control. But the leadership, the intellectuals particularly, have internalized and perpetuated Hitler's fantasies about Jews and a Jewish state. In one Muslim country after another, leaders who may describe themselves either as Islamist or secular call for the State of Israel to disappear from the map, and its people to be annihilated. It does not seem in the least shocking to them to be proposing mass-murder.
Anyone who writes about the area and excuses this behavior does so knowingly and ought to be given the public embarassment they deserve.
The UN saw fit to "award" them a full 50% of the land, primarily because of the suffering at the hands of the nazi's in Germany.
In May 1948, the jews with their continued policies of Aliyah and Aliyah Bet, immigrated en masse into Israel, DISPLACING THE NATIVE POPULATION that lived there for centuries.
Even though they were GIVEN this land for no apparent reason, they see fit - to this day - to keep stealing more and more land from the residents that have lived there peacefully for centuries. Today Israel squats on approximately 85% of the land - and it was ALL taken by brutal military force.
Why does EVERYONE think that the Palestinians that had NOTHING to do with Nazi Germany, which is the majority of the population, must suffer at the hands of the jews, for the atrocities of the Nazi's?
And why does everyone NOT UNDERSTAND the Palestinians urge to fight back?