October 05, 2007
The Usual Suspect
Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Republic:
It is rather uncontroversial to call Osama bin Laden an anti-Semite. He is the easy case. But since many people in the West are queasy about attaching the label of anti-Semitism to almost anybody, regarding the charge of anti-Semitism as itself proof of prejudice, let me begin by describing bin Laden's view of history less inflammatorily -- not as anti-Semitic, but as Judeocentric. He believes that Jews exercise disproportionate control over world affairs, and that world affairs may therefore be explained by reference to the Jews. A Judeocentric view of history is one that regards the Jews as the center of the story, and therefore the key to it. Judeocentrism is a single-cause theory of history, and as such it is, almost by definition, a conspiracy theory. Moreover, Judeocentrism comes in positive forms and negative forms. The positive form of Judeocentrism is philo-Semitism, the negative form is anti-Semitism. (There are philo-Semites who regard the Jews as the inventors of modernity, and there are anti-Semites who do the same; but the idea that Spinoza, Freud, and Einstein are responsible for us is as foolish as the idea that their ideas are judische Wissenschaft.) In both its positive and negative forms, Judeocentrism is always a mistake. Human events are not so neatly explained.
In the inflamed universe of negative Judeocentrism, there is a sliding scale of obsession. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, seems at times to view the world entirely through the prism of a Jewish conspiracy, and he regularly breaks new ground in the field of state-supported Holocaust denial.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 05:20 AM | Permalink






Comments
What a hatchet job of a review this is!
"Judeocentrism is a single-cause theory of history, and as such it is, almost by definition, a conspiracy theory."
Applied to Mearsheimer and Walt this is quite a strawman. And the bin Laden comparison, that's really subtle.
Posted by: D | Oct 5, 2007 7:06:34 AM
What an absolute disgusting scumbag this Goldberg is. Even amongst the rest of America's scum pro-Israel journalists he stands out as one of the most filthy. Dare I say it, he is ALMOST as evil, racist, chauvinist, moronic and demented as Marty Peretz.
It's incredible how such scum can quite clearly spend all their lives with no goal but to defend Israel at all costs, and still get the chance to write in magazines. Let's remember, this is the pig who had the temerity to publish his memoirs of repressing, killing and imprisoning Palestinians and package it as a call to peace, all while throwing the blame squarely at Palestinians for the "tragedy" of the conflict.
Serving in the repressive army that destroys Palestinians' livelihood is, of course, a step towrads peace. It's only the Palestinians who resist this illegal occupation as well as anyone who dares criticize the criminal pigs of AIPAC who are to blame for the lack of peace in Palestine, of course. And they are, of course, all anti-Semites.
Posted by: saif | Oct 5, 2007 11:08:13 AM
I disagree with Goldberg's review entirely. And, I quite admired Walt and Mearshimer's LRB article. (I haven't had time to read the book.) Nevertheless, there is no place for calling people "pigs" and "scum" in civilized discourse. None at all. Doing so, you discredit your position and lower yourself beneath your opponent.
Posted by: Jonathan | Oct 5, 2007 7:03:58 PM
Jonathan, I want to back you up in what you say here. Terms such as "pig" and "scum" -- especially when they appear 5 times in the course of 125 words -- lend an achingly low tone to discourse. They are not just poor word choices, still less are they harmless discharges of frustration along the lines of curse words. They are, not to put too fine a point on it, hate speech. And cause for very real concern.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 5, 2007 11:20:54 PM
Elatia and Jonathan, don't take insults and threats away from Saifdan - that's all he has.
Posted by: aguy109 | Oct 6, 2007 7:59:20 AM
I find it incredible that Saif's hate comments are given a stage here. I assume there is an editor to this site and that some sort of restraint can be forced upon people who write here. Saif has repeatedly used this site to postulate his hateful views and sordid language. I'm just curious - how much is enough? And all this in a left wing, extremely sophisticated and enlightened site dedicated to science and art. There are certain restrictions to any debate - but I must sadly conclude that the editors of 3QD find Saif's language and hatred legitimate and worthy of their place here.
Posted by: dkmy | Oct 6, 2007 12:45:26 PM
How shocking that a Palestinian should feel rage! How unseemly!
Posted by: Tim | Oct 6, 2007 9:43:58 PM
Tim, it isn't that a Palestinian should not feel rage -- I believe everybody understands that. And it isn't about seemliness, as if enraged Palestinians should be more continent than others who are also enraged. It's about whether a columnist of any stripe for this blog should be free to call Jews or others he particularly doesn't like "scum" and "pigs." Saif is very well able to express his point of view without hate speech. He's no Edward Said, but then neither is anyone else. What possible good can it do him to soil his thinking this way? And what good does it do us to look on? To the extent you sympathize with his cause, you cannot feel pride that he has so lowered himself, you cannot feel that he is a good friend to his people to write as he did.
If you want to read a considered opinion that Peretz, Goldberg, inter alia, are pigs and scum, there are plentiful sites for that, as you must know. I and the others who wrote in above would be saddened if this became a site where name-calling were substituted for thought when it was time for extreme disagreement with anyone. With anyone.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 6, 2007 11:09:02 PM
Well, to be fair to this saif dude, he was responding to a review that placed anyone who feels as Mearsheimer does in the "odious tradition" of bin Laden and Ahmedinijad.
Civility is important, yes, but civility is about more than just words. It is also about ideas.
Posted by: D | Oct 6, 2007 11:50:06 PM
Post a comment