Jeffrey Goldberg Says ‘Who Me?’
Posted on March 12th, 2009
by Scott McConnell |
|
Jeffrey Goldberg has a post calling me “thuggish”– twice in one short post actually. He doesn’t like that I wondered whether he might soon call Sen. Patrick Leahy an anti-Semite for comparing the plight of the Palestinians to that of his Irish ancestors –”hunted because they had fought to practice their own religion… hunted because they wanted to keep their land..”" Jeffrey’s answer is No, definitely not, he has the highest regard for Leahy, etc. How on earth could I have suspected such a thing?
It was probably this , Goldberg’s long review of Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer’s “The Israel Lobby”. Instead of engaging the arguments made by two very serious and highly regarded scholars about Israel and its status as America’s most treasured ally, Goldberg took his readers on a three thousand word tour through Osama Bin Laden (and his distaste for “usury”) Father Coughlin, David Duke, Mel Gibson while very drunk, Louis Farrakhan, before asking why Walt and Mearsheimer would want to join this “odious tradition.” (He actually called the tradition “negative Judeocentrism” but that was simply being clever.)
Anyway, his resort to smearing those whose foreign policy views about Israel he dislikes by claiming they have joined the “tradition” of Coughlin, Duke, etc. made Jeffrey a pretty big mover in the labeling of (gentile) critics of Israel as anti-Semites game. Maybe, given his umbrage over how I thought he might treat Leahy, he has regrets about that review. If so, I’d like to hear them, and I’d revise my opinion of him.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Perhaps he blames you for ruining a sweet “Pat Leahy is an anti-Semite” post he had worked up.
six out of the last eight articles here deal with Israel and/or the satanic actions of American Jews. And yet there is some sort of denial that this publication is somewhat obsessed.
“Thuggish,” “odious tradition”….
It never ceases to amaze me how blithely hyper-zionists throw around the most extreme, hate-inciting language as if they themselves were immune from same. As if, for example, nobody could accuse Goldberg of belonging to the “odious, traitorious tradition” of the Rosenbergs and Jonathan Pollard.
I think they consciously count on everyone else’s hesitancy to descend to their level. Indeed, when reading about how much credence Hitler and Goebbels put in finding and using just the most extreme, hate-filled labels in what they were doing, the parallels between their basic intellectual disposition and some of what we see today seem unavoidable.
How anyone can have the opinion that Goldberg is anything other than an Israeli agent of influence is beyond me. He doesn’t really care about ideas or words, no more, in my opinion again, than he cares about this country. Word and ideas are merely the new club or ammunition he carries today as opposed to the club or ammunition he carried when he was working as a prison guard in the Israeli army. Which of course just adds to the hilarity; a former prison guard for a regime known to have its rough ways with its captives calling someone *else* a “thug”….
He considers himself an Israeli soldier on a mission I think, and if that means attacking even the most obvious American patriot or interest, well that’s what soldiers of one country do to the patriots and interests of another. The question is, when is this country going to realize this kind of war is being waged against it?
Bill! Thank God you’re alright! I was beginning to worry.
But Bill, the subtext to alot of this stuff is whether the U.S. is gonna go to war with Iran which is pretty consequential stuff. And things have been popping over there in the Mideast what with Gaza and the Israeli elections and this Freeman business. Whereas with the other big stories of the day being about the economy, stories about same are damn tough to make all that interesting given all the unknowns and minutia involved in same.
Still, it never hurts to be warned about getting obsessive so….
Cheers,
Thanks, Mr Dale. I did need a laugh before the end of the day.
six out of the last eight articles here deal with Israel and/or the satanic actions of American Jews. And yet there is some sort of denial that this publication is somewhat obsessed.
Six out of eight of the last sentences from your mouth refer to the fire raging around us. And yet there is some sort of denial that you, sir, are somewhat obsessed with fire.