Posted on 02/11/2010 5:05:01 AM PST by SJackson
Is star-blogger, Israel-basher, Andrew Sullivan an anti-Semite?
Leon Wieseltier says yes, in this long and very controversial TNR piece. I think the most interesting thing here is Wieseltier's definition of anti-Semitism as it relates to Sullivan's writings. Here I will post two paragraphs that do not come one right after the other in the original article:Consider some squibs that Sullivan recently posted on his blog. "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)," he declared on January 13. "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." Michael Goldfarb is the former online editor of The Weekly Standard, about whom the less said, the better. Charles Krauthammer is Charles Krauthammer. I was not aware that they comprise a "wing" of American Jewry, or that American Jewry has "wings." What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan....
...His assumption, in his outburst about "the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing," that every thought that a Jew thinks is a Jewish thought is an anti-Semitic assumption, and a rather classical one. Bigotry has always made representatives of individuals, and discerned the voice of the group in the voice of every one of its members. Is everything that every gay man says a gay statement?
As should be expected, Wieseltier's article will probably serve to feed the hungry blogsphere for days if not weeks. Sullivan himself had already reminded his readers that Wieseltier was the one writing just a year ago: "I wish to be piercingly clear: I do not believe that Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Semite. No, it is more than a matter of my own belief. I know as an incontrovertible fact, based on my long acquaintance with him and his writings, that he is not an anti-Semite. Of course he is not an anti-Semite" (I guess the answer to this will be quite simple: I've changed my mind).
And Wieseltier's co-TNR writer Jonathan Chait still believes Sullivan isn't an a-S:Leon notes, correctly, that Andrew has begun repeating tropes that happen to track classic anti-Semitic canards. His obsession with the singular power of the Jewish lobby, writes Leon "has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people." Agreed. But just because an idea has a revolting provenance, it does not follow that everybody who subscribes to any version of it shares the same motive. The exploration of the link between race and I.Q. also has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people. It is, however, a legitimate topic of inquiry. Leon agrees that the pro-Israel lobby wields significant power in U.S. policymaking, and determining this level of power is also a legitimate topic of inquiry. At one point on the spectrum of thought you have what Leon and I would consider a realistic assessment of the power of the Israel lobby. As you move further along the spectrum, you eventually approach Osama bin Laden's view of the power of the Israel lobby. Clearly, bin Laden qualifies as an anti-Semite. But the judgment can't be that as soon as you go just a little further along the line from my view, then you're an anti-Semite.
Having fun? keep reading about it here, here and here. Wed. evening, Sullivan also posted a much more detailed response (no, he doesn't buy Wieseltier's thesis). You can read it here. Here's one paragraph:Then this assertion that I subscribe to some dark conspiracy theory that "the Jews control Washington." I'm sorry but this really is a vile lie, a stark accusation of anti-Semitism, unsupported by any evidence. The only people I have ever heard refer continuously and emphatically to "the Jews" as a single global entity wrote for The New Republic. This was often humorous and self-mocking, of course, until it wasn't. But I might as well state clearly what I do believe - and know almost no-one in Washington who isn't a fanatic who doesn't - that AIPAC's perfectly legal, perfectly open, brilliantly conducted lobbying operation has massive influence in the Congress. Really, any dissenters?
Andrew Sullivan’s brains have been scrambled by too much perverted sex.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
or?
Sullivan’s head is usually up somebody else’s a**.
Andrew Sullivan is a self loathing idiot. He rebels against himself. He says we have to be tolerant while he preaches hate. He preaches peace and ignores the efforts of his allies to make war. His committement to civil rights ends at the borders of the United States. His bigotry of low expectations allows him to comprehend leaders who actually kill dissidents as just if they were just behaving in a predictable manner.
I will not be surprised when he suicides.
WHY is this jerk still in America??? WHY does the Atlantic publish his utter drivel???
(Raises hand) Krauthammer wing - reporting for duty!
A British “toff”, he’s just the product of his upbringing and it’s coming out. Upper-crust Brit anti-semitism has crawled out from under it’s rock in this current atmosphere of Leftist Israel-bashing.
Andrew Sullivan is wacked over Sarah Palin and this is part of the reason. He despises her strong Christianity and also (surprise!) despises the religious basis for Israel and Israel being a nation with a right to defend itself. Sullivan is prolly an atheist slug which helps when you engage in such disgusting sex
*****Sarah P does not wear her Christianity on her sleeve
***** Andrew Sullivan really needs a Muzzie boyfriend to give him a right proper reaming out. Then you’ll hear less complaining from him about anything
And when he is talking about the NeoCons he is talking about the Project for a New American Century.
And the most strident of the NeoCons are Cheney and Bolten, both Gentiles
Sullivan himself has long been considered a NeoCon so what you are seeing is a conflict amongst NeoCons that began first over Iraq and now continues over Iran.
Sullivan himself has long been considered a NeoCon......
I doubt he has called himself a neo-con for the last few years. He was a liberal, on 911 became kind of conservative, now he’s back where he started. Like Charles Johnson
I wish Israel-bashing was restricted to the left. From James Baker to Brent Scowcroft to Daniel Kurtzer we have plenty of Republicans who are just as happy to bash Israel as anyone else.
As far as British anti-Semitism is concerned, well...
http://www.blogsofzion.com/blog/?p=1520
This needs more publicity -- both the fact that Britain is now the most anti-Semitic country in Europe and that there has to be a response to all the British boycotts of Israel. There is an Israeli MK pushing this as well.
They're not neo-cons, they're controlled by neocons of the Goldfarb-Krauthammer persuasion. Have to get your conspiracies right.
As I pointed out in #11, NeoCon is now defined by the Project for a New American Century. If you boil that down to the basic, a NeoCon foreign policy starts with the premise that the US won the cold war, is the last remaining super power, and should exercise hegemony over the entire world.
“Is Andrew Sullivan an anti-Semite or just a famous clueless?”
Can’t he be both?
Add woman hater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.