Its Origin and Purpose Still a Total Mystery

We're civilized nowdays--when we kill people, we don't usually mutlate them afterwards, unless we have a really good reason.

I have to ask this: Matt, don't you and Spencer have get a bit nervous about attacking the New Republic and its owners in such an acerbic, mocking manner? It's one thing to have a substantive debate, it's another to make fun. Same with Spencer and you alluding to a lot of TNR's inner politicking (regarding Spencer's firing, particuarly) in public. I think it's great you two are so fearless, but is it wise when one is a budding progressive political pundit to burn a bridge (and how!) with one of the few well-known centrist outlets?

Again, more power to the substantive debate, but all the personal attacks and barely-concealed implications strikes me as an unwise way to build a professional reputation.

I'd prefer the two of you didn't stop--as I find it entertaining--but this was a thought I had.

Hardly, alex - if anything, slamming TNR increases MY's credibility.

Clearly, all this talk of horrible mutilation has alex on edge. But that's all right. This horrible mutilation has a whole lot of people on a whole lot of edges.

At some point, does the sheer density of "Exterminate the brutes" rhetoric provoke any self-reflection or concern? The US electorate seems to have become skeptical of the clash of civilizations balderdash, but genocide probably remains a valid option to the apathetic. (E.g., the frustration of one of my relatives with the war was expressed as "Pull our troops out and nuke the whole place to glass.")

I mean, seriously -- towels are for drying off, not for use as hats. Women can get away with wearing a towel on their head when they're just getting out of the shower, but as an everyday practice for men, it's simply barbarous.

"one of the few well-known centrist outlets"

TNR hasn't been centrist in decades, unless by "centrist" you mean "occupying a position midway between the completely crazy right and the mostly crazy right".

Not just Iraq--think, "The Bell Curve"

Don't blame Matt because Peretz is a parody of an anti-Arab, mindlessly pro-Israel pundit.

And he also took down the savage Caesar.

"The savage Caesar"? That makes Bush, what, Brutus? While the Iraq situation is tragic, I think Marty's allusions are a bit of a stretch.

I see Peretz and Krauthammer have made your job very easy today.

all the personal attacks and barely-concealed implications strikes me as an unwise way to build a professional reputation.

I feel like I'm doing okay. What did the good lord invent the internet for if not to allow young writers to avoid kissing the assess of rich dudes who happen to own magazines?

Matt,

You are way too kind. I'd say "rich pyschotic monsters who happen to own magazines." But even that is probably way too kind.

We decapitate and mutilate as much as the next towelhead. We just don't have the guts to do it personally, and prefer to use bombs and missiles for our sheer relentless butchery.

Peretz -- Yes awful. Krauthammer -- World's worst Uruguayan-Canadian.

But Lawrence Kapaln has an unusually un-hackish piece out. I just have no idea what he is trying to say.

I thought the good lord made the internet for easy access to porn ? Methinks Marty might find that "fiendish arab" killing "barbarian arab" quite titilating since it reduces the total amount of "fiendish barbarians"/arabs to a more managable number.

Can anyone point me toward where Peretz argues that we can solve the problem in Iraq by "mak[ing] sure the Palestinians remain subjected to foreign military occupation for as long as possible"? I went and looked for it, because it does sound like a ludicrous suggestion and Peretz does sometimes seem to be rather one-sided in his understanding of Israeli policy.

I'm having a hard time, though. I found the place where Peretz seems to think that Baker's only idea for progress in the middle east is to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the part where Peretz thinks that this won't solve our problem in Iraq. This doesn't, of course, mean that Peretz thinks that the continuing occupation is helping or can help the US goals for Iraq. I found the part where Peretz suggests that such an Israeli withdrawl is exactly what Israel had on the table in the peace negotiations with Arafat in '91, to no avail. Is that wrong? It jibes with my understanding of the way that went down. Peretz doesn't claim that agreeing with him on this in any way helps our chances of contributing to some kind of order in Iraq. In fact, Peretz does explicitly deny that a resolution to the Palestine question (or, one might reasonably conclude a lack thereof) has any bearing at all on the outcome in Iraq at this point.

Yglesias usually seems so evenhanded and interested in accurately representing the arguments of those with whom he disagrees. I don't quite understand why he totally distorts Peretz's point and then accuses him of some sinister racist motivation. Liberals, I think, are at their worst when they claim to see implicit racism as the cause of the positions with which they disagree. If Peretz is so wrong, surely a sober analysis of his actual argument is the most effective way of rebuttal. Maybe it's okay to do it like this if it's the New Republic you're arguing against. I'm tempted to wonder whether such venting suggests a fear on the part of Mr. Y that Peretz might actually be onto something.

(Incidentially, if you read what Peretz actually says in this piece, he does seem to hope for a peaceful resolution to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, in spite of his doubts about the powers that currently be in Palestine agreeing that it's acceptable for there to be a nation called Israel with a bunch of Jewish people living there.)

...is it wise when one is a budding progressive political pundit to burn a bridge (and how!) with one of the few well-known centrist outlets?

This is exactly the sort of advice which had so many political pundits clamoring for war in Iraq in 2002, I feel I should note. Isn't _being right_ worth anything these days? Maybe not with the elite, but I think readers appreciate it.

I think it's great you two are so fearless, but is it wise when one is a budding progressive political pundit to burn a bridge (and how!) with one of the few well-known centrist outlets?

What are they going to do about it? Publish a self-righteous editorial? Write "This machine kill blogofascists" on their guitar? Who cares.

Making fun of the New Republic is more than just funny. It gets people to stop taking them, and their bad ideas, seriously. I know there's some people who do good work there, but it really doesn't excuse this "exterminate the brutes" rhetoric that Peretz loves so much (along with their hack job on Clinton's health care plan, the Bell Curve promotion, etc.) I say keep up the good work.

"I don't quite understand why he totally distorts Peretz's point and then accuses him of some sinister racist motivation"

Ooo ooo Mr Kottair Mr. Kottair !! Lemme answer this one.

From a piece from Jack Shafer on Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2134011/

"Peretz's view from space is easily summarized. The Arabs are an undifferentiated mass, consumed by antique tribal hatreds, fated to fratricide, torn asunder by their religious sectarianism. The "general afflictions of Arab politics," he wrote March 14, 1988, are "the principal resistance to compromise, the intoxicating effects of language, the endless patience for vengeance." How about that for a MacNeil/Lehrer conversation-stopper? "[The Lebanese] fight simply because they live. And the culture from which they come scarcely thinks this is odd. Their men fight on and on, and the women and children bleed" (March 19, 1990). Has a guest slot opened up on Washington Week in Review? The moderate Arab "is a figment of the imagination" (May 7, 1984)"

Well that and other stuff. From Marty's recent blog entry:

I don't want to be cavalier about this, since, to say the least, nationhood is not a fully matured notion among the Arabs.
(Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061127&s=peretz112706)

Nah He loves em ;-)

"The savage Caesar"? That makes Bush, what, Brutus?

No. It makes Bush General Aldo.

As far as Bush "taking down" the Taliban, do we have to point out once again that, first of all, the Northern Alliance took down the Taliban, with US support yes, but the Northern Alliance took the brunt of the casualties and did most of the work, and second of all, the Taliban doesn't appear to be staying "took down."

I would also like to see Matt's take on Kaplan's article. The way I read it he's saying that US soldiers truly believe we can win in Iraq and the US homefront is now stabbing the US soldier in the back. He also seems to be implying towards the end that there will be some sort of reckoning if we bring the boys back before we get the job done. I thought Kaplan's article had a very sinister facist tone to it.

As to whether Matt will get in trouble with the Establishment for this kind of thing, it's worth noting that TNR is not an undifferentiated mass. Peretz is universally regarded as an embarassment, and would have been fired years ago were he not, um, the boss. He's been walled off onto his own little patch on the internets, the Spleen, where he can be easily and safely ignored. Matt would be taking a bigger risk if he were picking on Foer or Crowley or somebody.

Really, it's kind of a waste of time to engage, much less read, what Peretz manages to churn out. It holds no meaning or impact, and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. He's not even engagingly wrong.

Really, it's kind of a waste of time to engage, much less read, what Peretz manages to churn out. It holds no meaning or impact, and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. He's not even engagingly wrong.

I wish it were so, but insofar as pointing out MP's insanity on certain subjects reduces the influence of TNR as an opinion maker on those subjects, its worthwhile. The more people who come around to the "who gives a fuck what TNR says about X," probably the better, since they have a pretty solid track record of being, uhm, wrong about stuff.

"alex" up above seems decent enough, but exhibits the kind of moral and intellectual corruption that laid the ground for this war. Murderous ideas were given a respectful hearing because of cliqueishness.

Matthew Y. is on the right track. "Peretz" needs to become an insulting epithet. The pro-war people at his rag need to be mocked, shouted down and reviled, and the valuable contributors like Ackerman winnowed. Just ruining TNR is a worthy end in itself -- not ten years ago it was called the "in-flight magazine" of the Clinton administration. So Matthew Y.'s dismissiveness is a sign of progress, progress at a price, alas.

The pro-war people at his rag need to be mocked

Only insofar as their arguments are worthy of mockery...which would still be all of them I guess.

See, pooh, that's just the thing. Peretz is sui generis. He is captain of his very own spaceship. He's got his own little blog there, even, now.

So bringing ever-more discredit to Peretz doesn't do much to address the arguments put out by the rest of the magazine.

As to Kaplan's piece, it's not a particularly original way to avoid making a rational argument. Demonize the media, stress that voters are at odds with the military. Conservative writers can do this stuff in their sleep.

The question is, WHO IS RIGHT? Is Iraq actually really just around the corner from being the Switzerland of the Middle East, or is the fact that all these hundreds of thousands of people who keep dying maybe some kind of indicator that things aren't going well?

blank_stare:

First of all, my main point was that Yglesias was totally off base with his representation of Peretz's conclusion. So far, no one has challenged this. It hasn't been that long, though. I'll check back again later.

I don't necessarily agree with Peretz' points, especially those quoted in the Schafer article, but I don't think that Schafer's conclusion that Peretz believes the "Arabs are an undifferentiated mass, consumed by antique tribal hatreds, fated to fratricide, torn asunder by their religious sectarianism" is warranted. Again, a gentile but intelligent criticism of the mistakes Peretz makes is a lot less presumptuous and more likely to convince MP that he's actually making mistakes and not just pissing off apologists for terror.

There is, of course, a huge difference between, saying on the one hand, that there are "general afflictions of Arab politics," as Peretz put it, and that the Arabs are "undifferentiated mass," as Schafer has Peretz thinking. I'd like to see more evidence that Peretz's quote from 1990 refers to Arab culture as a whole. Peretz maybe ought to have known better in '84 when he said that moderate muslims don't exist. There were, if I remember "The Power of Nightmares" correctly, there were mass protests in Morocco and Egypt against terrorism arount the time of Anwar Al-Sadat's assassination. That seems relatively moderate. Peretz might want say, though, that those were all well and good, but point toward the mass protests against the use of terror against Israel and the significant population of Arabs willing to go to the mat to protect the existence of their Jewish neighbors. If this is his definition of moderate Arab, I have some sympathy. If you can point toward a significant constituency in the Arab world that visibly supports (however grudgingly) the continuing existence of the state of Israel, (a reasonable definition of "moderate," if you ask me) I'll be more than happy to eat my words and do my best to remind Peretz of his error.

Wow, I'm usually a better writer than that last comment indicates. Sorry, everyone. It should be clear what I was trying say. I mean, trying to say.

"Before reaching his hilariously predictable conclusion -- the thing to do in Iraq is make sure the Palestinians remain subjected to foreign military occupation for as long as possible"

Uhh, could you perhaps lift a quote for us? I just read his "hilariously predictable" conclusion and the only thing I see him state is solving the Israeli-Palestenian conflict would do nothing to solve the problems in Iraq.

In full;

"In any case, although many people believe a resolution of the Palestine question is the key to everything, it is actually a key to nothing but itself. It would not affect the bloodshed in Iraq. It would not even affect the strife in Lebanon. It also would not calm the anxieties of the Saudi monarchy. Or the clamor for freedom in Egypt. Well, if a peace settlement doesn't douse these fires, another blue-ribbon panel surely will rise to the challenge."

Which seems to make sense. And even if this is disagreeable, Mr. Yglesias' caricature of it as saying the key to Iraq is to make sure the palestenians are never helped is certainly unbecoming. In fact, it's not just unbecoming, it's irresponsible.

Really Matt, Marty has enough warts & boils to point and laugh at. Is it really neccessary to make something up?

Really Matt, Marty has enough warts & boils to point and laugh at. Is it really neccessary to make something up?

Okay, here's how it goes. TNR runs a whole series of articles under the rubric, "what should we do about Iraq." The owner/editor-in-chief of the magazine gets himself included in the slate of contributors to the forum. And the end of his article -- which is supposed to be on the subject of what we should do about Iraq -- is a lengthy rant against people who've tried to bring about Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation in the past and a pre-emptive attack on people who might try to do so again in the future.

It's not me who's absurdly pitching this as Marty's plan for Iraq, it's Peretz himself who's doing so. Keep in mind that he owns the magazine, so it's not as if he has to seize advantage of this meager opportunity to speak his mind. He could have said "thanks Frank, but I don't really have anything coherent to say about Iraq, maybe I'll write a piece next week about how only douchebags think the peace process is worthwhile."

If you can point toward a significant constituency in the Arab world that visibly supports (however grudgingly) the continuing existence of the state of Israel, (a reasonable definition of "moderate," if you ask me)

I was taken to task by someone awhile back for asserting that the use of "moderate" by folks just like Bush and Peretz that it meant Zionist.

You may feel that there is no universal human right not to be ethnically cleansed, robbed of your property and chased off into a garbage dump. You may feel that Palestinians are unique in their lack of this universal right, but I do not think such a view is "moderate" at all. I think it's loopy-doopy you-are-out-of-your-mind crazy and I don't think you are ever going to convince Arabs or even Muslims that it's not. If it wasn't for some serious Western world conceits about Arabs everyone would instantly see how crazy the idea is here.

Isn't the title to this post the last spoken words in the movie 2001?

I didn't think about it from that angle, Matt. Makes sense. My apologies.

In other news, at TPMcafe MJ Rosenberg has a great piece on how Marty Peretz chooses everything from his favorite politicians to his favorite actors based on A: Their poisition on Israel, B: Their Jewishness. The wildcard of course being whether or not you were born IN Israel.

it's effective use of ridicule for marty's ridiculous and bigoted notions. there is no value in "gentile" debate when dealing with racist trash ... just as there is no value to allowing the intelligent designers to debate science with actual scientists.

It drags the respectable, nonracist trash (or scientists) down into the gutter, and grants legitimacy to dipshits like perez, coulter, hannity et al.

In this particular case, MY is approaching this the right way.

As a last post note; in the thread of one of Marty's jillion "Destroy the Arabs" posts when he was still occasionally bombing the Plank, one reader wrote that the best way to enjoy Marty's writing is to imagine him at his keybaord, eyes bulging & fingers fluttering away, muttering "Fools! I'll Destroy them all!" repeatedly.

Makes me laugh, every single time.

I think it's great you two are so fearless, but is it wise when one is a budding progressive political pundit to burn a bridge (and how!) with one of the few well-known centrist outlets?

This p.o.v. had never occurred to me, but I can see where a certain type of person would indeed let it bother him.

So, because I've never said it, & it needs to be said now & then:

Matt, thanks so much for not being a pussy. We're all the better for it.

Nice film allusion in the title. "Open the Pod Bay Doors, Hal!"

What did the good lord invent the internet for...

Well, we all know Al Gore invented the Internet, so speculation about why the Lord did it seems unwarranted.

one reader wrote that the best way to enjoy Marty's writing is to imagine him at his keybaord, eyes bulging & fingers fluttering away, muttering "Fools! I'll Destroy them all!" repeatedly

I go for the approach of imaging a SNL skit with Christopher Walken as Marty

The "savage Caesar" bit puzzles me too. Caesar won his foreign military campaigns. Saddam had a draw and a loss. And Caesar never got to serve as Emperor/dictator; that was the point of killing him. Hey Marty, get one of those Greece and Rome for Dummies books. Or a Complete Idiot's Guide to Shakespeare

Isn't the title to this post the last spoken words in the movie 2001?

Yeah, in reference to the monolith that sparks the bare rudiments of civilization.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you."

So, explain to me one more time how such technologically inept savages were mere moments away from developing atomic bombs. Or does nuclear weapon development follow the sharpened-rock stage?

LaFollette, that quote just made this thread 10x awesomer. And I wasn't sure that was possible.

Even by Marty's remarkable standards, this column's a piece of work. I especially like his assertion, "Let's face it: The Baker-Hamilton Commission is a desperate rescue operation for the Iraqi Sunnis." Bonus points for the paean to ethnic cleansing that animates the rest of the column, plus the final, obligatory attack on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (it's either that or another complaint about the United Nations).

And, although Marty's point remains a mystery, it seems to have something to do with letting the sectarian violence in Iraq boil over into the region and swamp everyone from Egypt to Iran in a series of reprisals, raids and invasions in the heart of the global oil supply, which is somehow better than how things were prior to 2003. "Unleash Chiang," indeed.

And if that's *not* what Marty's arguing, then he doesn't seem to be arguing anything at all. Which I suppose is as likely as anything in his rather dire publishing career.

I think "mds" identified the appropriate allusion up the thread: "exterminate the brutes".

Peretz has completed his transformation into Marty Kurtz.

Goerge W. Bush "took down the Taliban?" Really? Then who are those guys who are still fighting NATO in Afghanistan, the God damn Boy Scouts?

It's hard to pick the worst out of so wide a range of horrible choices, but I think the number one failure of this administration was to not go after the Taliban and the leaders of Al Qaida with full strength. Even as Bin Laden was on the run and at his most vulnerable, the morons in Washington were pulling troops out of Afghanistan, in order to prepare for the Iraq fiasco. So even to this day the perpetrators of the World Trade Center massacre have eluded retribution.

I had always assumed the cliche tood well on its own: conservatives are filled with rancor,venom, hate; liberals, with guilt, whining, whimpishness. But now I note that many left of center boggers, having tasted of the conservative well, sp[end a good deal of theirtime berating those who, if they are worthless, ought to be ignored, left alone. The New republic is sinking weekly and so it is a waste of time to spend vitriol on Marty.
He is, after all, deeply committed to the state of Irael and will stand by them, no matter what. Me? I think the sunnis and the shias are both crazed and incapable of living alongside fellow muslims. Note that Jewish fundies and conservatives and reform may dislike each other but they don't blow up their houses of worship.

Nominee for biggest neo-con idiot of the last 10 years:

http://tinyurl.com/exk73

"We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past."

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, FEBRUARY 27, 2003*

*At that time, Wolfowitz was the Deputy Secretary of Defense

The Taliban are still going strong and running an entire province in nukular Pakistan and almost all of Afghanistan, to the point NATO may crumble under the strain the same way the Iron Curtain did in the same country two decades prior...

Meanwhile give Bush credit for the historic Democrat victory.

These guys didn't get the news?

The accountability moment arrived this election. Ask the people chicken George stumped for, it was not a pretty result for the GOP.

When did Saddam conquer Gaul and Britain? And Egypt? When did he stand atride the globe? "Caesar?" Peretz's credit to Bush is as bootlicking and bloated as any Party functionary's in 1950 Rumania, back in the day when no one dared to be the first to stop applauding.

And, oh, yeh, Bush, using the U.S. Army and Air Force, took down a few thousand guys armed with machine guns mounted on dozens of pick-up trucks. If "took down" means made them retreat into enclaves where he did not pursue, and from which they soon re-emerged.

O mighty Bush, great war president!

And, oh, yeh, Bush, using the U.S. Army and Air Force, took down a few thousand guys armed with machine guns mounted on dozens of pick-up trucks.

This is not mentioned nearly often enough. The Taliban had jack-snappy-shit in the way of armaments and organization. They were some extremely dedicated (maniacal) dudes with Toyota pickups, some of which they had augmented with machine guns. That's not a fucking army. It's barely a Morals Police.

Taking ground from the Taliban at modern warfare is like beating my four-year-old at chess. Keeping that ground is where the problem lies. Oddly enough, that's the problem we face in Iraq as well.

"Again, more power to the substantive debate, but all the personal attacks and barely-concealed implications strikes me as an unwise way to build a professional reputation."

Au contraire!

It's "the" reason I read Matthew and blogs in general.

If I wanted the opinion of power suck-ups I'd watch the Sabbath Gasbags (George is right, Cokie is right, Sam is right.......) and read the WP op-ed page. They're all driven by fear of offending the Powers That Be, in politics, journalism, corporate world.

Savage Ceaser? More like savage Ceasar Romero...

Re; Lawrence Kaplan

Why are people still reading this guy? Why does he still have a job as a pundit?

Forget three strikes and out. This guy must have had a thousand strikes by now and he is still "in", a member of the opinion elite. He has been wrong about everything. And I mean everything.

Tyler Simons:

"...a gentile but intelligent criticism of the mistakes Peretz makes"

Ah, Tyler - goyische Kritik makes Marty ferrookt, be it ever so intelligent.

bravo, Matt!

Sigh. Somebody let the Concern Trolls out from under Civility Bridge. It's only a matter of time before we get warned that if we keep this up, this dreadful snark, the accusations of (shudder) "wankery" (pearl-clutching) the Democrat party will marginalize itself again and that will be a tragedy, not for partisan reasons, but because the nation functions better in a 2-party system. And maybe some mumbling about FDR turning over in his grave.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin readers will continue sending death threats and fake anthrax.

What is peculiarly compelling about Mr. Peretz however is that unlike say Beinart or some of the others you don't know if he is hacking or means all this dark heart of Africa stuff.

The possibility that he might actually mean it makes him simultaneously more deranged and interesting.

I found the part where Peretz suggests that such an Israeli withdrawal is exactly what Israel had on the table in the peace negotiations with Arafat in '91, to no avail.

Peretz doesn't suggest that, nor is it true.

'Inevitably, Baker will deploy the only trick he knows: force Israel to retreat to the 1967 lines. OK, it can't be forced. Then at least hold a peace conference. The 1991 peace conference actually accomplished nothing, except to pay Bush-Baker's debt to their partners in the Kuwait coalition.'

Of the 1991 conference Peretz says only that it accomplished nothing. He says nothing about what was on the table. And, in fact, the Israelis have never put the 1967 borders on the table, with the Palestinians or the Syrians.

The Israelis gave the Egyptians their 1967 frontiers, and got a peace agreement that has held for a quarter of a century. The Israelis gave the Jordanians their 1967 frontiers (not counting the West Bank, since the Jordanians had renounced their claim on it), and got a peace agreement that also stands today.

Despite the success of these agreements, and incessant protestations by the Israelis of their desire for peace, the Israelis have never been willing to offer the 1967 borders to the Syrians or the Palestinians.

This guy must have had a thousand strikes by now and he is still "in", a member of the opinion elite.

His job is producing useful opinions, not correct ones.

Murray Rothbard called such people 'court intellectuals'.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard117.html

If you can point toward a significant constituency in the Arab world that visibly supports (however grudgingly) the continuing existence of the state of Israel . . .

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p8a.html#roadmap

A majority of 52% [of Gaza and West Bank Palestinians] agree and 46% disagree with the proposal calling for mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people after the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settlement of all issues of the conflict.

http://www.btvshalom.org/resources/poll_20060926.shtml

67% Of the Palestinians do not believe Hamas should recognize the state of Israel in order to meet international donor demands. But 63% would support a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people after a peace agreement is reached, a Palestinians state is established, and all issues in dispute, including the refugees and Jerusalem, are settled.

. . . when we kill people, we don't usually mutlate them afterwards . . .

In Vietnam it was not unheard of for Americans to take souvenir body parts. I once met a gentleman who was haunted by guilt for having cut off a corpse's ear.

Wolfowitz isn't an idiot. He's a liar.

'He told the public again and again that the reconstruction would be cheap, that it could by paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. He said this in the face of expert advice from oil company executives who new the state of Iraq's neglected oil facilities.' (George Packer, The Assassins' Gate, pp. 115-116)

He also seems to be implying towards the end that there will be some sort of reckoning if we bring the boys back before we get the job done. I thought Kaplan's article had a very sinister fascist tone to it.

I recently read a piece that concluded with a more explicit version of the meme. It suggested that if there was another mass casualty attack on the U.S. after the troops come home, they'd be enraged and prone to take it out on someone.

I can't recall who wrote it, or any good keywords either, so I haven't been able to find it. I think the author was one of the usual suspects, and might even have been Kaplan.

Andrew Sullivan has a link to the Kaplan piece, and he's also puzzled.

'I'm not sure what he's trying to say, except that he's been to Iraq and some of us haven't. Or does he think we're winning?'

"Fortunately, in civilized parts of the world there's no history of ethnically motivated killing and mutilation so we can all rest secure in our easy sense of innate moral superiority to the towel heads."

Numbers matter. Just because americans have done and do barbaric acts does not mean we are morally equivalent to arab societies in which barbaric acts are orders of magnitude more widespread. To specifically take on your lynching example, note that we still have African Americans in america, and they have in fact increased from 8% to over 12% of our population over the last half century. Minorities, even those who predate the creation of Islam, are far more likely to be expelled in arab muslim nations than be given welfare and affirmative action.

Thanks, Matt. I'll buy that.

Okay, here's how it goes. TNR runs a whole series of articles under the rubric, "what should we do about Iraq." The owner/editor-in-chief of the magazine gets himself included in the slate of contributors to the forum. And the end of his article -- which is supposed to be on the subject of what we should do about Iraq -- is a lengthy rant against people who've tried to bring about Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation in the past and a pre-emptive attack on people who might try to do so again in the future.

I won't pay much for it. I think you're being overly harsh here. Peretz seems to think that Jim Baker's only idea is to solve the palestinian issue by getting Israel to withdraw to the 1967 border and to get the Palestinians to agree to stop shooting rockets and sending suicide bombers into Israel proper (sic?). If, for a moment, we leave aside the content of his claim, which seems pretty odd on the face, he does seem to be arguing against what he thinks the Bush Administration is going to do about Iraq now that Baker's chairing a new committee to look at the issue. He has something approaching an actual point, and he takes the opportunity to bust the balls of the people who were, apparently, dumb enough to believe that Arafat was negotiating in good faith back in '91 and that even if he were, he had the power to stop the bombers.

This seems like a relatively legitimate view of that situation, and I have some sympathy for an Israel fan with a deep resentment around the history of western liberalism's attempts at a peace deal. People like Ed, above, aren't helping with this kind of thing:

I was taken to task by someone awhile back for asserting that the use of "moderate" by folks just like Bush and Peretz that it meant Zionist.

You may feel that there is no universal human right not to be ethnically cleansed, robbed of your property and chased off into a garbage dump. You may feel that Palestinians are unique in their lack of this universal right, but I do not think such a view is "moderate" at all. I think it's loopy-doopy you-are-out-of-your-mind crazy and I don't think you are ever going to convince Arabs or even Muslims that it's not. If it wasn't for some serious Western world conceits about Arabs everyone would instantly see how crazy the idea is here.

Now, of course, he has an important point. The foundation of the modern state of Israel was a bloody, unjust process. Palestinians have a good reason to be really, really pissed. On the other hand, I doubt anyone can find a founding of a political order that isn't accompanied by serious strife. The question is, what do we do now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ed seems to suggest that saying that, in the end, it should be a desired goal for a comprimise where Israel continues to exist as a Jewish state is equivalent to endorsing the horrific acts against the Palestinians. I think this is a blind alley, leading to relentless, ineffectual criticism of Israel. You'll have a point, but you won't be able to get anything done with it.

I'm a little creeped out by this line of thought, too, for two reasons. First, an instinctive opposition to Israel, or a too-simple image of Israel as the evil Imperial overlord and the Palestinians as the helpless, oppressed other could be seen as as treading close to anti-semitism. I'm not jewish, but I wouldn't entirely blame a Jewish person for being a little creeped out by this tendency insofar as it is perceived to exist. Martin Peretz is a bit unhinged, but the answer is not to assume the opposite position.

Because, of course, Israelis have some legitimate beefs with the Palestinians. Suicide bombs are really bad. The form of Islam that legitimates them, you gotta admit, is downright creepy, regardless of the understandable political influence that makes it possible. Is Peretz really so off base to claim that there doesn't seem to be a readily apparent, viable political trend in Palestine and the Arab world in general that emphasizes some form of reconciliation between neighbors instead of, for ideological or political reasons, reflexively treating Israel as an enemy to be destroyed? At the end of the day, I believe that the majority of Israelis would rather just be left alone on some amount of the land they're on. If Israelis had to vote whether or not they'd be happy with the '67 borders in exchange for a lasting, secure peace, they'd go for it. I'd bet five dollars that Marty Peretz would, too.

Secondly, I think that there's a hint of hypocracy in the constant accusations of racism against Peretz. Sometimes I feel like the people who can't say anything nice about Israel are selling their Arab neighbors short as actual human beings. This depends on my naive belief that reconciliation and forgiveness as a response to strife are universal human goods. I don't think that, after all is said and done, American lefties, Israeli government officials, or Hamas supporters in Gaza have an excuse for escalating the situation. People need to put aside aggresion and work towards what is relatively satisfactory for the most people possible. I think that assuming or implying that no good solution is possible as long as Israel doesn't conceed everything asked for by the Palestinians, that Israel has no legitimate claim on land for some kind of mostly Jewish state in the middle east implies that the urge toward reconciliation and peaceful interaction with the neighbor is absent from Arabs. From this perspective, which might be crazy, Peretz actually has more respect for the Arabs than do the American or European left. Or the politicians and radical Imams of the Arab world, for that matter.

Now, to bring an already long comment to a close, I'm well aware that it's painting with too broad a brush to say anything with certainty about "the Arab world." It might be anti-arab to do so, anyway. There's a lot of nuance to the cultures in question and to the issue at hand. How much nuance is there in Arab opinion towards Israel, though? I'm sure there are some public advocates for peaceful reconciliation and social justice to be found, but why doesn't the American left show as much interest in championing their causes as attacking the perceived opponents to peace and justice? Is it totally of base to assume that life would be really dangerous for most justice and reconciliation oriented Arabs? What about that? Would life be easier for truth and justice oriented Arabs were allowed to operate outside of the Western media spotlight in order to avoid the impression that they're American goons? That's a valid question, too, but I think it's a sad one.

Matt, of course, if it takes as much dancing as I did to justify Peretz's point, you have a legitimate reason to call his piece incoherent. I made that clear. I think that his position could have a much more coherent defense, and attacking Peretz's mistakes leaves the real work undone.

This paragraph should have been in italics, Ed wrote it. This blogging software turns of italics automatically after a line break. Ouch.

You may feel that there is no universal human right not to be ethnically cleansed, robbed of your property and chased off into a garbage dump. You may feel that Palestinians are unique in their lack of this universal right, but I do not think such a view is "moderate" at all. I think it's loopy-doopy you-are-out-of-your-mind crazy and I don't think you are ever going to convince Arabs or even Muslims that it's not. If it wasn't for some serious Western world conceits about Arabs everyone would instantly see how crazy the idea is here.

"the sheer and relentless butchery of which both Sunni and Shia are capable"

Conservatives used to pride themselves on their understanding of the fact that reckless destruction of social and political institutions can very easily reveal the fact that human beings in general are capable of "sheer and relentless butchery". Not anymore. Seems that much anti-Arab bigotry is, to paraphrase an oft-heard saying, "neo-conservatism mugged by reality".

Re: And Caesar never got to serve as Emperor/dictator

Caesar was Dictator at the time of his assassination. His murderers were afraid hewould make himself a king (not "emperor" as that role did not yet exist).

The so called wit is obviously Spencer's cowardly kitchen sitting dog. or ... nah couldn't be ... he loves Peretz doesn't he ?

"I go for the approach of imaging a SNL skit with Christopher Walken as Marty"

Marty says: "I got a fever... And the only cure is more Israel!"

do you have a fax number to recieve documents?

So, explain to me one more time how such technologically inept savages were mere moments away from developing atomic bombs. Or does nuclear weapon development follow the sharpened-rock stage?

It's quite simple, really. They simply throw the bone into the air, and it becomes an orbital nuclear device.

To read this thread, one might think that poor Marty Peretz (to say nothing of Rupert Murdoch, Daniel Pipes and the likes of former AIPAC exec Wolf Blitzer) are fighting a lonely, heroic layman's battle against pro-Arab message control at the highest levels of the US media.

Some notions are not only not right, they aren't even wrong.

To even reach a common ground to engage Tyler Simons would require a trip to Bizzaro earth, standing on my head all the way.

Marty's real worry? The "broad public support" Israel enjoys in US polls is wafer thin, and sustained only at the cost of relentless agitprop. The deep, core support is fanatic but too costly to endure. Visible Likudnik agitating for a US war with Iran could prove to be the final neocon impertinence.

the foundation of modern Israel may have been bloody, but what was unjust about it? Why should the Arabs have all the middle east, because the conquered it all? If the Jews want to go and reclaim their homeland from the Arab invaders, more power to them.

If you dweebs are all as smart as you seem to think you are, why don't you interrogate the notion of the so-called "palestinian people"? It's clear enough that there is no palestinian people, just a bunch of arabs who have been kept in camps for 50 years BY THEIR OWN BROTHERS as a political ploy against Israel.

It's like starvation in North Korea -- if their brothers in the south don't care, and their cousins in China don't care, then why the hell should we?

I grew up in a town out west, but moved east after my father got transferred. If I were a "palestinian," I'd be shooting rockets at my old hometown. . . .

And one more thing -- you all flip because some old dude suggests that Arabs are savages. This happens to be a fact, the evidence is right there. Just because Bush & Co are savages or because other arabs are enlightened doesn't make it any less true that the Arabs are savages. Your protests just mark you as a bunch of delirious dreamers.

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

Thanks

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

http://www.vidmatik.com

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu

komik video
kurtlar vadisi pusu
aşk şiirleri
bol sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohbet
sohbet yerleri
bedava oyun
Bol Sohbet
chat
chat
sohbet
sohbet
seviyeli sohbet
göçmen sohbet
mynet sohbet
islam sohbet
yazılı sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
hollanda sohbet
bg sohbet
dost sohbet
arkadaş sohbet
bayan arkadaş sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
avrupa sohbet
alem sohbet
sohpet sohbet
cinsel sohbet
ingiltere sohbet
liseli kizlar
msn nickler
saç ekimi
sağlık bilgisi
mirc inndir
film inndir

thank you

thank you

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

mirc

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

penis büyütücü

thanks.

thanks a lot.

thanksss.

thanks turksiding.

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html

thanks.

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com