Clark, Anti-Semitism, Etc.

While the distinction (outlined above) itself is not all that interesting nor important the way it's used - or ignored - by Chait certainly is. Isn't Chait just trying to shut somebody up by obscuring this very distinction? Don't we see this as a persistent strategy employed by all sorts of hardliners?
That said, I like Chait's writing very much - I hope he keeps his job, and I'm sure he appreciates my support.

Now, more than ever, I am looking forward to Dershowitz's review of your book in TNR.

If, however, somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims I'll fire up the old Google, Nexis, etc. and put a dossier together for the site.

I wouldn't normally deny he's a bigot, but I will if it'll make you actually do that. I think it would be a very useful post to refer to on all types of occasions.

So: I deny Peretz is a bigot. Get on it, Matt!

Monospackermania.

Spencer:

"Jon. You know very, very well Marty, um, isn't really fond of the Arabs. ..."

http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-see-you-crawling-in-your-garden.html

Clearly, you have the better of this argument. Chait's splitting hairs about whether the Israel lobby can cause the US to go to war or just make it more likely, and about whether Marty Peretz's racism is proved in one specific blog post. It would be nice to have an easy, go-to dossier for Marty's racist comments, though.

Wow. Spencer is making some threats.

I hope the next one involves "Skull Fucking"

This whole debate is what happens when genuine dicussion about our support of Israel is just not allowed.

Whether or not "rich Jews" are pushing for war with Iran, there was a not small amount of rich Jewish neocons who pushed for war with Iraq. There seems to be no shortage of rich Jewish neocons pushing for war with Iran -- including Marty.

This is not to say all rich Jews are pushing this war or that all neocons are Jewish-- though should it happen, and we find ourselves in a new war the aftermath will not be pretty. It will be a distaster that makes Iraq look like our invasion of Panama. Then the scapegoating will begin, the REAL scapegoating -- and dear Marty will sadly begin to see what anti-semetism really looks like.

I thank you for having this conversation. It's long needed to be addressed. And your core point of influence vs control is the key to the whole works. The value in the wisdom of crowds is diversity and independence of the views of the members. By adhering to your honest and intelligent perspective you are expanding the conversation in much needed directions so that all parties may become smarter about what they do and how they do it.

I think the majority of us agree the incompetence of recent crop of leaders comes directly from not addressing the obvious problems in their plans. And further problems among the plans stem from similar problems among planners themselves. Too few minds, makes for a disaster.

There's only one way to settle it: Chait v. Big Media Matt. High noon @ bloggingheads.tv!

Matt, while I more or less agree with you, 2 points in the interest of fairness. In your last post, you did more or less call out Chait to say something about Peretz, so it's disingenuous here to say you wouldn't want him to. And while I agree Peretz left himself wide open for a response with his characterization of MLK, Chait was right to point out that there would be a significant difference between the way he was treated in America and the likely response to a similar figure in a Muslim country.

Can we please refrain from warning about some future American rollover on American Jews? It seems unlikely, and it's creepy. (I'm not suggesting people offering the warning are creepy or anything but fleshing out some worry that they have.)

Why have the middleman?

Peretz v. Big Media Matt @ bloggingheads.tv!

"bigoted views about Arabs seem to me to be pretty tolerated unless they're expressed in an exceedingly crass manner."

Actually they're pretty tolerated even if expressed crassly. Think Boykin, Falwell, Franklin Graham, Coulter. They couldn't have made similar comments about Jews and Blacks and remained members in good standing of the conservative community.

If, however, somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims I'll fire up the old Google, Nexis, etc. and put a dossier together for the site.

I knew there was a reason I should have subscribed to TNR!

Rich neocon Jewish-Americans have every right to use their wealth and influence to try to get America into a war with Iran. The problem is that nobody else in America, especially anybody who isn't Jewish, is supposed to mention the source of their bias on the subject. When any group of human beings is exempted from criticism, their behavior declines.

"Can we please refrain from warning about some future American rollover on American Jews."

Agreed. Gatchaman's warning of antisemtism itself amounts to something like antisemitism. It's like: If blacks keep committing more than their share of violent crime, then we're gonna see what racism really looks like! Ugly stuff, and Gatchaman should retract it.

"This isn't really an issue that has anything in particular to do with Chait or anyone else who works there -- it's a question about American society."

But if casual anti-Arab racism is a problem--and if M. Peretz sincerely holds and espouses racist views--then so is working and writing for TNR. Because even if Chait himself is not a racist--and I'd be surprised if he is--as an editor and contributor to the magazine he's instrumental in helping support and uphold an organ whose leading editorial voice espouses racist anti-Arabism. So his complicity is clear. The only question is whether Peretz's views are indeed a problem, and whether it's worth resigning over. But only Chait would know that.

Obviously Marty's point was that a Muslim Martin Luther King would be imprisoned for a very long time, and not for civil disobedience, and that he'd be shot by the state, not a crazed assassin.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

"There's only one way to settle it: Chait v. Big Media Matt. High noon @ bloggingheads.tv!"

They've already gone one round over there, and Chait won pretty comfortably. But I'd happily watch another round.

Matt,
While I agree that the general leniency shown toward Peretz's bigotry relates to our society's attitudes about Arabs, I think it also has much to do, or should, with journalists and others who choose to work with Peretz and TNR.

Put it this way: If Peretz trafficked in anti-Jewish or anti-black hate instead of anti-Arab hate, I don't think there would be a self-respecting liberal in the country who would associate with Peretz's magazine, no matter how sterling its reputation. Defenses of the editor-in-chief's hateful tirades with appeals to "diversity," such as Chait attempts, would rightly be laughed out of the room.

In any case, thanks for continuing to identify Peretz for what he is: a racist, a bigot, and a clown.

For years, I've been fascinated by the fact that the world's most famous living author can't get his two most recent books published in America (although they've been available in France in a French translation for a half decade now) ... and almost nobody ever mentions this in the press!

You can read some brief translated extracts here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/important-literary-historiographical.html

I read Chait and the comments over at the Plank. Even those who love/enjoy/subscribe to TNR believe Chait's argument doesn't hold up and the Peretz is a bigot.

I think you proved your point and "won" this one. Now send him a basket from Dean & Deluca as a peace offering. Without Chait and Foer TNR will go over to the darkside.

Chait, as I read him, draws a distinction between Islamic societies not being able to produce an MLK because of race (not the position he says Peretz is taking) and because Muslim nations are authoritarian (the position he says Peretz is taking. Indonesia, Turkey, even Malaysia or perhaps Bangladesh??? Thats perhaps 4 of the largest Islamic or predominantly Islamic nations in the world with histories, perhaps short ones but fairly passionate ones, of democracy more or less as we know it. This side of the argument, Iran not withstanding, is every bit as important. And Chait's version of Peretz is carefully avoiding some important exceptions.

"Chait was right to point out that there would be a significant difference between the way he was treated in America and the likely response to a similar figure in a Muslim country."

Yeah, the people in the Muslim country would be wearing turbans and stuff. Also, they wouldn't speak English. Really, except for bigoted suppositions, how the hell do you know how a "Muslim Martin Luther King" would be treated? Or a Jewish one in Israel today? Or anything about what such a "similar figure" would be like?

Let's rehearse: Rabin was a powerful Jewish leader who called for peace, and got shot by his fellow Israelis. Rachel Corrie was a non-violent protestor in the MLK tradition who committed civil disobedience on the West Bank, and got run over by an Israeli bulldozer. The Ayatollah Al-Sistani called for peace between Shi'ites and Sunnis amid the incredible violence of Iraq, and while he has been marginalized politically now, he was not killed or arrested, and has been treated with respect.

These are obviously selected examples, and there are lots of possibilities for what could happen to someone who takes risks for peace in a politically volatile situation. But to say that such a person would always be honored in America or Israel, and always despised in a Muslim country, is flat out vicious bigotry.

I bet you'd have no trouble at all recognizing that if this were about Jews. Try replacing "Muslim" with "Jewish" in Peretz's statement, and it's obviously vicious anti-semitism.

I think very little of Chait, so I'm not acquainted with his complete dossier. I'd be interested to know if he has any opinions on the influence of the Miami-Dade immigrant community on our BizarroLand policies toward Cuba, and if he sees any parallels between that, and our policies toward Israel.

If, however, somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims I'll fire up the old Google, Nexis, etc. and put a dossier together for the site.

Even though I don't qualify as "somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims", might you throw a bone and post at least a couple of examples of such alleged racism? Seems to me clear that Chait's got the better of the argument as to your post below. Got any better examples of racism?

No, Al, Matt has the better of it. Chait is transparently making excuses for an obvious example of casual, tossed-off bigotry on Peretz's part.

Peretz has every right to use his wealth and position to agitate in favor of America dropping bombs on Muslims. But the rest of us should be allowed to point out, without fear of wrecking our careers, the ultimate source of his vehemence on the subject: his ethnocentric attachment to Israel.

Let's rehearse: Rabin was a powerful Jewish leader who called for peace, and got shot by his fellow Israelis.

Perhaps you should have read Chait's post more closely. The relevant difference is how they are treated by the state, not by some extremist.

Peretz has every right to use his wealth and position to agitate in favor of America dropping bombs on Muslims. But the rest of us should be allowed to point out, without fear of wrecking our careers, the ultimate source of his vehemence on the subject: his ethnocentric attachment to Israel.

Honestly, though, at least 40 percent of the time it seems to me that MP's passion for Israel is driven by his loathing of Arabs rather than the other way 'round.

Agreed. Gatchaman's warning of antisemtism itself amounts to something like antisemitism. It's like: If blacks keep committing more than their share of violent crime, then we're gonna see what racism really looks like! Ugly stuff, and Gatchaman should retract it.

Listen, I am not going to retract it -- my 2 cents aren't worth the effort of retraction. I will grant you that I could have chosen my words more carefuly.

My point was, that if we go to war with Iran who is going to take the heat for the clusterfuck that it will most certainly be? Will it be the Fundie Nutjobs? No. Carlyle Group, et al? No. The GOP? Hells no! Big Oil? Another BIG NO. It will most likely be the subset of neocons that almost seemed designated as the patsies since day one -- the "rich Jews". Though, it will most likely be Jews who had nothing whatsoever do with policy, thats the shitty way things turn out.

Out of curiosity, are there any poor, gentile necons?

It will most likely be the subset of neocons that almost seemed designated as the patsies since day one -- the "rich Jews".

I don't know, Gatchman, the same suspects helped to push us into war with Iraq, and they're doing just fine. I don't see any Jew-hating mobs knocking down David Brooks's door.

I can't even say the following is a particularly impressive Peretzism, but here one is from a quick search

"I actually believe that Arabs are feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) "atrocities." They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures. That comparison shouldn't comfort us as Americans. We have higher standards of civilization than they do."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=58683

"Perhaps you should have read Chait's post more closely. The relevant difference is how they are treated by the state, not by some extremist."

No, the "relevant difference" is whatever will make Muslims look bad while excusing the obvious violence committed by Christian and Jewish countries. What is relevant is whatever justifies anti-Muslim bigotry. Chait's "arguments" are absurdly sophistical.

Perhaps you should have read Chait's post more closely. The relevant difference is how they are treated by the state, not by some extremist.

Not only did I find that incomprehensible but does he (or do you) have any idea the things the state did to MLK?

I find it annoying that Chait gets all bent out of shape when Matt goes all ad hominem on Marty. This whole discussion is based on an ad hominem - that Wesley Clark is an anti-semite. Clark gets labeled an anti-semite for saying something about Israel and powerful Jews, and Matt defends him by saying that he is not an anti-semite because what he is saying is true. We got mired in a discussion about whether someone is an anti-semite, and we lose sight of the argument that actually matters - why in God's name is Bush planning to bomb Iran, and how do we stop him?

That last sentence in Chait's response was him calling Matt an anti-semite, if you are counting that as ad hominum.

Matt, when I first read this post I was looking for a way to say you had cojones, but I couldn't think of most appropriate expression. But it occurs to me that perhaps I should say that you show some spine.

It's a symptom of the decline of freedom of expression in America that a favorite response to the neocon / neolib attempt to shut down debate by accusing their critics of being anti-Semitic bigots who should be driven out of polite society is to accuse the neos in turn of being anti-Arabic bigots who, presumably, should be driven out of polite society.

Don't make me quote Milton's "Aeropagetica."

In Peretz's defense, there is no shortage of honest-to-God true facts that make Arabs and Iranians look very, very bad. The key point, however, is that the reason that Peretz is so much more upset over Arab and Iranian faults, as opposed to, say, Burmese shortcomings, is that Israel isn't in a rivalry with Burma. And thus we should remember to keep Peretz's writings on this subject in proper perspective -- he wants America to kill Muslims because he loves Israel so much.

In other words, we need more free discussion and more information in the public eye, not less.

In contrast, extending the purview of political correctness to anti-Arabists like Peretz is just making the problem worse.

In Peretz's defense, there is no shortage of honest-to-God true facts that make Arabs and Iranians look very, very bad.

What the...oh, Steve Sailer. Never mind.

Dear M. Duss:

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

Steve, err, touche...

I do think there is a significant difference between what Martin Luther King went through and what a similar figure might have to endure in Egypt, Iran or Syria (or Venezuela, Cuba or Zimbabwe). That's not to minimize what he did have to endure or the courage it took in any way. I'm not saying Peretz isn't anti-Islamic, just that his general point is not invalid. (And I used "Muslim" in an earlier post when I should have said "Authoritarian Muslim", but we are smart enough to realize that no one is talking about Bangladesh, right?)

Really, except for bigoted suppositions, how the hell do you know how a "Muslim Martin Luther King" would be treated? Or a Jewish one in Israel today? Or anything about what such a "similar figure" would be like?

Let's rehearse: Rabin was a powerful Jewish leader who called for peace, and got shot by his fellow Israelis.

I'm still not sure I understand this point. Rabin was a forward-thinking politician who pushed finally got mainstream Israeli society away from its obsession with Begin's "Greater Israel" and was hated by a small collection of nutbag charedim, one of whom murdered him. Some parallels with MLK, seems to me. Israel society responded to this by: electing him Prime Minister and then backing his push for Oslo.

Al writes: "Perhaps you should have read Chait's post more closely. The relevant difference is how they are treated by the state, not by some extremist."

I did you one better and read Peretz's post more closely. Peretz writes that "they" would break windows, imprison, kill. Chait finds it "obvious" that "they" are the state. This is absolutely nowhere in Peretz's piece.

In fact, there is no antecedent to the word "they" in what Peretz wrote. From context, my take is that Peretz implies that "they" are other Muslims around our hypothetical Muslim MLK, who may or may not be state-supported actors.

Honestly, though, at least 40 percent of the time it seems to me that MP's passion for Israel is driven by his loathing of Arabs rather than the other way 'round.

This, if true, is a picture of a man who has lost his way. How sad.

Peretz writes that "they" would break windows, imprison, kill. Chait finds it "obvious" that "they" are the state. This is absolutely nowhere in Peretz's piece.

Which is interesting, because only if one reads "they" to mean "the state," instead of "Muslims," can Chait's defense hold up. It's lucky for Chait's argument that this reading is so obvious.

And of course, there's the other "obvious" part. When Marty says "they" would imprison the Muslim MLK, that's just like what happened to the Christian MLK. The state jailed him. D'oh!

So Chait rescues the "obvious" intent of Peretz: "obviously," he meant that the Muslim MLK would be jailed for a long time, and not for civil disobedience.

Puh-leez.

Excuse me, I'm new to this debate. But now that everyone seems agreed that the man behind what I thought was a decent paper is in fact a raving racist, could we please have the promised evidence? Seems it might be in the public interest, no? And, by the way, there really is no excuse for a decent human being to still be working at tnr if this is what they - quietly, with hunched shoulders - think of their boss. No openings at the Prospect for Chait?

Even though I don't qualify as "somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims", might you throw a bone and post at least a couple of examples of such alleged racism?

Al,

Just because I have it handy, a few Peretzisms linked.

What Israel needs is not a Muslim Martin Luther King but a Muslim Malcolm X -- somebody with anti-Israeli street cred who has a change of heart and is willing to negotiate a compromise. Of course, as Peretz implies, he would likely end up just like Malcolm ... or Sadat ... or Rabin ... or Michael Collins.

In contrast, Martin Luther King won a huge triumph for his people and then was gunned down by a bitter remnant of the losers.

Tom Friedman's theory that what the Muslim world needs is a Muslim Martin Luther King to heal the Sunni-Shi'ite divide is pretty silly. MLK didn't help blacks get along better with other blacks (black-on-black murder skyrocketed in the last five years of his life), he got whites to treat blacks better.

The one way that anyone could possibly bridge the Shi'ite-Sunni gap would be for a Muslim strongman to make successful war on non-Muslims -- e.g., Israel or America. Spare us that solution...

And for the record, I want Chait to keep going, because I want Spencer to name names.

I love how Steve Sailer thinks he's saying something bold or taboo when he says that Peretz's hatred of Arabs derives from his allegiance to Israel? Did anyone here think Marty disliked Arabs because, oh, of their cuisine? It's just like a conservative to potray himself as a truth-teller when all he's doing is stating the obvious.

Dossier please. It would be a public service Matt.

What Israel needs is not a Muslim Martin Luther King but a Muslim Malcolm X -- somebody with anti-Israeli street cred who has a change of heart and is willing to negotiate a compromise.

They do, his name is Marwan Barghouti. If you live in America, you're forgiven for never having heard of him

Sorry, Pooh, I clicked the links in your post, and there was a lot about Liebreman and Lamont but I didn't see anything that would show me that Peretz is a racist.

Criticizing Arab and/or Muslim states for not being sufficiently liberal is not racism. As I read the Peretz post Matthew discusses below, all Peretz is saying is that those states are not liberal.

"It's just like a conservative to potray himself as a truth-teller when all he's doing is stating the obvious." - david mizner

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” -- Orwell

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - Orwell

The Muslim and Arab world is full of leaders who have called for peace in various forms. We do not hear of them because they do not suit the propaganda needs of people like Peretz, who want to depict the entire Muslim world as violence-crazed barbarians. M. Duss above referenced Marwan Barghouti -- no MLK because he has advocated and participated in attacks on the Israeli military occupying the West Bank -- but a brave and responsible leader who advocates peace on the basis of recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 borders. He was imprisoned and tortured all right, but by Israel, not Arabs:

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/1986

DJ Ninja: the point of my reference to Rabin was simply that in every country (including Israel) prominent people who take risks for peace are liable to assasination. The exact biography of the leader will of course differ greatly depending on what society they are in. The correct Arab comparison to Rabin would be someone like Sadat, also assasinated after concluding a peace treaty.

Also, the people who killed Rabin are not a tiny lunatic fringe, but represent a powerful force within Israeli politics. They are definitely not the center, of course, but they have had immense influence. One could compare them to the anti-MLK forces here, who lost the civil rights struggle but had a lot of influence within plenty of Republican governments afterwards.

Go, Matt! You rock!

While personally I do not believe the TNR is nearly as vital and influential organ as it imagines itself to be -- in fact I good give a flying fook what narcissistic and hateful blather Peretz is spewing at the moment -- I do believe however that it is critical that American voters become cognizant of the fact that Israel's venal (shall we say? Or is that merely the country's leadership?) policies are directly financed by the citizens of the United States and only because of the fearsome juggernaut of American Jewish financial -- hence political -- leverage.

Withdraw the astronomical foreign aid and military support this nation lavishes on Israel, and that country would have no choice but to adapt a more humanitarian and less pugilistic stance toward its neighbors. In short, Israel would have to get real.

Fortunately men of principle like Wes Clark and Jimmy Carter are becoming increasingly willing to withstand the insidious character assassinations emanating from the tremulous claque who fear that an equitable resolution to the Palestinian conflict might diminish their swagger as regional bullies.

As I have written earlier in this forum, nothing has given the Jews lower public regard worldwide (i.e. propagated anti-Semitism) than the Israeli government's indefensible policies vis-à-vis reasonable and fair rights and freedoms for the Palestinians. Plots (or rumors of plots) to nuke the Iranians serve nothing more than to fan the flames of hate and distrust that are already burning far too intensely in the region.

Shalom,
Gus

The Muslim and Arab world is full of leaders who have called for peace in various forms. We do not hear of them because they do not suit the propaganda needs of people like Peretz, who want to depict the entire Muslim world as violence-crazed barbarians.

Exactly. Hell, just three years ago an Iranian Muslim woman (Shirin Ebadi) won the Noble Peace Prize because of her advocacy for human rights and her commitment to non-violence. But she gets in the way of the argument, so we'll pretend she doesn't exist.

I haven't read this thread, but I wanted to note that one of Chait's commenters shows that he's never read a word MY has written:

Yglesias has IIRC a philosophy degree from Yale (?).

Yale? Yale?!

Tim,

The (legitimate) reason why some people point out a possible backlash against the Jewish community following an attack on Iran is that it's ONE MORE REASON not to bomb Iran. Not that we need any more reasons to avoid that, and in light of that fact, the (admitted) creepiness of such comments MIGHT be a reason not to make them. But let's not forget that such comments can easily be, and probably are, motivated by a legitimate concern for the Jewish community in the United States.

Which also isn't to deny that there could be other motives for making such a statement. Hence the creepiness.

If, however, somebody not employed by Peretz who is familiar with his work wants to seriously deny that he holds bigoted views about Arabs and Muslims I'll fire up the old Google, Nexis, etc. and put a dossier together for the site. (Matt)

Ah, so that's what all this has been about. You're looking for an excuse to waste even more time on the writings of Martin Peretz.

By the way, Peretz responds here. I think this line sort of proves Matt's point:

And had a jihadist killed him would not that pious person be a hero to his society?

Well, everyone, we have just seen Steve Sailer lift the lid to his psyche, and we have seen just how self-regarding and narcissistic he is. People accuse Hitchens of thinking he's the second coming of Orwell, but it's pretty clear Sailer thinks he is, too. (Of course, he didn't come out and say it, so he can respond to this post with great outrage. A nice case of plausible deniability.)

While I broadly agree with Matt/Wes Clark/Spencer, I'm at a loss as to what the richness of the pro-war Jews has to do with anything. Unless it's some indication of the likelihood that they or any of their close friends and relatives would be serving in Iraq or Iran.

Ah, so that's what all this has been about. You're looking for an excuse to waste even more time on the writings of Martin Peretz.

It's not a waste of time. The man has influence, like it or not, and anything that reduces said influence is probably a good thing.

I suppose it would be relevant if you thought that the US political system was more responsive to the policy preference of rich people than poor ones.

Soeone should inform Johnny Chait that Wes Clark has Jewish roots.

I'm not sure that having Jewish roots is relevant.

I can certainly understand why Israel would want the United States to start a war with Iran. It is, in some sense, in their national interest for us to take care of tehir problem rather than them. Their recent performance in Lebanon was not very encouraging, and I'm sure they'd prefer IUS soldiers die taking out their enemy rather than their own.

Likewise, I can understand why Israel would encourage its friends in the United States (of whatever religion) to egg on the Buhs administration, and force the Deocratic Presidential contenders to take a belligerent stance against Iran. Again, it is in tehir interest to do so.

What I don't understand is why American citizens (of whatever religion) are putting Israel's national security conerns ahead of those of their own country.

Israel is not the 51st state (although some people seem to thik it is), and its national security interests do not necessarily dovetail exactly with ours.

Wbhile we both have an interest in preventing Iran from becoming a threataning nuclear power, the threat they pose is considerably more acute to Israel than to the US.

Thus, if any "airstrikes" are warranted to take out any nuckear facilities, Israel should be the ones to do it. Not us.

They are not helpless little lambs. And, quite frankly, taking out one anti-Israel dictator in the region is quite enough thank you very much.

I'm not sure that having Jewish roots is relevant.

It is if Cait and Peretz are trying to deligitimize Wes Clark's valid criticism by calling him an antisemite.

I guess he hates his =father and his many Jewish relatives then.

Why not go all the way to wingnut land and accuse Jim Webb of hating the troops (and, consequently his own son!) because he opposes the Iraq war?

There are precious few gentiles outside of the Bush administratgion earnestly pushing for a war with Iran.

"It's a symptom of the decline of freedom of expression in America that a favorite response to the neocon / neolib attempt to shut down debate by accusing their critics of being anti-Semitic bigots who should be driven out of polite society is to accuse the neos in turn of being anti-Arabic bigots who, presumably, should be driven out of polite society."

I'm not sure that the range of expressable thoughts is any narrower today than it was at the very inception of mass media. All that's changed are the thoughts themselves; whereas once it was intolerable to say out loud "Blacks are the equals of whites", it's now intolerable to say the opposite. It's also false to suggest that the practice of labelling--of calling others names in order to silence them--is something new--as a quick glance at the history of McCarthyism will show.

But Steve is surely correct to lament such tendencies all the same. They drive honesty underground and make people speak furtively and cryptically, obscuring premises and making counter-argument all the more difficult. Political Correctness enables Marty--it dilutes the violence of his tone, making all the more palatable his (actually violent) ideas. Rather than censuring MP we should draw him out and encourage him to speak forthrightly. Give him space to write about the Arabs and the puny value of their civilization and why it's right to kill them en masse. And encourage those who may agree with him--be it Chait or Krauthammer or Boot--to do so, out loud, without fear of professional repercussions. How much more refreshing this would be! Then we'd know who we're dealing with and what it is we're talking about!

If what Clark had said was bigoted, it was bigoted whether he's Jewish or not.

The one way that anyone could possibly bridge the Shi'ite-Sunni gap would be for a Muslim strongman to make successful war on non-Muslims -- e.g., Israel or America. Spare us that solution...

Actually, the Shiite-Sunni gap exists because America made war on Iraq. (At least, to the violent extent of today.)

Disregard that, obviously. I misread it.

Chait claims that, "Clark assumed that a tiny number of Jews by themselves have the power to force the United States into a war." Yet those edited words could just have easily insinuated that NY Jewish money could be a decisive factor or even a major factor in going to war with Iran.

Chait has the gall to claim that his boss "isn't saying a Muslim MLK would be killed because Muslims are inherently vicious, he's saying he'd be killed because Muslim countries are ruled by autocrats"

Oh really? That's watering it down more than a little bit, huh?

I've been visiting this blog since before the election (after following a link from Talking Points Memo) and while it has had several posts of genuine perspicacity, it now seems to have become flypaper for some very uncongenial comment(er)s. Perhaps I am naive, but it is depressing to find such prejudiced discourse in an ostensibly progressive environment. Goodbye.

Did anyone here think Marty disliked Arabs because, oh, of their cuisine?

No, because of their rugs and vases.

Nobody needs to go googling or run Nexus searches to find Peretz' bigotry. The hypothetical claim that not just Arabs but all Muslims will never have an MLK is a bigoted enough statement by itself.

Furthermore, it relies on Peretz own priviliged view of what a Muslim MLK would be. (hint: he or she probably wouldn't be the most pro-colonialist sort of guy).

MLK isn't even really an apt analogy here, Ghandi is and Ghandi certainly dealt with a few authoritarian states and angry Muslims in his day.

I think Jonathan Chait is also bigotted in his analysis and defense of Peretz and if Matt had any balls he'd call Chait on it.

The key questions here are what are major American Jewish organizations pushing for, what are the merits of what they're pushing, and how influential are they.


It is clear that Matt has concluded that these orgnizations (1) are pushing war with Iran; (2) that idea is disastrous. It is less clear how influential he thinks they are.


To begin with the first point is simply wrong - the only thing that is clear is that mainstream American Jewish organizations are strongly against the Iranian developing nuclear weapons. There is a difference betwen the ADL objecting to Holocaust denial and Richard Perle pushing for a step 2 in the grand neocon plan to remake the Middle East.


The problem is that Matt has committed himself to a position in which all advocates of confronting the Iranian nuclear threat are to be treated as neocon warmongerers.


The real sensitive area, however is the third issue - how influential is the American Jewish community. Any discussion of this issue needs to be plainly aware that a common trope of anti-Semitism historically has been conspiracy theory in which "rich Jews" control the world. That's why Clark's comment about rich New York Jews set off alarms and was rightly condemned. As a general rule, criticism of individual Jews and Jewish organizations should steer clear of echoing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


But Matt chose to plow right on past that point, because what matters now is pushing back against any movement towards war with Iran.


I do have to say that I completely agree with the statement that Chait makes at the end of his post - Matthew is brilliant and one of the few political bloggers worth reading, but something about this topic does seem to send him off the deep end.

I might be the only subscriber to National Review here, so I thought I'd let everyone know that F.L.A.M.E. (Facts and Logic About the Middle East) takes out full page ads in NR.

The headline is:

You deserve a factual look at. . .

THE UNRELENTING AND VIRULENT HATRED OF THE ARABS

Political correctness helped get us into the Iraq War, and it could help get us into an Iran War.

Supporters of the Iraq war successfully bullied many skeptics into silence by declaring that anyone who doubted that Iraqis were ready for democracy was a racist.

Thus in a February 2003 speech to the American Enterprise Institute, George W. Bush said:

"There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. [Applause] … It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world—or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim—is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life."

Similarly, in August 2003, the Daily Telegraph summarized a speech by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to the National Association of Black Journalists: "Critics of US policy are racist, says Rice" [By David Rennie].

Marty Peretz tries to drive out of public discourse by smearing as an anti-Semite people who disagree with him. While it's emotionally satsifying to turn his weapons on him by trying to drive him out of circulation as an anti-Arab and anti-Iranian bigot, more shouting down doesn't help the country to get the information it needs.

The politically incorrect reality is that there's little need for war with Iran precisely because the Iranians aren't the Germans in 1938. They have a non-dynamic culture with a crummy command of technology, and are too corrupt and disorganized to pose a German-sized threat to the rest of the world. They aren't as dysfunctional as the Iraqis, but that's a low bar.

Maybe this is racist to say out loud and I should be shunned for saying it. But isn't free speech better than a needless war?

Is anyone else annoyed yet at teplukhin's self-regard over at the comment pages at TNR? He seems to think he owns the place and everyone is there to live up to his standards for them. He's kinda creepy and weird.

On a funny note, I once wrote a couple of snarky posts over at the Spine parodying Peretz's style. That same day the account I used and was no longer allowed to post over at TNR.

Posted this on TNR, too...

Jon Chait and Matt Yglesias: shrewd thinkers, engaging writers, and pugnacious when they have to be. Two of my favorite political writers in print, or on the web.

Their real debate, to build on something mhp noted on Yglesias's site, is twofold: first, about the potential danger of a nuclear Iran (to Israel or the U.S.); and second, about the real and perceived influence of the Jewish community on American policy.

To me, the first issue is more substantial -- and more pressing -- than the second, but both are far worthier topics of consideration than the bigotry or non-bigotry of Martin Peretz. Can we get these guys to talk about stuff that, you know, matters?

Political correctness helped get us into the Iraq War, and it could help get us into an Iran War.

Supporters of the Iraq war successfully bullied many skeptics into silence by declaring that anyone who doubted that Iraqis were ready for democracy was a racist.

That's ridiculous. Bush and his apparatchiks did make that argument, but I'd be shocked if you could find a single person who took it seriously, and didn't recognize it for the BS it was. There are any number of reasons why the Iraq war was carried out; Political correctness, though it may be your favorite chair-leg to hump, was not one of them.

The politically incorrect reality is that there's little need for war with Iran precisely because the Iranians aren't the Germans in 1938. They have a non-dynamic culture with a crummy command of technology, and are too corrupt and disorganized to pose a German-sized threat to the rest of the world. They aren't as dysfunctional as the Iraqis, but that's a low bar.

Come on, using "political incorrectness" as cover for one's own ignorance and prejudice is sooooo 90s.

Maybe this is racist to say out loud and I should be shunned for saying it. But isn't free speech better than a needless war?

Indeed, and isn't a basket of kittens better than a kick in the testicles? In any case, Steve, happily, shunning you and opposing needless war aren't mutually exclusive.

Steve: Against my better instincts, because I'm curious, I have to ask: What makes you say that Iranian culture is "non-dynamic"?

Supporters of the Iraq war successfully bullied many skeptics into silence by declaring that anyone who doubted that Iraqis were ready for democracy was a racist.

You have quoted an insubstantial cheap shot from the President in the middle of a massive push for war that was almost entirely based on a different set of arguments. If you can identify two living, breathing American opponents of the Iraq War who were "bullied into submission" for fear of being called racists, I'll eat my boxer shorts and post the video to YouTube.

In a very different sense, I'll agree with you that political correctness contributed to the silencing of war critics. People who challenged the evidence of WMDs were essentially banished from television news programs, and principled opponents of the push for war were exceedingly hard to find in major media outlets. These views, in the post-9/11 political climate, were marginalized by elite consensus.

If the words "political correctness" have any useful meaning at all, it is to describe this phenomenon. This is the same type of mechanism that has narrowed the acceptable range of public conversation in every society since Socrates held court at the academy. It isn't inherently left or right, multiculturalist or nationalist. It is simply human nature for opinions that appear to be dangerous, or out of touch with what everyone believes to be true, to be disregarded or actively denounced. And this isn't always a bad thing. Free speech can flourish even if none of the Sunday morning talk shows invite Lyndon LaRouche to speak his mind.

The trouble is that there was no good reason for WMD skeptics and war critics to be marginalized. It was a conscious decision by the administration to exploit the post-9/11 wave of support and bully their critics into submission by questioning their patriotism and commitment to national security. The race card played a very, very limited role in the Administration's propaganda by any honest measure.

If Chait's man Joe Lieberman were right now in the Oval Office- does anyone seriously doubt he'd have already launched missles at Iran and Syria? That Israel would get the go-ahead to "transfer" the Palestinians? Thinking of Johnny Chait as some kind of slightly less musty David Brooks misses the point. If several million Muslims were incinerated tomorrow- do you think he'd even be just a little bit troubled? Deep down in his heart of hearts - Muslims are just filthy shvatz goyim to him. He actually admires Peretz for his inherited money and for caring so intently about the fate of his people. If crazy Marty's gets wound up and spins like a dradel shouting out obscene thoughts- well, so what? I mean the man cares- he's entitled. That's the essence of Chait's refined sensibility.

The correct Arab comparison to Rabin would be someone like Sadat, also assasinated after concluding a peace treaty.

Also after his secret police tortured to death a close relative of the assassin.

Trevor, I don't think you're doing Matt any favors by putting those sorts of accusations in the comments to his response.

I don't know Chait personally, but that's a pretty vicious slur. Peretz has decades of history writing nasty things about Arabs and Muslims. Chait does not, and it's a low blow to accuse him of such sentiments, sans evidence.

Clark's comment about rich New York Jews set off alarms and was rightly condemned.

This is a trap, a logical fallacy. It presumes that what Clark said can't be true because it's unthinkable. That's not an argument. It's the same problem we've had vis a vis the Bush 'administration' and its political movement; for several years it was 'unthinkable' to point out what was right in front of our faces: this is an authoritarian and even fascistic regime. I can't count the number of times I've been scolded when I've used either 'authoritarian' or 'fascistic'' to describe it. 'Why are you so angry?! Don't BE so angry! That can never happen here!' Using those words is less controversial now, because it's getting to be so terribly - and I do mean 'terribly' - obvious, but it's also quite a bit less consequential to say them now - so much damage is done, and will be done. I believe the word is 'shrill'. Just because something seems, or *is*, unlikely, doesn't not make it impossible. Something's being merely uncomfortable to talk about certainly doesn't make it impossible.

Clark's statement has nothing to do with Protocols. The bizarre and disgusting anti-semitic bigotry of which that book is but one exponent, and the anti-Muslim bigotry of Marty are two sides of the same coin, a pathetic, fetid symbiosis. A bit like one commenter upthread, I have to admit to having felt a bit squeamish myself at some of the commentary in the last few threads of this blog; I thought a couple of the commenters discussing presidential choices for '08 were being fatuous, and really ought to just admit to themselves that LaRouche Is The One. La La Land. But why get caught up in that stupid feedback loop at all?

As MY points out in his original article, Clark was saying something which everyone involved already knows, and everybody knows everybody knows. Israel - which has a much more wide-ranging and open and robust debate about itself than we have about them - is a political State. The fact that it has tried to be an 'ethnic' State is a real problem - perhaps THE problem - but it is still a State, and it has to be thought of that way. The problem here, the toxin, is religious and ethnic bigotry. I hate to break it to people, but Jews can be bigots; Arabs and muslims can be bigots; Christians can be; etc. Jews have been scapegoated more consistently than other groups, and that's worth remembering. But bigotry is a feature (and a bug) of our entire species. (People like Marty might console themselves with the idea that THEIR case of leprosy is not quite as patent as some others' at a given moment, but of course it's still leprosy, and it's progressive.) We ought to crank up some powerful species-shame about it, because it will kill us off, eventually.

So, I don't think MY is off the deep end about this at all. Racism is the perennial lubricant for murder and mayhem. A wider middle east war would be absolutely catastrophic for everyone, and, yes, there are some right wing Jews and Israelis who are lobbying for one, and yes they are relatively powerful - they have powerful right wing freak Christian allies at the moment.

"Also after his secret police tortured to death a close relative of the assassin."

Didn't know that...kind of pulls you back from the Rabin/Sadat comparison.

jonnybutter hits the nail on the head (although what kind of nick is that? It sounds kind of disgusting, actually).

Hatred and bigotry are poisonous because they destroy the capacity to identify with and therefore understand people with whom you have conflicting interests. This renders people and communities incapable of solving conflicts peacefully. Not only that, it renders us incapable of the *effective* and limited use of violence against our enemies. Because bigotry refuses to recnognize useful distinctions between different members of the opposing community (in the eyes of the bigot, all opponents become an undifferentiated "evil" mass), you use violence indiscriminately and foolishly, uniting people against you where you could have had allies. Raw hatred and bigotry are toxic to calm, rational, prudent strategy. We can see evidence of all of this in our response to the Arab world. By taking on the bigotry directly instead of just talking about the foreign policy foolishness that is its symptom, Matt is doing a brave and useful thing.

Now, undifferentiated PC sentimentality about what the world is really like is also dangerous to rational thought. But it's been at least a decade, probably longer, since that kind of sentimentality had much real power in American public life.

mhp:

It is clear that Matt has concluded that these orgnizations (1) are pushing war with Iran . . . the first point is simply wrong - the only thing that is clear is that mainstream American Jewish organizations are strongly against the Iranian developing nuclear weapons.

To say that it is undesirable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, or the capability of producing them, is not pushing for war. However, to characterize such a development with words like 'intolerable' or 'unacceptable' is tantamount to pushing for war, given how unlikely it is that this development can be prevented by any means short of war.

There is a difference betwen the ADL objecting to Holocaust denial and Richard Perle pushing for a step 2 in the grand neocon plan to remake the Middle East.

If there were a Strawman Hall of Fame, this one would rate a nomination.

The problem is that Matt has committed himself to a position in which all advocates of confronting the Iranian nuclear threat are to be treated as neocon warmongerers.

'Confronting the Iranian nuclear threat' is a euphemism for a policy that will almost certainly end in war. The only alternative with a significant chance of success would be negotiations that treat Iran as a sovereign member of the international community rather than a 'rogue state' pariah. Advocates of 'confronting the Iranian nuclear threat' are also fiercely opposed to any such negotiations.

To declare some policy of a foreign state unacceptable, while also opposing serious negotiations, is nothing other than pushing for war.

LaFollette Progressive, responding to Steve Sailer:

You have quoted an insubstantial cheap shot from the President in the middle of a massive push for war that was almost entirely based on a different set of arguments.

The WMD and democracy issues were connected in an important way that was rarely mentioned explicitly. Kenneth Pollack touched on it in The Threatening Storm. He considered whether U.S. objectives would be satisfied by replacing Saddam with 'a new Sunni military dictator', and concluded 'we might have great difficulty seeing Iraq comply with the disarmament terms of the U.N. resolutions because a new military dictator who was still trying to consolidate power would probably not want to give up his weapons of mass destruction.' (p. 391)

It wasn't enough to depose Saddam and destroy his alleged WMD stockpiles and programs. Iraq had to be supplied with a new government that would not want WMD and would not be hostile to the United States. (Whether an Iraqi government that truly represented its people would have those characteristics was another under-discussed question.)

The democracy issue couldn't be completely separated from the WMD issue. In an important way it was part of the same 'set of arguments'.

Not that anyone is at a loss for racist statements by Peretz, but here's a real zinger from the Spine, 11.19.06:

"That's the point, isn't it? I actually believe that Arabs are feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) "atrocities." They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures. That comparison shouldn't comfort us as Americans. We have higher standards of civilization than they do. But the mutilation of bodies and beheadings of people picked up at random in Iraq does not scandalize the people of Iraq unless victims are believers in their own sect or members of their own clan. And the truth is that we are less and less shocked by the mass death-happenings in the world of Islam."

It's pretty simple, really. If Peretz does not disavow these statements now (and why think he would?), he is bigoted towards Arabs and Muslims. Well, that was easy!

David,

All I dead re Chait was impute his motives in similar fashion he and his ilk have imputed to Nasrallah or Ahmadinijead. After his column scorning those seeking to farm Lieberman out- do you really think this is a fellow who can be trusted to make sound judgements. Chait esteems Lieberman who would consult Bibi Netanyahu on foreign policy. How sick is that? That's Chait's idea of a good guy.

The internets are an amazing place. Over at Ezra Klein's the other day,l there was a blog post about science fiction, ad a couple of well-known authors and editors showed up to discuss it. On Brad DeLong's blog, I've seen famous economists and journalists jump in and partcipate in the comments. And here at the Yglesias site, we have a discussion about racism and bigotry, and we get the internationally famous Steve Sailer . . .

It's too late to have much input on this discussion, but it seems clear that Matthew Y. is making a lot of the arguments he's making based on having a different frame of reference than his opponents: he's convinced that there is a secret campaign underway within this administration to gin up a war against Iran. This is a very plausible view, given the similarities between the Administration's approach to the Iran issue now and its approach to Iraq in mid-2002.

Given that frame of reference, the attempt to cast Clark's views as 'anti-semitic' just looks like a neo-con smear job intended to discredit an ideological adversary. Matthew feels it is desperately important to bring the full wheels of left-wing activism to bear in an attempt to avert war with Iran. I'm inclined to agree.

Matt wrote: "To our great credit as a country, bigoted views about African-Americans or Jews are radically less acceptable than they were a few decades ago..."

Bigoted views about Jews haven't been at all acceptable in the USA since at least the mid 1930s, at least in the context your talking about - public, political statements.

Actually bigoted views about Jews were quite acceptable in the late-1930s, and widespread. Witness our refusal to allow thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe in 1939/40 come to the US. As well as Father Coughlin, etc., etc. I think the turning point in WASP-Jewish relations was our entry into the war. Anti-Semitism was such a fundamental plank in the Nazi program that any public expression of anti-semitism was liable to make one look like a Nazi sympathizer.

Chait is a bigot. You don't defend bigot's this strongly unless you're one of them, even if you agree on some issues. Me and Pat Buchanan agree a lot about Israel, you never see me defending him. Why is it that Chait defends Peretz's constant tirades about the evils and incivility of arabs? The only real explanation is that he agrees with him, and that he's comfortable with his rhetoric.

I'd like to think that Marty, like me is anIslamophobe and not a "bigot" per se. I for one will stop being frightened of Muslims when they stop trying to kill me. Perhaps the same is true for Marty.

I don't think there is anything "bigoted" about a Jew being scared to travel in Arab-Muslim countries (those nations that allow Jews that is) nor is there anything wrong with a NY, DC or Israeli Jew being scared of imported Muslim attacks on his on soil (as it's already happened). And when a self proclaimed "Islamic Republic" make anihilationist threats, what exactly is the proper reaction if not fear?

Perhaps, like me, Marty doesn't think that there is anything intrinsic about Arab or Muslim culture that precludes peaceful coexistence witht itlself and the rest of the world but currently has trouble imagining the conditions that would make this possible (hence the Friedman-MLK indignation).

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than my general status as a fan of Matt's work and sceptic of TNR. That said, Glenn Greenwald's Marty Peretz rant is deeply satisfying on a purely rhetorical level:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/meaning-of-marty-peretz.html

Nobody combines earnest outrage with thorough research quite like Glenn. His trick, I think, is to avoid snark at all costs while destroying his subject methodically and completely with their own words.

Just a joy to read.

As I stated before, I can certainly understand why ISRAEL would be extremely concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would deter their ability to take unliateral military action against Iran in other contexts, such as supplying Hamas or Hezbollah.

But what is the threat to the United States? Oh yes. It would deter the US from taking unilateral, preemtive or retaliatory military action against Iran's meddling with our forces in Iraq.

But, while Israel can't go anywhere to remve the threat Iran poses to them, the US certainly can leave Iraq.

You might note that I don't consider Iran to be much of a threat to use nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon, and only consider tehir use of them as a deterrent.

That's because that is precisely why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons: To Deter the US and Israel from attacking it.

IN any case, at least the Israelis have a somewhat legitimate reason to hyperventilate about Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.

The US, on the other hand, does not.

So any US citizen who is arguing that the UNITED STATES should defend Israel (a country which has a military capabiluty tahyt is superior to Canda and comparable to France) from Isarel's enemies, when Israel is perfectly capable of taking action on its own makes one question the, well, loyalty or sanity of these US citizens making that argument.

Of course, these same folks will argue that Israel CAN'T do it, because taht would trigger a wider mideast war, etc. Well...how convenient that is for Israel.

Maybe Israel and these other countriues in the region should be FACED with the prospect of a very costly wider war. Then they might actually sit down and work out a peace agreement.

I'd like to think that Marty, like me is an Islamophobe and not a "bigot" per se. I for one will stop being frightened of Muslims when they stop trying to kill me. Perhaps the same is true for Marty.

I don't think there is anything "bigoted" about a Jew being scared to travel in Arab-Muslim countries (those nations that allow Jews that is) nor is there anything wrong with a NY, DC or Israeli Jew being scared of imported Muslim attacks on his on soil (as it's already happened). And when a self proclaimed "Islamic Republic" make anihilationist threats, what exactly is the proper reaction if not fear?

Perhaps, like me, Marty doesn't think that there is anything intrinsic about Arab or Muslim culture that precludes peaceful coexistence witht itlself and the rest of the world but currently has trouble imagining the conditions that would make this possible (hence the Friedman-MLK indignation).

I'd like to think that Mahmoud, like me is an Judeophobe and not a "bigot" per se. I for one will stop being frightened of Jews when they stop trying to kill me. Perhaps the same is true for Mahmoud.

I don't think there is anything "bigoted" about a Muslim being scared to travel in Jewish countries nor is there anything wrong with a West Bank, Gaza or Lebanese Muslim being scared of imported Jewish attacks on his on soil (as it's already happened). And when a self proclaimed "Jewish Democracy" makes annihilationist threats, what exactly is the proper reaction if not fear?

Perhaps, like me, Mahmoud doesn't think that there is anything intrinsic about European or Jewish culture that precludes peaceful coexistence with itself and the rest of the world but currently has trouble imagining the conditions that would make this possible (hence the Al-Ahram-MLK indignation).

he's convinced that there is a secret campaign underway within this administration to gin up a war against Iran.

Jeebus, it's hardly a secret.

Kudos to MY in outing Peretz. Wonderful. We are all agreed that anti-arab bigotry is unacceptable.

But according to MY we should not expect a quality good-hearted journalist like Chait to do anything but defend his bigot of a boss. How could we demand anything more. Matt: your soft bigotry of low expectations breaks my heart.

And still like to see your Peretz file - otherwise you're no better than the right-wing smear-squad.

I'm curious how many Muslims you know, Shmuel. Right now I am personally acquianted with 3 Iraqis, all of whom are long ways closer to being MLK than Marty Peretz.

The idea of Arab streets teaming with vicious, mindless jihadists is a creation of other Islamaphobes. In reality, they have a lot more to fear from us than we do them.

A Muslim MLK would most likely be murdered, not by his own people, but by the US. No doubt with the diligent support of "scared" citizens such as you and Marty Peretz.

I believe there are > 5000 Jews living in Morocco.

Just sayin'.

Yeah there are 5000+ but you probably wouldn't want to switch places with any of them. Sadly, there used to be many more, most of my neighborhood here is made up of Saphardic refugees.

"I'd like to think that Mahmoud, like me is an Judeophobe"

I agree. You are a Judeophobe. (Although hopefully you don't extend this fear of Jews to denying the Holocaust and calling for the extermination of another 6million Jews.) But obviously some fears are based on actual threats, while other are not. I can understand a Palestinian's motivation for being a Judeophobe, but you and Mahmoud are beyond my understanding. Perhaps you are merely a bigot?

Re: "...hopefully you don't extend this fear of Jews to denying the Holocaust".

Likewise, Shmuel, I hope you're not one of those crazy people who denies that George W. Bush has killed over half a million Iraqis.

Are Yglesias readers generally this dumb? I thought he was a smart guy. Certainly his fans can do better than "You're a racist" and "Bush = Hitler?"

Matt-

You seem to have conflated three (admittedly inter-related) concepts: race, ethnicity, and religion.

I don't believe I've ever seen Marty make a racial argument against Arabs. There's no racial distinction to be made between Arab Christians, Muslims, Druze, or Bahai - or, for that matter, Jews of Arab extraction. His problems are with their ideas, not with their skin color or ancestry.

Ethnicity and religion are more complicated. To accuse Peretz of simple prejudice against Arabs ignores his animus toward the vast majority of the Islamic world that is not Arabic - most notably Iran, which is Persian. To accuse him of simple religious discrimination overlooks his decades of opposition to Palestinian nationalism when it knew no god but Marx, and when many of its leaders were Christian Arabs. (And of course, there are the Arabs and Muslims Marty admires and lauds - those few who agree with him.) Marty's hatreds are substantially more focused, and at the same time more capacious, than any of these three terms allows for.

Marty, you see, is not a racist or a bigot - he's an ideologue and a windbag. On most domestic issues he's slightly to the left of center, and he writes about them somewhat sanely, with a (small) degree of regard for the ideas espoused by his opponents. But when he writes about the Middle East, he is prone to rhetorical excess, sweeping and unjustifiable generalizations, and general demagoguery. He becomes unhinged.

It's less constructive to label him a racist than an ideologue. The former implies that prejudice clouds his judgment; the latter suggests that his ideas are at fault. The danger of his arguments lies in their tendency to paint the world in polar terms - freedom, liberty, and truth on one side, and authoritarianism, intolerance, and ignorance on the other. I believe that progress tends to come at the margins, incrementally, as systems gradually evolve; that most systems contain within them the potential to move in either direction; and that at any given moment, probably contain elements of both sorts. Marty's rhetoric suggests that gradual progress and internal reform are chimerical, and that only revolutionary change is possible, because there is no middle ground. Ideological systems are relatively rigid, in his view, and flawed systems must be opposed, rejected, and ultimately overthrown.

Racism is an easy charge to level, because we all agree it's wrong. Ideological inflexibility may not be as sexy a term, but its consequences are at least as dangerous. If you want to understand why Marty supported invading Iraq, why he backs the use of force against Iran, and why he believes we're fighting a new world war, it's helpful to assume there's more to his thought than blind prejudice and bigotry. What he's done is to take the animus toward Stalinism and Communism that defined him as a young man and apply it to Islamic Radicalism, as if it were the same sort of foe. Ultimately, Marty's fueled by ideology, and not by racial prejudice.

Whoever said "Bush = Hitler"? Hitler was both much smarter and much more evil than Bush.

It just amazes me that many of the same people who are so outraged by Holocaust deniers are the ones who deny the facts about what Bush has done to the Iraqis.

Perhaps you are merely a bigot?

How delightful that Shmuel is completely free of self-awareness.

'he's convinced that there is a secret campaign underway within this administration to gin up a war against Iran.' - Jeebus, it's hardly a secret. - Matt Weiner

Very well then - clandestine. The administration obviously has not declared that it is seeking a pretext for war against Iran, any more than it declared that it was seeking a pretext for war against Iraq. The fact that it has not declared this intention means that most people hesitate to impute the intention. The same dynamice was visible with the Iraq war, during the 9 months when it should have been clear that a decision to go to war had already been made, but most Americans found it difficult to believe or to accept it. That hamstrung any effort to mobilize a political pushback against the war.

Maybe I'm giving them to much credit, but I'm not at all convinced that the Bush administration is driving us to war against Iran. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they are just trying to pressure Iran. Attacking them seems awfully ambitious in the remaining 2 years for an unpopular president.

Disclaimer: In late 2002 / early 2003, I though Bush would decide not to pull the trigger on Iraq, based on Saddam's acquiesence to the UN inpections. It seemed like the wise thing to do...

OK, but who in fact are the 'rich American Jews' being talked about? Is there a list?

dci

The fact that it has not declared this intention means that most people hesitate to impute the intention.

I think there's some excuse among this for ordinary citizens, who may be in denial about what's happening. But for professional political commentators it's inexcusable. It's their job to realize what's going on, and they might be able to do something about it too. As you said in your first post, there's a very clear model for this in the way that Bush took us to war against Iraq; and the Downing Street Memo has since told anyone who had any doubt that war was the plan all along.

So I think it's not just that Matt Y. has a different perspective from everyone else. The Chaits and Justs are jumping up and down saying that we must express great concern about Iran and disparaging those who are expressing concern about the possibility we might go to war against Iran for no good reason. Given the barely veiled plans for war against Iran supported by elements of the Bush Administration, this is incredibly irresponsible.

Dear Al and Otto,

As an increasingly weary TNR reader who avoids Peretz like the plague, I was going to grit my teeth and put together some evidence for you, but Glen Greenwald was kind enough to beat me to it. Check his post at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/meaning-of-marty-peretz.html

Isn't Arabic a semitic language? Aren't Arabs Semites? Isn't Marty Peretz therefore anti-semitic?

This is really neither here nor there, but upthread a ways David Tomlin wrote a rather eloquent response to me that completely sailed past the point I was trying to make.

I was not referring to the liberal hawks' arguments about democracy promotion in Iraq as "an insubstantial cheap shot from the President in the middle of a massive push for war that was almost entirely based on a different set of arguments." I was referring specifically to the quote cited by Steve Sailer--which implied that anyone who thought Iraqis were not yet capable of running a democracy was a racist.

In truth, most pro-war propaganda attempted to portray Iraq War skeptics as unpatriotic, "soft" on defense, or insufficiently dedicated to democracy and human rights.

It seems to me that if the words "political correctness" have any authentic meaning at all, it is to describe the process by which the media marginalizes unpopular views. And liberal foreign policy views were extremely unfashionable in early 2003. The PC Police of the era did an impressive job of keeping anti-war liberals off the television.

Sailer wants to blame the war on liberal attitudes about racial equality, but this says much more about Sailer than it says about the pre-war political climate.

Matt,

I'm generally an admirer of yours but I think Chait just kicked your ass and the support you're getting here is essentially that of loyal supporters coddling your communal denial out of a desire to not realize that the hated enemy (and Chait is often a real asshole) has achieved even a small victory.

That Muslim culture is deeply dysfunctional and backward is glaringly self evident. As Chait points out, it's about as bad as western culture was 500 years ago. It isn't bigoted to believe that any more than it was to be repulsed by the American South of the 1950s or to think that the main-stream American news media of the last few years has been as a class lazy, irresponsible and cravenly right wing.

No where in the western world are women treated like chattel like they are in much of the Muslim world. And beheading homosexual, if you ask me, is just a mite tasteless. There used to be a vibrant Israeli peace movement but that got wiped out by the insane Palestinian violence that broke out in the wake of the Peace talks where Arafat walked out of the agreement he had just negotiated. One of my enduring memories of 9/11 is seeing video of gloating Palestinians happily dancing in the streets and passing out candy to their children. Talk about a bunch of sick mofos. I could go on but you get the picture.

None of the above justifies the colonilization of the West bank by Israel and stealing of Palestinian land or much of our meddling in Muslim affairs. There's plenty of blame to go around. But just because Peretz is arguably an asshole doesn't mean he's wrong about Muslims.

And who knows? Five hundred years from now it could be that they'll be enlightened and we'll be developing material for future Shakespearian plays all over again.

It's less constructive to label [Marty] a racist than an ideologue.

Your point is well taken, fly on the wall. But if you read Marty's stuff - full of comments about the fundamental irredeemability of 'their culture' - you can't escape the conclusion that he is indeed a relgious bigot. That was the point of the MLK post - Marty 'knows' a priori that 'they' (he didn't say 'the government') will make short shrift of an MLK figure becaue 'they' are animals, beyond redemption. Of course he is an unhinged ideologue, too. The two are hardly exclusive of each other - on the contrary. It's very hard to have a really honest discussion about ideologies if one party has an extra-rational hatred of (what he sees as) an entire culture.

He even gives himself away in his response to Chait's defense of him. Marty writes: My riff was actually based on a Yiddish proverb: "If God lived on earth people would break his windows." Sure, Marty.

The fact that he is backpeddling from the clear meaning of his original 'riff' shows an awareness on his part of how ugly and stupid that original riff was. I don't know exactly how you draw the line - how you attribute things to either nutty ideologue-ism or nutty bigotry. And fly on the wall's explication of Marty's ideology is excellent. But while charges of bigotry can be reductive and less than useful, it's wrong to maintain the fiction that Marty desperately wants to maintain: Jews can't be bigoted. Ridiculous. What makes bigotry so dangerous is the fact that it's almost always en camera, almost always rationalized by some elaborate ideology, which makes it harder to actually deal with.

Hieronymous,

I agree with you that Muslim culture is somewhat dysfunctional, although you might be overstating it a bit. And, perhaps "bigot" is not exactly the right term to use about Peretz. In that regard, I think Fly on the Wall really nails it (see a few posts above).

But still, there is a level of callousness and dehumanization toward Muslims, perpetrated by many neocons, which I think goes way over the line. And remember, the practical result of policies advocated by Peretz and other neocons is that hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims end up getting killed. And what is scary is that they seem to be agitating to go and kill an additional large number of people in Iran.

Fly on the wall wrote:

Marty's rhetoric suggests that gradual progress and internal reform are chimerical, and that only revolutionary change is possible, because there is no middle ground.

Add to that that Marty, as an educated man, would probably have to admit to certain historical exceptions to that rule, or at least partial exceptions, and you have a working definition of bigotry. He is sure enough that Arabs and Muslims are incapable of reform - simply 'different' - that he has decided that wars resulting in tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths are the only way. If that's not religious bigotry, I don't know what is.

Hieronymous:

in the wake of the Peace talks where Arafat walked out of the agreement he had just negotiated

Sorry. Until you remedy it, that level of ignorance about what actually happened disqualifies you from having any opinion worth listening to on this general subject. It's the equivalent of saying "Given that we discovered Saddam's gigantic storehouses of WMD..."

Speaking of 'internal progress and reform', wasn't it Marty himself who brought up MLK in the first place? He is clearly saying not that internal reform is impossible, just that Arabs and Muslims can't do it.

vanya_6724:

Actually bigoted views about Jews were quite acceptable in the late-1930s, and widespread. Witness our refusal to allow thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe in 1939/40 come to the US.

The first doesn't follow from the second alone. It would also have to be true that non-Jewish refugees in similar circumstances were more likely to be admitted.

"I can understand a Palestinian's motivation for being a Judeophobe, but you and Mahmoud are beyond my understanding. Perhaps you are merely a bigot?"

Or maybe he's one of the 25% of the Lebanese population who were bombed out of their homes by Isral last summer.

Hieronymous B: Muslim middle eastern culture has lots of problems, but to describe the entire population as vicious fanatics who can only be dealt with violently, while at the same time remaining resolutely blind to the violence on your own side, is straight up bigotry. The debate between MY and Chait here really isn't even close.

Hieronymous:

You've made a defensible argument here for the broad merits of the viewpoint Peretz was presumably trying to express. The problem is that this isn't how Peretz expressed it. The casual disdain he displays in post after post for Arabs, Muslims, and especially for Arab Muslims, can only be described as bigotry. There's a crucial difference between the way Bill Cosby discusses problems in the black community and the way David Duke discusses them. And it's related to the difference between making principled efforts to bring about slow, incremental, positive change in a troubled part of the world, and lobbing grenades at people you hate. Condemning the attitudes of Peretz and Glenn Beck is an important part of supporting people like Azar Nafisi.

But what really, really burns me about neocons like Peretz is the way they attempt to utilize the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and lifting people from oppression (Operation "Iraqi Freedom", recall) and then give them an occupation that cynically treats them as a second-class culture and props up a sick charade of Western democracy that does nothing but discredit Enlightenment ideals in the Arab world.

It's becoming a dodge for the failure of neocon policies... Even worse than the Incompetence Dodge, call it the Incompetent Arabs Dodge. In a sense, it's true. Iraq wasn't ready for Western-style democracy. But the Arab/Muslim world was probably ready to take some incremental steps forward. Instead, we lobbed grenades to see what would happen.

Obviously Marty's point was that a Muslim Martin Luther King would be imprisoned for a very long time, and not for civil disobedience, and that he'd be shot by the state, not a crazed assassin

"We have already established what you are, now we are just negotiating the price."

Did you know that when the lighting is right you can still see the dents in [U.S. Rep. D-Ga] John Lewis's head?

Hieronyomous wrote:
But just because Peretz is arguably an asshole doesn't mean he's wrong about Muslims.

No, but as it happens, he ios wrogn about Muslims. You cherry pick Maududi, I give you Edhi. You take Khamenei, I give you Ebadi. Sadr? Sistani. Al-Bakri? Gus Dur. Khadr? Fateh.

Problem is, Peretz only takes the first, always forgets the second. You can, out of a billion-plus people, find awful ones. But if you only find the awful, you're a bigot.

I haven't read Matt's response to Chait's response yet, or any of this thread, but this stood out to me:

Marty isn't saying a Muslim MLK would be killed because Muslims are inherently vicious, he's saying he'd be killed because Muslim countries are ruled by autocrats. This seems indisputably true.

I really didn't get that from Marty myself. He didn't seem to be talking about Muslim leaders or autocrats, but the Muslim community and their temper. I'll have to go back and check though to make sure my recollection isn't off base.

Our dispute began when Matt wrote a column defending Wesley Clark's assertion that an American war with Iran is likely because rich Jews are pushing for it.

This can be read a few different ways too.

1. Clark asserted America will go to war with Iran because rich Jews are pushing for it - i.e. the primary reason will be these rich Jews pushing for it (and assumedly coming up with the idea);

2. Clark asserted America may go to war with Iran because lots of folks are pushing for it including rich Jews in New York who exercise undue influence over how the "Jewish community" is listened to in this nation - of course, if you were to quiz Clark he'd tell you that he doesn't limit the relevant "money folks" to New York or Jews, and that in this particular conversation the question was where the Jewish community stood and Clark quite clearly stated they were divided but that some of their richer members who carry more influence over US policy were committed to aggressive action against Iran.

It's funny that Chait goes so far out of his way to give context and clarification to Marty's statements while making a mountain out of a mole hill, and quite obviously ignoring any effort to put statements in the intended context, about Clark's statements when starting this crap in the first place.

For what it's worth, it's not hard to see where Clark was coming from and going with his statements, taken in the proper context, whereas the context and clarification Chait provides to Marty's statements seems to be quite a stretch.

LaFollette Progressive:

This is really neither here nor there, but upthread a ways David Tomlin wrote a rather eloquent response to me . . .

Thanks. It's kind of you to say so.

that completely sailed past the point I was trying to make.

The exchange between you and Steve Sailer raised a number of issues. I commented on one that interested me. It wasn't my intention to identify and address the point of the post. I'll add a few more thoughts and maybe I'll hit it this time.

From your post of 1-26, 12:41AM, responding to Steve Sailer's of 1-25, 11:15PM:

You have quoted an insubstantial cheap shot from the President in the middle of a massive push for war that was almost entirely based on a different set of arguments.

Steve also alluded to a speech by Condoleeza Rice. Both were examples illustrating:

Supporters of the Iraq war successfully bullied many skeptics into silence by declaring that anyone who doubted that Iraqis were ready for democracy was a racist.

Steve presented no evidence that the bullying was successful. You expressed skepticism, with a certain colorful vehemence, that such evidence could be produced. I know of no evidence either way, and so have no opinion either way.

Whether or not they bullied successfully, they certainly tried. Here is another example, from a source outside the administration, a senior editor of National Review.

http://tinylink.com/?l7iHhs5ccN

Feb. 16, 2003

'Their protests suggest that it is not worth risking anything at all to free Arabs. To risk spilling a single drop of blood to liberate Iraq would be futile - not merely because it would be "destabilising" or "kill children", but because the Arabs have no capacity for "Western" freedom anyway. . . . That line of thought is nonsense. More than that - it is racist nonsense. . . . It is shocking to discover how deep lies the prejudice against Arabs being able to enjoy freedom. It is to be found in some surprising places other than the demonstration in Hyde Park: the CIA, for example, and the US State Department . . .'

Of course this wasn't the single most prevalent of the hawkish talking points, but it wasn't rare either. I recall Bush himself saying such things many times. It was one of the neocons' two standard responses for those who raised questions about democratization, the other being 'it worked in Germany and Japan'.

From your post of 1-26, 11:29AM:

In truth, most pro-war propaganda attempted to portray Iraq War skeptics as unpatriotic, "soft" on defense, or insufficiently dedicated to democracy and human rights.

Yes. And, one variant was 'insufficiently dedicated to democracy and human rights' for Arabs/Muslims/non-whites/non-Westerners, due to alleged bigotry. I don't see where the argument is.

Sailer wants to blame the war on liberal attitudes about racial equality . . .

He argued that they contributed, not that they were a sufficient cause as your wording implies.

What's in it for me? is the primal question of all political issues. The most ferocious supporters of Israel and/or advocates of war with Iran (not alwsys the same, though often) spend most of their debating time attempting to keep this question off the table.
Ties to the old (or in this case, new) country have influenced American foreign policy since the 1790s. That's a democratic inevitablity. But why someone else's ties to a foreign land are supposed to be mine, I don't get. We're just supposed to back all acts of any Israeli government because, well, just because.
That's a VERY dangerous stance for Israel in the long run. Unless it has something tangible to bring to the alliance, citizens are going to balk at the costs of same. And, of course, the highest costs to the US would come when Israel did, in fact, face a crisis to its existence.
As for war with Iran, should one start in the next two years, I fear for its American advocates. I don't think it outside the realm of possibility they could become the targets of murderous political violence from what used to be called "an enraged citizenry."

only a sophist or self-deluded over thinker could possibly deny peretz's clear and obvious racism.

that point is really beyond dispute. he's hoisted himself on his own petard. i love reading various people above (and chait is worst of all, sophistry at its most self-serving) trying to parse MP's words as if they are somehow unclear. everyone brings their own desires to such analysis. there isn't honest thinking here about the subject at hand, only various triangulations. TNR matters to some people, Chait in particular.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. good old upton.

chait has a job, one which is a launch pad to a better job (washington op-ed page, say). spencer a figured out how to reject the careering, and matt seems on his way (this thread will drive him further down that road) as well. good for them. i do wish matt would sack up a bit more. Chait is behaving repulsively. no true intellectual worth his salt would do what chait has done--craft an utterly disingenuous defense of his own boss without copping to the impossibility of his position. he just lied so his kids could keep going to private school. i'm sick, as are many others, of the goddamn lies and the liars and the pricks who cover for them. so chait, f you, and f TNR and its enablers.

No true intellectual, perhaps, but I think defending your boss in public is what most people trying to keep their jobs would do. There's a big difference between opinion journalism and something like, say, medicine or engineering where most people earn OK salaries: few opinion journalists ever make a living, let alone become rich. (I said few, not zero.) A fall from grace could be personally disastrous. I wonder if this accounts for the general cravenness of the breed?

thank you wery much

Thanks

tsklerrr

thanksss

tsklerr

tsklerrr

tsklerrr

thankss

tsklerr

thanks

thanks

thanks

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Thanks
Best regards
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
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanks you nice wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo

thnaks

thanks very good.

thanksss.

thanks...

sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
hikaye
sex
mirc
mirc
sex
hikayeler
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
sex

porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

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

Organizasyon yapan Firmalar

Düğün ve nisan Organizasyonu

Asansör imalati

İskele sistemleri

ayarlanabilir kolon kalıpları

Uçak Bileti satışı

Bayrak ve filama üretimi

Narrow Weaving Machinery

araçlı kurye

Pdks

http://www.youpornsexy.com Porno you porn youporn

thnk

thnk

thnk

thnk

thanks ;)

thank you !

thanks.

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

mirc

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
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

Thanks

Thank You

Thanks

kelebek 

kelebek sohbet 

kelebek script 
kelebek
chat 
chat 
sohbet 
chat
sohbet 
sohbet
odalari 

sohbet odalari
sohbet
mIRC
mIRC yukle
mIRC indir
turkce
mirc
video izle
video
video seyret
vidyo izle
izlesene
videolar
tube
piknik
piknik
tube
picnic tube
piknik tub
youtube
you tube

video izle
radyo
radyolar
radyo dinle
canli
radyo dinle hit
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
chat
bedava
chat
chat sohbet
chatsohbet
chat
siteleri tv
tvizle
tv izle
canli tv
izle
canli yayin
tv seyret
canli tv
seyret
yabanci
tv izle
tv kanallari
canli izle
canli tv
msn
msnozel
msn
ifadeleri
msn indir
msn
avatarlari
msn
resimleri
msn
nickleri
dinle
muzik dinle
canli
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
sarki
sozleri
lyrics mp3
bedava mp3
mp3 indir
mp3 yukle
bedava
mp3 indir
cafe
sevgili
sevgili

sohbet siteleri

sohbet odalari
chat
sohbet

bedava sohbet
bedava
chat

hazir mesajlar
guzel
sozler
ask sevgi
ask
oyun
oyunlar
ideal oyun
oyun oyna

barbiy oyunlari
kral oyun
kelebek
kelebek
mirc
kelebek script
kelebek
indir

kelebek mirc

kelebek script
kelebek

kelebek sohbet
dizi
dizi izle
dizi
seyret
canli
dizi
bedava dizi
diziler

thanks..

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
youtube.com
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup

minikperi
kraloyun
kral oyun
oyunlar1
rixoyun
rix oyun
fixoyun
fix oyun
oyunlife
oyunmemo
oyunyolu
oyun99
oyun oyna
oyun sitesi
oyun siteleri
oyun ara
oyun
oyunlar
barbie oyunu
barbie oyunları
barbie oyunlar
barbie
winx oyunu
winx club
winx oyunları
winx
bratz oyunu
bratz oyunları
bratz oyunu
giysi oyunu
giydirme oyunu
kıyafet oyunu
giydirme oyunları
giysi oyunları
giysi giydirme oyunu
giysi giydirme oyunları
makyaj oyunları
makyaj oyunu
makyaj yapma oyunları
yemek oyunları
yemek yapma oyunları
pasta oyunları
pasta süsleme oyunları
futbol oyunları
çocuk oyunları
yarış oyunları
boyama oyunları
araba oyunları
araba yarışı oyunları
motor oyunları
basketbol oyunları
beceri oyunları
dövüş oyunları
manken oyunları
komik oyunlar
oda oyunları
spor oyunları
zeka oyunları
yapboz oyunları
cep oyunları
yeni oyunlar
oyunambari
oyuncambazi
oyun sitesi
oyun siteleri
oyun hileleri
hileler
çizgi film
cep oyunu
oyun oyns
oyun oyna
video izle
chip oyun
barbie oyunu
kız oyunları
sue oyunları
güzel oyunlar
pop oyunlar
pop oyun
popoyunlar
popoyun
popoyunları

Hot forum alanındaki diğer forumlardan farklı bir forumculuk anlayışıyla eğitim ve öğretim üzerinde çalışmaktadır.Ayrıca bu forum diğer forum siteleri içinde nadirde olsa bulunan diziler ( kurtlar vadisi,kurtlar vadisi pusu,yaprak dökümü vb.)Ayrıntılı olarak mevcuttur.Forumhot bünyesinde çalışan yüzlerce moderatör ve üyeyle geniş kapsamlı bir forumdur.

Hot forum alanındaki diğer forumlardan farklı bir forumculuk anlayışıyla eğitim ve öğretim üzerinde çalışmaktadır.Ayrıca bu forum diğer forum siteleri içinde nadirde olsa bulunan diziler ( kurtlar vadisi,kurtlar vadisi pusu,yaprak dökümü vb.)Ayrıntılı olarak mevcuttur.Forumhot bünyesinde çalışan yüzlerce moderatör ve üyeyle geniş kapsamlı bir forumdur.

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset

Oyun oyunlar oyun oyna gibi kelimeler toner kartuş konuları yer almakta bedava oyunlar
2 Oyunculu Oyunlar - Yetenek Oyunları - Dövüş Oyunları - Aksiyon Macera Oyunları - Nişancılık Oyunları - Spor Oyunları - Yarış Oyunları - Zeka Hafıza Oyunları - oyun çocukta doğuştan gelen bir tabiat ve Allah'ın onda yarattığı bir içgüdüdür. Bunun temelinde çocuğun fiziksel gelişiminin mükemmel bir tarzda gelişimdirMotor Oyunları - Mario Oyunları - Savaş Oyunları - Strateji Taktik Oyunları - Yemek Pişirme Oyunları - Dekor Oyunları - Boyama Kitabı Oyunları - 3 Boyutlu Oyunlar - Hugo Oyunları - Sonic Oyunları - Webcam Oyunları - Peri Güzellik Oyunları - Battleon Oyunları - Süper Oyunlar - İlizyon Oyunları - Komik Oyunlar - Teletabi Oyunları - Giysi Giydirme oyunları - Makyaj yapma oyunları -çocuğun en özenli işidir. Yetişkin için iş ve kazanç ne ise onun için de oyun odur... Dış dünyanın kavranılması öğrenilmesi ve hayata hazırlanmanın en ... Kız oyunları - Çocuk Oyunları - işletme oyunları - varmısın yokmusun - Bebek Oyunları - Oyun - Animasyon - Oyun Oyna - Oyunlar - Oyun Cambazı - Bedava Oyunlar - motosiklet dergisi - animasyon - renkli toner tozları - fotokopi toneri - kartuş - toner - boş toner - boş kartuş - toner dram - toner chip - toner tozu - toner dolumu - kartuş dolumu - kartuş dolum malzemeleri - kartuş dolum makinesi - renkli toner dolumu - Bedava Oyun - Kral oyun

Hello Men
gallery is fantastic "Sunset Waves" very good
I am Blog

Thanks you really perfect one writing.I m always follow you.
muhabbet bacanak web tasarimci Alışveriş indir arkadas driver sohbet sohbet cinsel sohbet cet çet sohbet odalari sohbet cet odasi çet sohbet kelebekfm chat chat web tasarimkelebekfm kelebek fm kelebek radyo cet cinsel cet cet kanallari cet odasi muhabbet izmir sohbet script cet çet mirc chat sohbet sohbet odalari kelebek kelebek sohbet

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

sıcak videolar
videolar
Sohbet
chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
sesli
kameralı chat
kameralı Sohbet
goruntulu chat
goruntulu Sohbet
Sohbet odaları
chat odaları
Sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

güzel site gözüm eyvallah

thnks

simdi biz bu siteyi kasarken cinsel sohbet birde sohbet odaları
olarak kasmaya calıstık guzel sozler de ilerleme var ona birde mirc yaptık gun gectikce
kelebek script olarak hit alamaya basladık oda olmadı birde kelebek
radyo muz olsun dedik iyi kotu muhabbet oluyordu ama baktık kadınca
çet cet üniversite odaları
nda is yok donduk mirc indir e ondada tat tuz kalmamıs rüya tabirlerine zipladık izmir de oturuyorum iste ..
sonra da yavas yavas ilerlemeye basladık operserv chanserv memoserv nickserv komutlarını yazdık .. bir sonraki hedefimiz sohbet yada chat olacak insallah ..sex seks demi kassak acaba :)

ask oyun itiraf link degisimi siir

Thanks for the great work. !

muhabbet - sohbet odaları - mirc indir - mirc indir - çet - kelebek - script - mirc indir - arkadas - chat - sohbet odaları - kelebek - sohbet - radyo - çet - cet odaları - portalsohbet ekle -

kelebek - kelebek - turk sohbet - çet - muhabbet - muhabbet - turkce mirc - sohbet odaları - sohbet - cinsel chat - mynet chat -

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

thnks

Thankss

thanks

thanks

Thanks bedava sohbet

extraordinarily good
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc ındır
kafkas
kafkasya
adige
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirc
mirç
mirc inndir
türkçe mirc
mirc download
forum
sohbet
chat
catlak

Thanks you ßy_SuSquN

sexshopum.com
sexshopevim.com
sexshopum.net

penisbuyutuculeri.com

neon tabela

thank you..

neon
neon tabela

thank you..

Good comment.

Thanks Site admin
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc ındır
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirc
mirç
mirc inndir
türkçe mirc
mirc download
forum
mirc forum
mirc forum
sohbet
chat
coders
codersfm
radyocoders
mirc coders
Radyo
ircd coder
forum coders
coders forum
mirc

thankS