Get PJ Media on your Apple

The 2014 Duranty Award, Second Runner-Up: John B. Judis

The transcript of Ron Radosh's speech honoring the The New Republic's Israel-basher.

by
Ron Radosh

Bio

May 10, 2014 - 12:07 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The third runner-up this year for the Walter Duranty Award is my newest ex-friend, John B. Judis. Hired by The New Republic decades ago by Marty Peretz to cover American politics, in the past few years Judis has turned out to be TNR’s man to go to for analysis concerning Israel and the Middle East.

In agreeing to publish Judis on this topic, the magazine’s once proud pro-Israel tradition has disappeared. In its place is continuing analysis of the Middle East by Judis. I agree with what Leon Wieseltier, TNR’s literary editor, has written in a now well-known e-mail to me, calling Judis’ knowledge of Jewish history and Zionism “shallow, derivative, tendentious, imprecise, and sometimes risibly inaccurate,” making him a “tourist in this subject.” Of course, this is an understatement, to which I give my hearty agreement.

What gave Judis the claim to expertise is his recent book: Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict. The book received universally bad reviews, even from reviewers who know Zionism and Israel and who agree with Judis’ current-day positions, such as Bernard Wasserstein in The National Interest. The most popular defender of Judis is the rabid anti-Israel site Mondoweiss, which tells us something about the quarters in which Judis’ support now lies. He shares their backing along with another author, the vicious self-hating Jew Max Blumenthal.

In everything Judis now writes when covering the Middle East, Judis writes from the assumption that Zionism and a Jewish state was illegitimate from the start, that it should never in the first place have been created, and that Jews in the period of the 1920s to the 1940s should have put their fate into living as a minority in an Arab state. As he so eloquently puts it, Zionism’s very goal was to “screw the Arabs,” and not to build a homeland for Europe’s beleaguered remnant of the Jewish population at the end of World War II. Hence, what the Zionists did was to create a “settler-colonialist movement” whose aim was to “conquer and not merely live in Palestine.”

All of these assessments were presented in Judis’ TNR essay this past January 15, essentially a summary of his argument that he presented in greater depth in his book. But in the article, he skips to the present, arguing that since Israel annexed East Jerusalem, “a Muslim holy site,” and then created the “occupation of the West Bank,” the result was the growth of “Islamic nationalism in the Middle East in the 1970s” as well as “the rise of international terrorist groups.”

Absent in his article is any indication that Israel won these areas by defeating Arab forces that attacked them, or any discussion at all of radical Islamic ideology, which to Judis evidently does not exist. Instead, the entire blame for tension and war in the Middle East is the fault of one nation alone — Israel. After all, he writes, in his 1996 fatwa Osama bin Laden talked about the “Zionist-Crusader alliance.” The implication is clear: Osama might not have waged jihad against the United States if Israel had not done such an evil deed as to win a war fought against its enemies.

Thus, he concludes that it is “American’s continued support for Israel,” revealed in both military aid and a “tilt to Israel in negotiations with the Palestinians,” that has “fueled anti-Americanism.” So in essence, Judis seems unaware that since the Obama administration took office, American policy has — especially now under John Kerry’s actions as secretary of State — actually tilted against Israel, asking it to make concessions while shying away from any commensurate actions it might have pressured the Palestinian Authority to take.

Judis suggests that tilting away from Israel would have the salutary effect of reducing international terrorism, removing “an important source of unrest” and thus allowing “the United States to act as an honest broker rather than as a partisan in the region.” If only there was instead of Israel “a federated or binational Palestine,” Judis writes, showing his realistic favoring of a would-be solution that no parties in the region desire.

Judis proves true to form when writing other columns on Iran, Israel, and the Middle East. Not surprisingly, what he liked about Obama’s State of the Union speech in October 2013 was the president’s threat to veto any legislation from Congress that would set up a new sanctions bill against Iran. After all, he is certain that such a bill would derail negotiations with Iran, preventing the administration from having “a chance to score a breakthrough in negotiations” with the mullahs. Of course, the villain AIPAC is behind it, gaining the support of 43 Republicans and 16 Democrats, an example of bi-partisanship that this time Judis bemoans. Defeating sanctions, he assures us, is in both America’s and Israel’s interest — a rare moment in which Judis pretends to be concerned with Israel’s existence. To achieve this, he writes to oppose “malignant interference from Congress.” Leave it all to the executive and the imperial presidency.

I somehow don’t recall Judis making this argument during the Vietnam War.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Editors, please!

I assume this is a transcript of a speech, so I do not blame Mr. Radosh - but "bares" and "Helen Thomas" in the same sentence just ruined my entire morning.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
When something doesn't make sense, look to see who is making money because of the positions being taken. For very little money we find people willing to sell this country out for profit, you only have to look at those politicians who are promoting 'climate change' to find out this truth.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr Judis might usefully quote Alan Grayson as the best spokesman for his policy for Israel and the Jews, "Die quickly."
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
For more on the folly of Mondoweiss see http://clarespark.com/2011/10/15/philip-weiss-channels-hawthorne-at-arrowhead-1997/. How anyone could take his views seriously is beyond me.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"His analysis is to be matched only by that of the late Helen Thomas, the one journalist with whom Judis bares comparison.

I believe that the "bares" in that sentence should be "bears"....
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just remember this photograph when encountering anti-Semites and their Jewish socialist lackeys when the spout "anti-Zionist" talking points:

http://ajewinjerusalem.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hezbollahnazisalute.jpg
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
So explain the history and dynamics to someone outside your academic/op-ed circles, Ron: By what process of reverse alchemy did Zionist publisher Martin Peretz transform a stable of talented and insightful writers into a pack of kneejerk anti-Semites?

Andrew Sullivan is a gay flibbedygibbet whose opinions shift with every change in political fashion. No mystery there. But what about all the others Peretz mentored at TNR back in the days when TNR was the best magazine in America?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All