At the time of Israel’s 60th anniversary, The Nation magazine published what was for its readers an unusually positive article about the Jewish State from one of its regular writers. The columnist who traveled to Israel and reported on it was none other than Eric Alterman. He went there for the first time after twenty years, and what he turned out was, especially for Nation readers, too much to handle. Israel, he wrote, was in the midst of a “economic and cultural renaissance,” although, he accurately reported, it was “experiencing a profound crisis of leadership.”
I found his article to be thoughtful and nuanced, not the Nation’s usual one-sided and rather vicious anti-Israeli position. He noted that he spoke with Israelis representing all points of view, including discussion of the “settlements and the occupation.” All those he spoke with opposed the bi-national state favored by Tony Judt, and indeed, by many of the contributors to his own magazine. He wrote, for example, that “The increasing strength of Hamas, the weakness and corruption of Fatah, a rash of suicide bombings, the shelling of Israeli cities from Lebanon and hateful rhetoric emanating from so much of the Arab world have all but drained Israelis of their compassion and patience for the Palestinian ‘other.’”
Alterman spoke to former peace activists and left-wing Israelis who, like Ruth Gavison, “finds herself less and less in sympathy with her former self.” He acknowledged that for all practical purposes, the Israeli peace movement was all but dead. Shlomo Avineri told him that “‘the Palestinians have not produced a political leadership that has proven both responsive and responsible.’” In many years, Avineri had met only one Palestinian who was willing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish State.
And worst of all, I suspect for his regular readers, was that he interviewed Benny Morris, the brilliant Israeli historian who writes regularly now for The New Republic, and whom he called a “respected historian” who over lunch walked him “through the terrifying scenario that he believed would occur were the United States to fail to bomb Tehran….” And he added that Morris’ “shocking conclusion” was seconded by participants in a panel taking place in the pages of the left/liberal Jewish magazine Moment. One of its writers noted that an Israeli attack on Iran “‘was far more likely should Barack Obama be elected President, as Israel felt it could rely on McCain but not Obama to undertake a sustained conventional attack.’”
A few weeks later, the Nation was inundated with letters to the editor, all of which condemned Alterman for being a closet neo-con, for writing the kind of article they would expect in The New Republic but not in The Nation, etc. I was hardly surprised. Indeed, having criticized Alterman over the years (and being a fairly regular recipient of his nasty and often ad hominem attacks) I phoned him to tell him that I liked his piece, despite disagreements on some points. He then told me that he thought the article my wife and I had in World Affairs Journal, on the early pro-Israel record of The Nation under the helm of Freda Kirchwey, had led his editors to give him a good deal of space for his piece, since they wanted to show that indeed they were still even-handed.
I’m sorry to say, that since Alterman wrote his article, he has reverted to the usual fare expected by his audience. The latest example of his apparent mea culpa is the column he wrote in the December 7th issue of the Nation, “The New Republic:Bad for the Jews.” Apparently, he has forgotten what he learned on his trip, and had reverted to using crude ad hominem attacks in the place of argument and analysis.
Alterman simply asserts that Marty Peretz, Editor in Chief of The New Republic engages in “inarguably racist rants directed toward Arabs and other adherents of Islam.” But there is plenty to argue about in Alterman’s “inarguable” claim about Peretz’s racism. Alterman quotes him as saying that he thinks “Arabs are feigning outrage when they duly protest what they call American (or Israeli) ‘atrocities.’” Let us decipher that sentence. Have we seen any Arab protests of Arab attacks on those other Arabs with whom they disagree? The Hamas-Fatah propaganda machine went ballistic a few years ago about the supposed Israeli “massacre” at Jenin. We long ago learned that the charges were all false, and pure propaganda. So why are we supposed to take Arab outrage about these events seriously?
We know that there are indeed nations that have backwards cultures; that shun modernity and revel in their backwardness. Radical Islamists want to return to centuries past, and run regimes that oppress women on religious grounds, and that outlaw alcohol, music and social equality between sexes. Why is it “racist” to simply point this out?
But the heart of Alterman’s argument is that Peretz attacks American Jews “who believe that the best way to protect Israel’s long-term future would be to commit itself to finding a common ground with peace with the Palestinians.” Any regular reader of Peretz’s columns, as I am, knows that in fact Peretz believes in a two-state solution, but will not countenance the continual phony and never-ending peace process and the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israeli genuine offers that would lead to two states in which the Palestinian one would agree to finally accept Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish State.
So Alterman goes on to condemn TNR for “doing damage to the cause of Israel.” With friends like Alterman, as the saying goes….His answer: “Withdrawal from the West Bank is the only solution to this painful quandary” of Israel becoming either an apartheid state or sacrificing its Jewish character to remain a democracy. He claims that “all of Israel’s true friends understand” this.
Israel, of course, has had a good test about what can happen with a policy of unilateral withdrawal from what occurred in Gaza. If it simply left the West Bank, without any agreement or acceptance of Israel by the Palestinian Authority, Israel could face missiles on its border that would easily hit Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion airport, and all of its major centers. It could face a West Bank populated and run by Hamas terrorists, devoted to pushing the Jews to the sea, and realizing their old dream of an all Arab Palestine. Is there something wrong with Eric Alterman that he does not understand this?
And of course, he chastises Peretz for attacking Hillary Clinton’s attempt to allow continuation of what he calls “Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land.” I suggest that first Alterman read a contribution in the new issue of Commentary, which contains an important article by David M. Phillips, a Professor of International Law at Northeastern University. (Yes, I know in advance that since he has such an open mind, Alterman will respond by condemning any article in Commentary as neo-con drivel, and will not even bother to read it and evaluate the author’s arguments.)
Whether or not settlements are right or wrong, Phillips persuasively challenges the conventional wisdom that they are illegal. He concludes: “The willingness of Israel’s critics to assert that these communities are not merely wrong-headed but a violation of international law escalates the debate over their existence from a dispute about policy into one in which the Jewish state itself can be labeled as an international outlaw.” Using international law as a reason to delegitimize the settlements, he argues, “is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely.”
In a concluding passage that directly addresses Alterman’s argument, Phillips writes: “Those who consider themselves friends of Israel but opponents of the settlement policy should carefully consider whether, in advancing these illegitimate and specious arguments, they will eventually be unable to resist the logic of the argument that says—falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence from international law itself—that Israel is illegitimate.” So the question to ask Alterman is this: if he persists in making just such an argument, how long will it take him to join his other colleagues on The Nation, like Neve Gordon and others, who already are making the case for Israel’s illegitimacy? And who, precisely, is the real friend of Israel—Marty Peretz or Eric Alterman?
As for J-Street, a group whose bona fides as pro-Israel have been successfully challenged by many writers in various venues, Alterman’s support of them as the really pro-Israel group simply indicates how far he has drifted from the position he enunciated at the time of Israel’s 60th anniversary. So if anyone should take a “long, restful vacation,” it is not Marty Peretz, but Eric Alterman himself. That would indeed be good not only for the Jews, but for the state of American journalism, and yes- American liberalism.
Great analysis, Ron. I only wish that the knee-jerk anti-Israel folks had the attention span necessary to read it through.
“…inarguably racist rants directed toward Arabs and other adherents of Islam.”
I have long been severely critical of Marty Peretz. He is intellectually limited and somewhat shallow because of his over reliance on the works of his fellow left-wing Ivy League colleagues. The man has failed to do the serious studying required of a public intellectual. His economic knowledge, for instance, is limited to usually reading the works of his late friend John Kenneth Galbraith. Nonetheless, Peretz has never written anything remotely racist concerning “Arabs and other adherents of Islam.” Please note that Eric Alterman does not offer any examples. That’s because there are none! The irony is that Peretz often blunders by being too politically correct. It was embarrassing to watch him during the 2008 presidential campaign make countless excuses on behalf of the banal and marginally educated Barack Obama.
I have ceaselessly savaged the reputation of Harvard University. Am I bitter and envious that I never attended this august academic institution? Oh well, what can I tell you? These are two very important reasons why one should be suspicious towards anyone possessing a Harvard or other Ivy League degree credential behind their name:
1.) A wealthy and powerful university community like Harvard must continuously ask whether its leading intellectuals truly have the best arguments—or are outside scholars intimidated by the real threat of having their careers severely damaged. This critically important question is normally ignored. One can take it for granted that best explains how Arthur M. Schlesinger got away with his disgracefully shabby work on the New Deal.
2.) There are too many Ivy League graduates like Bill Clinton who have learned how to deceive others with mealy mouth rhetoric such as “”I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.” A little later he justified his deceitful assertion by claiming that oral sex wasn’t real sex! This is typical Ivy Leaguer behavior. One should be very hesitant to trust these people. They have well learned how to bend, stretch, and do a lot other nasty things to the truth. Never pay particular attention to the first sentence in their writings. These folks often bury the important stuff deep in the 10th chapter, 5th paragraph, and 3rd sentence.
The guy is a jerk,people are tiring of this garbage hope he keeps it up,he’ll sink his own ship.
Eric Alterman does not give a fig for Israel. The conflict between Israel and the Arabs is solely religious. It could be ended immediately if the Arabs wanted peace and stopped attacking Israel. Another Arab (Muslim) state, as the two-state advocates propose, is not necessary, particularly since that state would be on the territory of the land of the Jews, Judea and Samaria.
Mr.:
You are wrong. Israel IS a Jewish State. It is in the first sentence of their constitution. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Ron – I of course agree with what you said. I also think what David Thompson said @ #3 is perceptive.
What I am shocked about, though, is that mr @ #5 was allowed to post the foul comments he did, and I do not mean statements about whether Israel is or is not a Jewish state. What I am referring to is his ad hominem attacks on you all throughout the piece, and especially the last sentence of the first paragraph. That kind of invective should have no place on PJM.
Ah, mr.? There were Jews in the American Colonies in 1776. Look up Francis Salvador for one, or Isaac Franks. The latter was, in fact, aide-de-camp to George Washington.
There were also Germans and French and Dutch (New York used to be New Amsterdam) among other ethnicities, so that rules out the Anglo-Saxon bit too, doesn’t it?
It seems to me that you have not done much research with regards to our nation’s infancy. I, sir, am a high school student, and yet I can say with conviction that my knowledge with regards to my country is far more extensive than yours.
Try cracking open a history book rather than skimming Wikipedia. You might learn something.
This is really disturbing. I thought Eric Alterman had gone away.
5. mr:
“… there were no Jews here when our country was founded in 1776…”
An absolute lie as #9 Nonner has shown. As well, many Spanish conversos came up from Mexico with the Onate expedition in 1598 to settle in what is now New Mexico to get away from the Inquisition. Many of the decsendants of those families still practice elements of Judaism. Don’t know what conversos are? Try looking it up. That’s scholarship.
“Why is it “racist” to simply point this out?”
It is racist only if one’s criticism of specific human beings is premised on their supposed genetic deficiencies. Pointing out the reactionary cultural values of the majority of Arabs and Mexicans may only be a rebuke of their inferior nurturing. I am convinced, for instance, that an Arab or Mexican baby brought up in a mainstream American family will likely become a totally Westernized adult. There is no way that an individual can keep their head on straight without distinguishing between nature vs. nurture.
“Radical Islamists want to return to centuries past, and run regimes that oppress women on religious grounds, and that outlaw alcohol, music and social equality between sexes.”
Odd, that is the Republican platform too!
I think “public intellectuals” have worn out their welcome. Right now there are very few “intellectuals” who have any credibility. They seem unable to go to a country and actually see what is there.
Writers playing with words and sentences in magazines like The Nation, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Republic are, in my mind, like children playing with Legos. Not very “reality-based.”
Mr. Alterman is among the willfully blind. He has to 1)read ‘History Upside Down, The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression”, by David Meir-Levi. It will leave him red in the face when he discovers that he is wrong about EVERYTHING. Then he needs to check out website Palestinian Media Watch – what the Palestinians (all factions) say to one another vs what they say to US and the rest of the West. He will feel like a complete fool and either reform, or like a caged, trapped animal, become more vicous than he is now.
excellent analysis!
Eric Alterman testified against his Jewish parents (sort of like the young Emil Bruckner did in the stage-play Tomorrow the World) in his blog years ago for their enrolling him as a kid in Hebrew school, and later sending him as a teenager to Israel — twice, the poor thing! — hoping their son might have some care for his Jewish heritage and the Jewish state. The ordeal was too much for him to endure, and so, like some others before him and since, turned intothe nasty little overgrown adolescent Jew-hater that he is today.
Forget him.
Mr. Radosh,
But for you, I would not know that such idiots as Eric Alterman existed. The only thing I really have against him is that he gets paid to write the trash he does. If he had to hold down a real job, and write his stupid spew for such rags as “The Nation” for free, I’d feel better.
@15
Sorry.
The last sentence should read: “The ordeal was too much for him to endure, and so, as with some others before him and since, turned Alterman into the nasty little overgrown adolescent Jew-hater that he is today.”