The paranoid style and JournoList

The Freeper thread on JournoList (someone posted a partial list of members) has one fascinating comment, among many predictable ones:

At the risk of being called an anti-semite, (which I am the opposite of, I am very pro-Israel), has anyone noticed that this list seems to have a very large percentage of Jewish names?

Note that several of the comments on the thread have been zapped, suggesting that the moderator didn’t find this one offensive. But what I find especially interesting is the explicit claim that being “pro-Israel” (which in wingnutspeak means supporting  ethnic cleansing carried out against Arabs) somehow contradicts being anti-Semitic. I wonder whether the fervor of right-wing support for the antics of Bibi, Sharon, and Begin is partly compensatory?


Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

12 thoughts on “The paranoid style and JournoList”

  1. Excuse me? Since when does being pro-Israel mean supporting ethnic cleansing against Arabs? In anybody's parlance? Especially when you consider that the only ethnic cleansing Israel can clearly be said to have done was against Jews in Gaza?

  2. I'd like to know what is (or isn't) the connection between "the opposite of anti-semitism" and pro-Israel? Oh, and maybe Zionism, while you're at it. Goyim are curious.

  3. Kleiman says: "But what I find especially interesting is the explicit claim that being “pro-Israel” (which in wingnut speak means supporting ethnic cleansing carried out against Arabs) somehow contradicts being anti-Semitic."

    While it is apparent to anyone who has read your blog that you are fluent in left wingnut speak, your right wingnut speak could use some work. Your error is understandable; Because the expression ("pro-Israel") is non existent in left wingnut speak, you were forced to extrapolate from the left wingnut speak expression “pro-Palestinian.,” which depending on your dialect of left wingnut speak (a factor of the hours spent listening to Pacifica radio) means (i) “for wiping Israel off the face of the earth,” (ii) for a second Holocaust or (iii) (Iranian dial.) for a first Holocaust.

    The above quote is followed by a lie and a cowardly one at that. Kleiman states: “I wonder whether the fervor of right-wing support for the antics of Bibi, Sharon, and Begin is partly compensatory?”

    You couldn’t quite express straightforwardly your accusation that the Israeli government has engaged in ethnic cleansing and resort to the cryptic phrase “antics” which in context refers to ethnic cleansing in the prior sentence. This comment posits a deal between the pro-Israel right- wingnut faction and the Israeli government in which the pro-Israel faction supports the Israeli government as payment for the Israeli government furthering the faction's efforts to ethnically cleanse Israel of Arabs. The cryptic manner in which you utter this obscenity suggests that you are tempted to throw your lot in with other left wingnut anti-semites, such as Walt, Mearsheimer, and Carter, but don’t have the guts. Before you do, I suggest you read "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" by Professor Dershowitz, in which he uses reason and logic ( both of which are nonexistent in your comment) to expose the above mentioned academics and peanut farmer for the anti-semites that they are. The fact that 1.2 million citizens of Israel are Arabs and are accorded all of the civil liberties accorded to Jewish citizens is one that you must explain. If Israel engages in ethnic cleansing, how is it that with arguably one of the best fighting forces in the world at its disposal, Israel has failed to ethnically cleanse itself of 1.2 million Arabs citizens? Please engage whatever rational brain function you may still have and provide credible evidence of your accusation.

  4. It seems to me that if you wipe away the foam on Mr Levine's mouth, cut the heat back to room temperature and wash away the ad hominem attacks, he's basically right: it is possible to be pro-Israel without endorsing the idiocy, self-destructiveness and possibly even crimes of the present government of the country. One may wish it well, peaceful and prosperous without thinking that the current government's policies are likely to get it there. (Mr Levine may be more of a fan of the present Israeli government than that, but even Mr Kleiman should admit that this is a possible position.)

    That takes one back to the initial question, which Mr Kleiman himself distracted us from with his needless insult: can one ask a question about the (actual or supposed) number of Jews on Journolist without being anti-Semitic? Is there a possible mere intellectual curiosity, sort of like asking why so many Hollywood comedy writers are Canadian? Or maybe it's even admiration, or envy, that such a high proportion of people of intelligence and good social values are Jewish? What's wrong with the rest of "us" (assuming that a non-Jew is asking)?

    I don't think that's Mr Levine's opinion of Journolist, and it may not be that of the original questioner, but could a fair-minded person have asked the question? If so, is there a fair-minded answer (possibly including a denial of the truth of the observation that led to the question)?

  5. Mr. G

    As a fan of the minimalist (Rand or Nozickian) state, I have not been a fan of the US or Israeli government for as long as I can remember; yet one can be critical of both governments and be supportive of each country and its right to exist when one realizes that they are among the highest ranked countries in respecting individual freedoms.

    The "fire" ("foam" is for rabid dogs and I have had all my shots) you perceive in my comment stems from Kleiman's false accusation and the deviousness used to deliver it. The Journolist question itself is a foil used by Kleiman to make his ethnic cleansing slur more credible. By starting with the question and his indignation with the questioner, Kleiman hopes to convince you that he is anything but an anti-semite. It is a tactic used by Walt et. al. who at the outset state that Israel has a right to exist before launching their barrage of false accusations in an attempt to delegitimatize Israel.

    I do not view Kleiman's canard as a "needless insult;" ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for genocidal conduct. Think Rawanda,Darfur and Bosnia. The accusation calls into question the perpetrator's right to exist. Kleiman's "needless insult," ranks right up there with the Protocols of Zion. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost on account of such "needless insults" and they ought not be tolerated. The question is why it does not upset you more.

  6. The standard literalist interpretation of Revelations (I know, those words shouldn't be in the same sentence) has a jewish state in the middle east as a precondition to Armageddon, the Rapture, the Last Judgement and all the other literalist goodies. The jews living there all get slaughtered horribly, of course, but it's in the service of the G*d's Plan. So some biblical literalists, at least, are pro-Israel the same way that Omaha Steaks is pro-cow.

  7. Well, the least uncharitable interpretation is that it's quite easy to be honestly both Pro-Israel and anti-semetic: while neither are really human, dirty Arabs are even less white than greedy Jews. If one was feeling extra uncharitable one could also note that Israel clearly has most of the power at the moment, and muse on how bigots' fear is often turned into anxious worship of the powerful above all.

  8. The idea is that there are the "real" Jews, the ones who vote Republican and "support Israel," meaning the current Israeli administration, and then there are the secular "self-hating Jews," the liberals who vote Democratic and fear for Israel's future if it continues its current policies. Up to now, accusing Jews of being "self-hating" has been the special province of right-wing Jews like Abe Foxman, but we're now seeing a new trend: any right-winger can do it.

  9. @Mike T: Yes, Arabs are also Semites, but the term "anti-Semitism" doesn't actually mean hatred of Semites. It was invented by Wilhelm Marr in the 19th century to make his hatred of Jews socially acceptable. At the time, it had become inappropriate to hate people for their religion, but hating for their ethnicity was just fine. Some writers have taken to spelling the term "antisemitism" to try to make this more clear.

  10. (Found this unusual web offering a while ago – – – Omar)

    Jewish Wedding & the Rapture

    If you believe in this connection, Google "End Times Passover blog of August 2." As you know, many prophecy teachers see connections between the stages of a Hebrew Wedding and the Rapture many are looking for. The above blog has a great in-depth discussion that everyone who is expecting an imminent rapture will enjoy reading! And please tell many others of the same blog. Maranatha!

Comments are closed.