TNR BLOGS

August 29, 2008 | 4:54 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:42 PM

August 27, 2008 | 11:42 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:45 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:43 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 29, 2008 | 6:47 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 28, 2008 | 6:37 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
26.11.2007
Rock Bottom

Earlier I alluded to David Samuels' dreadful profile of Condoleezza Rice in The Atlantic last year, but now it seems that Samuels has topped himself with a disgraceful and incoherent piece on the state of American Jewry. After classily referring to the "less-evolved" parts of the world, Samuels jumps right into his thesis, which is that American Jews are under constant attack:

Yes, Jewish life in America remains a flowering paradise compared with the realities of being a Jew in contemporary Britain or France. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that America has changed, too. At bookstores in major airports, I am no longer surprised to be greeted by a pictures of a smiling former U.S. president comparing Israel to the loathsome apartheid government of South Africa, or a Harvard professor explaining how a small but powerful coterie of Jews is responsible for the misfortunes that have befallen America in the Middle East.

The horror, the horror--Jimmy Carter has published a bad book. Then this:

Lobbyists for AIPAC are being put on trial for the crime of gossiping with U.S. government officials over lunch, an offense of which every single foreign lobbyist in Washington--and every working journalist--is guilty. Again, the American Jewish community is silent, for fear of making things worse.

Is Samuels implying that the lobbyists were put on trial simply because they were Jewish? There is no evidence for this, but who cares? And anyway, Samuels is busy taking the entire weight of American Judaism and placing it firmly on his shoulders:

Every American Jew has been quietly putting together their own pocket-sized file of stories they would rather not tell the children. There is the story...

"Every" American Jew? That's quite an ambitious statement. Finally:

In private, I hear it is simply too painful and depressing to contemplate the idea that there will be no easy peace between Israel and the Palestinians, that American Jews have become scapegoats for popular unease about terrorism, that political anti-Semitism has become normative thought among large sectors of the global intelligentsia, or that the tension between Israel and the United States will continue to grow as a future administration seeks a way out of the present morass in Iraq and comes to terms with a nuclear-armed Iran.

One wonders who Samuels is spending his time with, and thus who is telling him these things. Regardless, it's an astonishingly bad essay.

--Isaac Chotiner 

Posted: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:12 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jobeek2 said:

I'm sure Kirchik will love it.

November 26, 2007 9:43 PM

achester99 said:

Well, Isaac, I went and read Samuels' article, and whether or not you agree with it, your blog post was incredibly misleading and dishonest.  You skipped over every part of his piece that furthered his thesis, cherry-picking the parts that served your purpose.  For example, after his mention of "every American Jew" with horror stories -- an exaggeration to be sure -- Samuels lists specific acts of anti-Semitism, which Isaac skips, as well as his AIPAC mention, which Isaac mentions, but in the incorrect order.  

(BTW, in response to your questioning of the theory that the lobbyists are on trial simply because they are Jews, if this “lacks evidence,” then the object of your scorn should be the Democratic Party.  The official who led the sting operation – one who had been promoted by President Bush -- had a reputation for suspecting Jews of "dual loyalties."  That's why when the story first broke three years ago, a large number of Democratic Congressmen responded by signing a letter to President Bush defending AIPAC and demanding that Bush apologize for his tendentious official.)

Samuels might be exaggerating.  But there is no question that many Jews feel less confident about asserting their support for Israel or foreign policy beliefs in today's political culture.  There are two sides that are responsible for this.  One is those on the left who, whether or not anyone actually listens to them, do come from positions of authority.  The other is those on the right who have so disastrously mismanaged our foreign policy and national security that they have harmed Israel's simply because of these mismanagers' perceived pro-Israel slant.  Samuels probably should have paid more attention to this aspect.  (For example, I think no presidential candidate would be more harmful to Israel and her image than Rudy.)  But this doesn't mean he deserved this blog post.

November 27, 2007 12:56 AM

cerion5 said:

"One wonders who Samuels is spending his time with, and thus who is telling him these things."

Martin Peretz perhaps?

November 27, 2007 6:47 AM

blackton said:

achester if many Jews feel less confident about asserting their support for Israel or foreign policy beliefs in today's political culture, then they are cowards. I am not jewish but when and if I think Israel is in the right I will not hesitate to speak up for it. I don't give a damn about any political climate, in fact, the harsher the climate only strengthens my conviction on the necessity to speak out, and forcefully. I am also certain that there really are far fewer jewish cowards than you let on. I know that coward sounds harsh a term, I use it because I just don't think they exist in any meaningful sense. Raising alarm bells about nonexistent people is not necessary. I also think that Samuels is being far too depressive in his sentiments.

November 27, 2007 10:14 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Maybe he saw "Borat" and took it literally.

November 27, 2007 10:28 AM

jblumenfeld said:

I'l say this from personal experience- these days my support of Israel is much more likely to get a reaction like "oh, he's jewish" - meaning that my opinion can be discounted.  I feel much more isolated on this topic among non-jewish friends than ever before.

November 27, 2007 12:29 PM

blackton said:

jblumenfeld: really, that is interesting. I guess since I am not Jewish my perspective is different. Generally though I seldom talk politics outside of here, especially about Israel, since I know few people who really care about it, or could even identify anything about Israel. I certainly never hear anybody in my personal life bash Israel. Nowadays the in thing seems to be to bash Mexico, but that is a different thread.

November 27, 2007 2:20 PM

Onnword said:

Isaac, buddy, if you're going to call a piece "disgraceful," at least list a few arguments against it--to give quick and allusive bloggerish one-liners doesn't tell us much and frankly is a disservice to yourself. Is Samuels putting the weight of the Jewish community on himself? No doubt. But he is making a strong point on the unease amongst American Jews to explicitly express our opinions about a need to support Israel, for fear of giving people the impression that we do not have the American collective self-interest at heart.

The author is writing to a specific audience, Jews who want a successful Israel, seek Israeli-Palestinian peace, but are reluctant to share these views as not to be grouped with a president, who, despite intention, is hosting peace talks du jour...which Samuels points out, seem especially unilateral and harder to sustain.

I think Samuels wanted to draw a comparison between Lieberman and the Jewish community. Lieberman said that Democratic politicians admit the need for resolution on Iran, but are reluctant to voice it in fear of drawing the ire of the left-wing, who have significant influence over our discourse.

What Walt and Mearsheimer didn't look at was the diverse range of feeling and thought that exists in the Jewish community. While there is a common hope to have a free nation in our own land, the way we interact and the level of our voices are profoundly different.

November 27, 2007 2:35 PM