At "breathlessly" I knew it was Kirchick.

Does The New Republic have any shame? James Kirchick certainly doesn't - and he has even less talent.

Klein is losing it. Or is it just a phase?

Let us not forget that James Kirchick wrties for both The New Republic and Commentary magazines which are both totally committed to the concept of "no peace in our time" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In years of reading The New Republic I have seen many, many articles critical of US politicians and their policies but I have never seen any article critical of any Israeli politicians and their policies. And here we have one of the most bigoted and stupid writers at the magazine once again mock even the faintest glimmer of hope in this conflict. The mockery should be reserved for people like James Kirchick who do not care how many people die in this conflict as long as there is no peace in our time.

This intellectual and moral failure is systemic of the ultra-nationalist Israeli right of which The New Republic is one of the main standard-bearers in the United States. In perpetuating these failures The New Republic and its writers have caused immense harm to Israel and to the Jewish people that nation claims to represent. The New Republic has encouraged American Jewry, and the rest of the American people, to view its brand of mendacious and malicious bigotry as normative. The magazine is driven by a misguided ideology that has brought shame on the people of Israel - and this gangrenous rot has infested the core of this magazine leading it to intellectual and moral failure.

Thankfully, for the sakes of the Israeli and Palestinian people, there are increasing signs of recognition in the American media of the depths of the failure of our policies towards Israel over the last few years. The American people are slowly but surely turning their backs on the failed course propagandized over the years by The New Republic and Commentary magazines. There is hope yet for a safe and secure future for both the Israeli and Palestinian people - for which they will have no reason to thank The New Republic.

Pathetic.

ndmackenzie,

"In perpetuating these failures The New Republic and its writers have caused immense harm to Israel and to the Jewish people that nation claims to represent. "

I see, because of The New Republic  Jewish people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" . I got it.

Seems like the Spine shoutfest will intersect with the Clinton-Obama shoutfest, all on a post of he who gathers most shouting on the plank (due to his shallow predictability and rank incompetence).  A black hole of Talkback must be forming!  Someone alert the Hawaiian courts!

To Ezra Klein:

So you want a two-state solution already. We all do. (Except maybe ndmackenzie.) But wishing something does not make it true. Yassir Arafat, despite his Nobel Prize, was never a man of peace. Hamas is much the same, only with a bigger goal in mind: a caliphate. I point to remarks from the PA's ambassador to Lebanon.

PA AMBASSADOR: "First Jerusalem, Then We'll Take All Palestine"

by Hillel Fendel

"When Israel's ideology will collapse, and after we take Jerusalem, Israel's ideology will collapse altogether, and then we will proceed with our own ideology, inshallah [if Allah wills], and we will throw them out of all of Palestine." So said Abbas Zaki, the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to Lebanon on Lebanese television last week, according to a translation by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute).

. . .

****Asked if this means he believes "in weapons, not just in negotiations," Zaki said that neither of them is effective by itself: "The use of weapons alone will not bring results, and the use of politics without weapons will not bring results. We act on the basis of our extensive experience. We analyze our situation carefully. We know what climate leads to victory and what climate leads to suicide."

"We talk politics," Zaki said, "but our principles are clear. It was our pioneering leader, Yasser Arafat, who persevered with this revolution, when empires collapsed. Our armed struggle has been going on for 43 years, and the political struggle, on all levels, has been going on for 50 years. We harvest U.N. resolutions..."****

"I see, because of The New Republic  Jewish people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" . I got it."

jacob, this is exactly what I mean when I say "GIVE IT A REST." Neither the post nor the comments on the post had anything to do with the "bitter" flap or even Barack Obama. If you have something remotely useful to say, do so. Otherwise I may reconsider my support for free speech.

rozenson,

"I see, because of The New Republic  Jewish people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" . I got it."

This was ndmackenzie point.

BTW, most of Obama supporters agree with ndmackenzie and  Ezra Klein. They also think that Obama agree with them.

James - adverbs are not your friends.

Thank you, Wandreycer, thank you. Whether one agrees with Kirchick's thesis or not, this is a substantively good post. But the adverbs. Dear God, the adverbs. Inelegantly wielding adverbs as cudgels is the sign of a hack writer (and usually a jerk). This would be a fine post, but the words get in the way of the message.

Adjectives are also not this writer's friend. Stick to vivid verbs, simple nouns, and every once in a while trust your readers with a rhetorical question instead of supplying the answer -- or even trust them to reach the intended conclusion on the strength of your argument alone. If a reader gets to the end of this piece, for example, and hasn't concluded that Ezra Klein is an ignorant fool about Hamas, then the writer hasn't done his job. Stating the hoped-for conclusion in the last sentence like this makes it look as though the author lacks faith in the persuasive power of his pen. (Which, I understand, shows a certain self-awareness on the part of this particular writer, but the solution is to learn to think and write better, not to give up and just tell readers what to conclude.)

ndmackenzie,

We have only a single "mendacious and malicious bigot" here.  That would be you.

jacobtl

over the past two days, you have engaged in the most shameful guilt by association smears, listing a selected list of Spine boogeymen who support Obama, implying that Obama is some kind of closet Israel hater, even though the tnr Israel taster marty peretz supports Obama and has gone out of this way to assure readers that Obama is no threat to the US/Israel relationship.

Today, you sink even lower and subtly suggest that Klein, and by extension tbr Obama supporters (given this magazine's readership, many of whom are jewish) are represented by mack, someone who clearly is anti Israel and though has communicated with me just fine, has views that are his own and should not, by any fair person, be associated with "most Obama supporters".

In other words jacobt, cut our the lazy smears. Something about Obama obviously bugs you. Fine. Let it bug you but as you stew, don't assuage your sense of anger and weird grievance with delusions that Obama supporters are bigots and jew haters. Same that crap for your posts on the Spine.

thejauntyboulevardier,

Obama supporters are not bigots and jew haters.

Their attitude in general  is the attitude of  European left wing liberals.

Their attitude towards Israel  is the attitude of  European left wing liberals.

BTW, what are your views? What do you want the next president to do about  I/P conflict?

Who was responsible for the failure of Camp David?

Does Jewish lobby dictate American policy? Did Jewish lobby push US into the Iraq war?

What’s the meaning of  the “proportional” response?

Did Israel commit war crimes in Jenin, Lebanon or Gaza?

Does American President have to force a solution on Israel?

Most Obama supporters have very specific answers to that questions.

Rhub and Wand: reminds of what Oliver Goldsmith told Samuel Johnson - you know, at dinner the other night - "read what you have written, and the passages that you find particularly fine or elegant, strike."

I know that in the case of Kirchick, it would probably mean he'd never write ... but, (my own) snide comments aside, I agree with you both (and I have said a hundred time already), even when JK makes sense, he loses the readers through this own breathless denunciations and mischaracterisations.

For my part, I really don't give a flying frack what Meshal *says*; more interested in what Hamas *does*: put down the arms, renounce war and violence as a means of advancing national policy (they only have to go back seventy years for the principle), accept Israel's right to exist, shut down suicide bombings, and then sit down and negotiate the settlement terms.  And before you say it, ND, these are not question you resolve through negotiations: they are primordial, rules-of-the-game principles.  Until then, Meshal can marry a Jew and pray at the Wailing Wall, and I still wouldn't believe a word he says.

Jacob: Dead horse.  Wrong racetrack.

Jaunty: Why do you even bother wasting your breath?  Any way, I don't think Jacob says anything "subtly".  And he's already admitted that he is a pro-Nixon pro-Reagan Republican, so I'm not sure what's the point of trying to point out his inconsistencies and incoherences.

Agreed on the adjectives and adverbs. There is a good post in here; in fact, to James Kirchik standards this *is* a good post. There's a real, substantive argument, there's no meandering to a host of other bugbears described in kneejerk ways. The  only thing that's wrong still, aside from the issue whether you agree with the argument or not, is this breathless posturing expressed in adjectives and adverbs.

Let your argument make the argument. Dont add a hundred adjectives to tell us that Klein is an idiot; show it in your argument itself, and leave it at that. Rhubarbs articulated it perfectly.

Jacob: "liberal" has a totally different meaning in European politics than in the US and Canada; most "lefties" in Europe would not get caught being called liberals and, in any event, American-style liberalism or "leftism" is not all that appreciated in Europe.  And, in any event, there is no such thing as a European "left" or a European "leftist" response to the Israel-Palestine issue.  In fact, if any thing, the "right" in Europe is far more likely to be pro-Arab than the left, but that is a whole other issue.

"European left wing liberal" might be an insult in the circles you graze in, but to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education, it is vapid, vacuous, gratuitous and meaningless.

I have no idea where you get your "most Obama supporters" data/information/assertions from.

Well, I'm a European, which makes me a Marxist as well.

What do you want the next president to do about  I/P conflict? End it.

Who was responsible for the failure of Camp David? The Israeli side for not offering a contiguous territory in the West Bank.

Does Jewish lobby dictate American policy? Certainly on the I/P issue they have great sway but the relationship is more complicated than usually presented.

Did Jewish lobby push US into the Iraq war? No, I don't think so. Nobody can push a supertanker anywhere.  

What’s the meaning of  the “proportional” response? To the occupaion? Can you be more specific?

Did Israel commit war crimes in Jenin, Lebanon or Gaza? Ever? Probably.

Does American President have to force a solution on Israel? Yes, but it would mean his second term.

Hey this is fun! What other anti-pro surveys have you got?

Here, I've got one for you Jacob:

Is there a secret UN plot to barcode and enslave every American?

How many capital gains tax cuts will it take to end poverty?

What's the difference between a balanced budget and...actually, just what's a balanced budget?

How many Sandanistas are under your bed, right NOW?

Do you ever smear yourself with butter and stand in front of a full length mirror butt naked while listening to Regean speeches?

How many supply-siders does it take to fit a lightbulb?

(The last one's a bit tricky)

jacobtl,

"BTW, most of Obama supporters agree with ndmackenzie and  Ezra Klein. They also think that Obama agree [sic] with them."

Tell that to Marty Peretz.

BTW I am an Obama supporter, one of many, who vehemently takes issue with both of your assertions.

icarusr,

"In fact, if any thing, the "right" in Europe is far more likely to be pro-Arab than the left, but that is a whole other issue."

Not anymore.

"I have no idea where you get your "most Obama supporters" data/information/assertions from."

From reading  Obama supporters articles and blogs.

Just answer my questions. How many Obama supporters would answer the questions the way Carter would?

Populist: GREAT SURVEY ...

Spencer Ackerman on the valiant intellectual journalists at The New Republic:

Among intellectual journalists, particularly on the ostensible left, the problem is a bit different. Liberalism encourages doubt and conservatism relies upon certainty. For the restless liberal surrounded by her confreres, agreement is unnerving. She wakes up in the middle of the night fearful that she’s abandoning the virtue of rigor for the comfort of certainty. And maybe for a while she reexamines her foundational principles and reconsiders a few things. But then she overcorrects and merely recycles the right’s arguments. There’s no dialectic, merely opposite-pole pinballing. But that’s not how it looks to our valiant intellectual journalist! I swear: people who walk the hallways of TNR truly believe that by sneering at Juan Cole or Eric Alterman a jerk they’re doing something brave. They’re not like those symps, those dupes, those conformists, those, those, those liberals!

thinkprogress.org/.../slim-switches-sides-on-me

And no one at The New Republic is braver than James Kirchick.

While I don't agree with Mr. Kirchick's politics very often, I'm certainly not opposed to his voicing them in as many outlets as he can find willing to publish them.  But really, does he have to be such an asshole about it all the time?  And worse, if he's going to be an asshole, could he at least be a clever one? Verbosity does not wit make.

More breathless commentary from Ezra Klein:

-- Judaism has long been closely associated with the search for social justice and human dignity. In his beautiful essay "No Time For Neutrality," the great Jewish theologian, Abraham Joshua Heschel, wrote, "one of the lessons we have derived from the events of our time is that we cannot dwell at ease under the sun of our civilization, that man is the least harmless of beings .. The only safeguard against [such] constant danger is constant vigilance, constant guidance. Such guidance is given to him who lives in the reality of Israel. It is a system in which human relations rest on two basic ideas: The idea of human rights and the idea of human obligations."

-- Disengagement is an unnatural position for a Jew. Ending his essay, Heschel wrote, "Jewish existence is not only the adherence to particular doctrines and observances but primarily the living in the spiritual order of the Jewish people ... it is primarily involvement and anticipation in the covenant and community of Israel." Israel, for Heschel, was the corporeal manifestation of higher ideals -- an unbreakable respect for human rights, and an unyielding sense of obligation to one another's dignity. Those who would dishonor those ideals don't speak for us. Yet their voices control the conversation. As Heschel said, this is no time for neutrality. Even more to the point, it is no time for silence.

www.prospect.org/.../articles

nd: I don't know where Ackerman gets his "liberal versus conservative" intellectual approach from.  Liberlalism - North American liberalism, at any rate - starts from the premise Rousseauan premise that man is perfectable and proceeds to engage the machinery of government, through taxes and regulation, to perfect him or her.  Affirmative action, busing, bans on smoking and hate crimes and discrimination, regulation of the environment - all of these point not to a fostering of doubt but to a deep certainty about what is good and what is bad, what is ethical and what is not, what is moral and what is immoral.  I do not suggest that all of the above is wrong, only that liberalism is hardly a fount of doubt; whither political correctness otherwise?

"Conservatism" - at least that branch of it that relies upon traditions, markets, deregulation (the Burkean kind), does so precisely because it eschews certainty: because you can never be sure about what is the right "new" policy, you should rely, to the extent possible, on the tried and true, on letting markets and individual sort things out, and fixing things only on the margins.  You may not like this - I don't - but "certitude" it is not.

Neocons are a different species from either of the other two.  They manage to adopt a Rousseauan perspective on perfectability, but a Hobbesian view of man's nature.  THEY are certain, but that certitude is as aberrant on its methodology to true conservatives, as it is on its premises to true liberals.

You disagree with the TNR?  Fine.  Don't let's drag pseudo-philosophy into it.

I could tell this was a Kirchick post as soon as I read, "Ezra Klein breathlessly...".

"Among intellectual journalists, particularly on the ostensible left, the problem is a bit different. Liberalism encourages doubt"

It's a joke. Look at their unconditional love for Obama and unconditional hate for Clinton. There are no doubts.

jacobtl,

what a bunch of rot. Unconditional love...unconditional hate...what manichaean nonsense. We are in the middle of a hotly contested primary where positions do tend to harden. My guess is that the vast majority of Obama supporters would vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, as vice versa.

I do agree with tnr houses a rather disturbing level of irrational Clinton hate but most posters don't reflect that and even if they do, pischers like pccostello, esmense, and jacobtl more than make up the difference.

There is no doubt jacobtl that you bring almost nothing but partisan ramblings to the conversation. As you accuse others of unconditionality viewpoints, I suggest that you get a footstool, step onto it, and look at what you see in that mirror...

Readers may recall that two weeks ago, Ezra Klein announced the "bombshell" revelation that