Is there a transcript of this talk somewhere? I’d like to read it.

I hope you publish it in TNR!

spell check is your friend

Do you think your friend Obama will stop Iran from throwing a nuclear bomb on Tel-Aviv?

anti-zionism = anti-semitism

hezbollah + hamas = pure evil

what a great intellect! i have to take a walk and consider how best to adjust my life to these new wisdoms.

Shorten it as much as possible?

sleepy, Obama does not need Iran to nuke Israel when, if elected president, he can do it himself with American nukes. Did you not get the memo about him being a secret muslim with deep hatred for Israel? He'll will blow us up if elected. Peretze is so blind and naive, no?

jerkaboy said: “anti-zionism = anti-semitism/ hezbollah + hamas = pure evil

what a great intellect! i have to take a walk and consider how best to adjust my life to these new wisdoms.”

If that’s all you got from Marty’s post than you will need more than just “to take a walk and consider how best to adjust my life to these new wisdoms,” you will need a brain transplant with a lot more horse power than your current one.

It wasn't so long ago that I posted a comment, here, asking rhetorically, what other raison d'être do the Palestinians have than the destruction of Israel.  The same, of course, for Hamas and Hezbollah.  Unwittingly, they have let themseves be defined by Israel.  They are a stupid, mean people, who must resort to murder to make the world notice them.  They have nothing else to offer.

Hang on a second.

I'm sure there are plenty of Jews who are not Zionists. Are they anti-Semitic?

Complete nonsense.

There are many, many Rabbis who have come out against Zionism over the years. Hell, from what I understand there's even quotes in the Torah prohibiting Jews settling in Israel! (And no, I don't know them.)

I don't think all people living on the island of Ireland should believe in a 32 county, socialist, republican utopia, and if they don't they are somehow anti-Irish, or self loathing Irishmen? The similarities between militant Republicanism and Zionism jump out at me sometimes.  

Seriously, Marty, I understand every fibre of your being is wedded to Zionism but please less with the anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. It's nonsensical and completely indefesnsible. Moreover, it narrows and restricts a no bullshit debate about the I/P mess.

Then again, maybe that's the point.

Guys, did you see Andrew Sullivan's post on Sharia at Harvard?  Marty's always dissing Columbia, but look what goes on in his own back yard.  Yo, Peretz, what's up?    

The Ignorant Populist said:  "I'm sure there are plenty of Jews who are not Zionists. Are they anti-Semitic? Complete nonsense."

Another typical post from the Irish Ignoble Bigot! Close of half of world’s Jews live in the Jewish State, and it will be more than three quarters within a generation. Besides, there is a difference between not being a Zionist and being an anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionist practicing Jews are a tiny minority even among Orthodox Jews. These same Jews are also anti-Modernism, anti-women’s rights, anti-Gay rights, etc. Only an ignorant antisemite would bring them in an argument.

Not only is our Ignorant antisemitic populist wrong he is also an obsessed and mendacious poster who keeps telling us that he will no longer post on TNR web site, yet he is still here.

Marty is too busy shilling for Obama and doesn't have time for "trivial" policiy changes at Harvard.

"Fortunately, these warriors are under-equipped. But their aims are clear and plenary. When they have nuclear weapons at their disposal, they will use them."

Thank god that Martin Peretz is there to defend us by making sure everyone gets identified with the proper set of adjectives.  I can just imagine him there at ground zero, arguing about anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, Zionsim, Semitism, as the bomb goes off and his subatomic particles are wafted to heaven.

Is this a general indication of the quality of intellect at Harvard today?  In my brief time there, long ago, as a visiting law student, I met several people whom I thought quite bright.

Did M. Levy perhaps make any suggestions about the useful responses to Hamas and Hezbollah or was he content, like Peretz, just to let us know that these people are bad, really really bad.  Quelle surprise!

By the way, I don't think that is an acceptable use of "plenary."  Their aims are actually the opposite of plenary in that they embrace, we are told, but a single object, not a full or wide range.

Ignorant, have you read anything about the historical parallels between the two for you to conclude that a comparison (not an equalization) is "completely indefensible." Just offhand, I can think of Lacquer's book, Wisse's Jews and Power, University of Indana Professor Rosenfeld's paper, and this working paper by YIISA:

www.yale.edu/.../David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf

Surely you will disagree with their findings, but to write if off as completely indefensible is, well, Ignorant.  Of course, you probably assume that there is only one manifestation of antisemtism -- that of the Jew-hating "blood libel" variety. This is simply untrue.

It used to be that antisemites screamed for Jews to "go back to Palestine where they belong!" Now, anti-Zionists scream for them to return to the Diaspora!

And can we please stop it with the "debate suppression" BS already? How anybody can still make this argument is beyond me.  

Let's leave the "self loathing Jew" trope aside for a moment.

The argument, as I understand it, is this: Anybody who is not a Zionist is, by definition, an anti-Semite.

Do I have that correct?

That is a narrowing and suppression of the debate. I fail to see what is complicated about that.

We've had this discussion so many times....  Yes, it's possible to be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic.  But in practice anti-ZIonism is a smokescreen for anti-Semitism.  Of course, some Arabs/Muslims don't feel the need for such a smokescreen; they are quite open in their hatred for Jews.  But if you're an anti-Semite who wants to maintain respectability, you use code words  like "Zionists" and "Israelis" instead of "Jews".

"Do I have that correct/"

No.

Although, depending on how you choose to define "Zionist", I would venture a guess that a majority of folks who don't support the Jewish people's right to national self-determination in some portion of the land of Israel (how I would define an anti-Zionist) are not exactly huge fans of the Jewish people.

I'm no scholar, so all I can do is suggest that you read some of the work that's been published on the subject, of which I cited above.

Let's take a hypothetical and assume that I don't think the European or American ancestors of ancient Jews have a legitimate claim to Iand in Israel/Palestine.

If the logic of Marty's post is to be followed, then I hate Jews living in New York - who never migrated to Israel and who consider themselves American, not Israeli.  

It's painfully absurd and is intended solely to push people into extremes so they can be easily classified and dismissed.

I'm going to have to pass on your kind invitation to study Jswynes.

I've enough on my plate at the moment.

It's a simple assertion and certainly rings true with what Marty is getting at. I've been brainwashed to believe the McKinsey elevator test - if you can't describe it, in the time it takes you to get off a lift, then you don't understand it.

The Ignorant Populist said: “Let's leave the "self loathing Jew" trope aside for a moment.

No one except you brought it up. Hence there is no need to set anything aside that hasn’t been put forward.  

“The argument, as I understand it, is this: Anybody who is not a Zionist is, by definition, an anti-Semite.”

Both your knowledge and understanding are faulty.

“Do I have that correct?”

When did you ever say anything that correct?

“That is a narrowing and suppression of the debate.”

Narrowing is not the same as suppression. However, since there is no debate here and since people like are spewing their Ignorant hatred of the Jewish State all over the place I fail to see how your hateful nonsense is being suppressed.  

“I fail to see what is complicated about that.”

Studied Ignorance is always complex, seldom simple:

From Ignorant’s earlier post:

“Hell, from what I understand there's even quotes in the Torah prohibiting Jews settling in Israel!”  March 6, 2008 11:37 AM

He must have gotten this one from of the ten thousand Neo Nazi or Islamo’Fascist websites.

First he is confusing the Torah a book he obviously never read since it ends with the Jews “going up” to the land of Israel, with the Talmud. Second there is no such prohibition in the Talmud. If Populist thinks there let him quote it!

The man is truly ignorant but not in the way he thinks. His is a cultivated antisemitic know nothing type of ignorance.

roidubouloi your rebuttals are getting weirder by the post.

Try reading Levy's article before you attack it. As for the word plenary I fail to see any problems with Peretz' use of the word 'plenary.'

Their aims are indeed absolute: the destruction of the Jewish State, by ant means and no matter the sacrifice it entails.

jswynes why do you even bother engaging the Ignorant bigot in a discussion. He is not here to learn, he is here to preach hatred for the Jewish State.

The Ignorant  asshole strikes again:

The Ignorant Populist said: "Let's take a hypothetical and assume that I don't think the European or American ancestors of ancient Jews have a legitimate claim to Iand in Israel/Palestine."

This isn't an hypothetical it's his ignorant  view  based on nothing except his loathing of the Jewish State.

Actually, it was a hypothetical.

"cultivated anti-Semitic..." That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me Jack. I'm genuingly overwhelmed...sometimes....ah these onions are really getting to me. Excuse me for a moment...I...I have to check the dinnear.

I have not read Levy's lecture but the proposition, from the above post, is that anti-Zionism is the favoured new form of anti Semtisim. That does not necessarily mean that all anti -Zionists are anti-Semites, but it does mean as Jack (as in Jim) Rice notes "Yes, it's possible to be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic.  But in practice anti-ZIonism is a smokescreen for anti-Semitism." Thinking about it some, I can with considerable difficulty imagine  that some, whether or not Jews, might in good faith hold that Israel ought not privilege Jews. But given the holocaust, and the preceding history of anti-Semitic virulence, that view seems so attenutated as to amost necessarily collapse into ian incoherence born of naivete and an ahistorical understanding the world.  Jews, I argue, are entitled to a homeland, and therefore as a foundational proposition are entitled to privilege themselves there. In the paradoxical tensions between rights and roots, Israel must nimbly pick its way, but understanding that Israeli Jewish particularism is necessary for the effective survival of Jewry, and understanding the prescriptions of Israel's existential enemies, anti-Zionism, if thought through, is essentially anti-Semitism whether by design or by effect.

_yawn_

Jackson, I'm not attacking Levy.  I have no idea what Levy said.  I am inquiring whether he, like Peretz, thinks that constantly calling everyone's attention to the fact that "murderers are BAD PEOPLE!!!!" is the slightest bit useful, as compared with suggesting what practical things can be done about it,

It is a misuse of the word plenary.  Look it up.  The normal meaning is "comprehensive" most often when talking about authority or jurisdiction.  The single-minded goal of destroying Israel is not comprehensive unless perhaps Peretz was trying to indicate that the goal is to destroy Israel as a state, everyone in it, raze all the structures on it and carry them off, plow under all the agricultural plants and crops and return it to a state of nature.  Maybe that is what he meant.

teplukhin2you said:

_yawn_

Maybe try getting to bed a little earlier, you playboy you.

Wouldn't it be nice if these dolts would open the archive so we could access the old threads and link to them instead of repeating ourselves endlessly?  I mean, really, we had some good discussions about this.  Too bad they aren't accessible.  Reminds me of the studios' warehousing fine old films and letting them rot.

Tep:  If you're tiring of the Spine, you really are tiring of life.

Basman:  One of the most articulate rebuttals on this point I've yet read.  Now I have an argument I can use when the next anti-Zionist claims to me that he/she is not an anti-semite.  Unfortunately, I only seem to meet them here.  Which means my non-virtual-life friends (as in "real" friends) are probably either too polite or, like Tep, too bored for this discussion.

Ignorant Populist...as jacksondyer and others above and on other threads have shown -- and as you've basically acknowledged -- you really don't have enough information/knowledge/awareness/whatever to be posting on this subject....

(LiSAH, I'll let you into a little secret - I really don't have enough information/knowledge/awareness/whatever to be posting on any subject. But don't tell Jack.)

Ignorance never held me back, either.

I second jm_rice re. the Archives. WTF is going on? It's beginning to make me go black helicopter-tinfoilhat-RonPaulie

LISAH Ignorance is an obsessed antisemite who keeps spraypainting the walls with his hate messages all the while pretending that he doesn't know how to write.

In the meantime his hate messages are  still visible for anyone to read.

“It is a misuse of the word plenary.  Look it up.  The normal meaning is "comprehensive" most often when talking about authority or jurisdiction.  The single-minded goal of destroying Israel is not comprehensive unless perhaps Peretz was trying to indicate that the goal is to destroy Israel as a state, everyone in it, raze all the structures on it and carry them off, plow under all the agricultural plants and crops and return it to a state of nature.  Maybe that is what he meant.” roidubouloi

Your definition the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis was not meant to be comprehensive since they didn’t intend to destroy all the buildings Jews lived in or their possessions which they confiscated and “Aryanzied.”

They also intended to develop a “Museum of Jewry.”

The aims of Hamas are plenary when it comes to the Jewish State and they have shown a willingness to die in order to achieve its complete destruction. Read their charter.

Here is a general notice:

“BREAKING NEWS: SPME TO LIVE STREAM WEBCAST WORLDWIDE, MATTHIAS KUENTZEL, LONDON BOOK AWARD WINNER AND SPME BOARD MEMBER, AUTHOR OF "JIHAD AND JEW-HATRED: ISLAMISM, NAZISM AND ROOTS OF 9/11" AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ON MARCH 6, 2008, 6:00 PM EASTERN TIME (USA)”

www.spme.net/.../articles.cgi

What can I tell you jackson.  The usage is incorrect.

roidubouloi said: “What can I tell you jackson.  The usage is incorrect.”

Look it up in the OED.  

I haven't anything to say here other than I agree with Peretz, but I sheepishly confess I'm anticipating a smartass riposte from jauntyboulevardier, without whom no brickbat throwing Spine exchange seems complete. Cheers.

I think Roidu has the better argument on "plenary".

It usually refers to jurisdicition, as in the power to do something. If the entity wielding power has original and unquailifed jurisdiction to wield it, that is its plenary power. In a federal system, states or provinces or cantons or whomever whomever will have each have certain matters constitutionally allocated to them and the federal government will have others. They each have plenary power over those matters. In Canada municipalities are the creatues of the provincial legislatures and derive all their powers from statutory allocation and thus have no plenary power--delegates never do. It seems eccentric to me to use plenary as an adjective modifying aims, unless there is a implicit jurisdictional subtley in the usage which has escaped me.

tomeg:  Jaunty just makes like he hates everything Peretz says.  If you go back through past posts, you'll see that the former Mr. Cookie (aka Jaunty) has agreed with Marty's opinions about 70 percent of the time.

Jackson, thought this little ditty from the BBC News website, regarding today's terrorist attack on the seminary, might interest you:

"The fact that the school is at the heart of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank may have been the reason why it was targeted, BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen reports."   Of course.