Martin Peretz is a Putz

The demoted New Republic author reports about people not loving Israel enough from Cambridge, as opposed to his usual perch of complaining about Arabs from Tel Aviv. More specifically, he belies that there is a growing trend of anti-Semetism on the left, and in fact this is becoming 'fashionable.' To Peretz, of course, anti-Semitism means voicing any opposition to anything Israel ever does, and a growing trend is a few select cherry picked examples. His examples are unusually far fetched, even by the standards of Peretz. I will do you all the favor skimming the article for its highlights, though doing so will most likely shave off at least some time off my life.

Let us dive in.

We live in a world in which the contagion of anti-Semitism is spreading once again. Indeed, the profusion of hostility to Israel is the proof that hatred of Jews is now quite alright, thank you. But, whatever individual and isolated wrongs Israel commits, there are comparisons to be drawn. And the comparisons are to the Arab states and to Palestinian Arab society, in which oppression has flourished since the early years of the last century. And has not stopped flourishing yet. (Translation: Israel might make mistakes, but at least not Arab)

Peretz then goes on to criticize  Roger Cohen, which is actually fair game in my opinion, as a life devoid of either of their writings is one worth striving for. 

His attack on The New Yorker though seems rather far-fetched even for Peretz, whose main gripe seems to be that the magazine will be moving to the World Trade Center site. This, obviously, is because

Perhaps because it wants to be close to the mosque that may or may not be built

He hit the nail on that one. 

And the problem with Rick Hertzberg? He likes admires Mahatma Gandhi, who wasn't sufficiently anti-Nazi. (Weird that, not waging war against a country bombing the country that is subjugating and starving you). His main problem with Hertzberg it seems is that he wrote, after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress,

"Nearly as appalling as Netanyahu's intransigence was the mindlessness of the senators and representatives, Republican and Democratic, who rewarded him with ovation after ovation." Rick attributes this response to "certain Jewish and evangelical constituencies." 

Saying that politicians might be motivated in their support of Israel by politics, is, of course, no different than saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a great work of investigative journalism.

And rounding the piece out, Peretz concludes:

But there is this persistent coterie, influential among the elites, and especially the smart-ass Jewish elites, who do not rise and are not enthusiastic. And so, despite all the true evil in the world, the designated target of the chic progressives, including alienated Jews, is the Jewish state. There are many predecessors of the type in history.

So even Jews are anti-Semitic now? It's ridiculous crap like this that got Peretz kicked off the top of the masthead at TNR (well, this and saying that "Muslim life is cheap").  Still, it could have been worse. I only count two explicit Nazi references (excluding a shout out to Pat Buchanan). More broadly though, it is angry rants like this that do the real damage to the legitimacy of Israel and cheapen denouncements of actual anti-Semitism. 


There is real anti-Semitism in the world, that is not in doubt. But this is not it. Saying that any criticism of Israeli policy, or the American relationship with Israel, is motivated by a dislike of Jewish people does a tremendous disservice to Israel. This mode of attack shuts down all debate, which only encourages the more fringe elements in Israel to dominate the government. Peretz also seems more than glad to jump into the worm hole of accusing Jews that are not pro-Israel enough of being self-hating Jews. It is no different than calling a black man an Uncle Tom for not being sufficiently black. It infuriates me like nothing else. It is not a logical argument made in the service of debate, it is the opposite. Peretz is not trying to engage those that he mentions, just to call them out for insult. One gets the sense that he attends Cambridge diner parties and reads the New Yorker purely to restock his well of outrage. The shame is that we have to be on the receiving end when he opens the spout.