The left-wing blogosphere is abuzz over a clip from Bill O'Reilly's radio show Tuesday night where he has some rather harsh, and hyperbolic, words about the Jewish left, basically stating that the Jewish left (first he says "liberals", then "far left") supports, or at least are apologists for, anti-American and anti-Israel terrorism. I've gotten some emails asking me to condemn O'Reilly. Well, the site that started the buzz provides zero context for O'Reilly's remarks; they have the audio clip of the specific remarks they are publicizing, but don't show what was said right before or right after. The lack of context makes me suspicious--if the remark is so outrageous in context, why not provide the context?
Lexis does have a transcript of his t.v. show from that night, in which he had a Jewish guest who led a protest in San Francisco against Israel's actions in Lebanon. We can at least be pretty confiden that O'Reilly's remarks were not an out of the blue attack on Jews, as one could potentially conclude from the Media Matters website circulating the clip.
[Here's the statement circulating on the internet: "You have a very big split in the Jewish-American community. You got a lot of Jewish liberals, a lot of Jewish far-left people, who basically feel that, you know, you don't have a right to go after terrorists because it's our fault, the United States' fault. And some say it's Israel's fault because we've been mean to them, therefore they have a right to do whatever they want -- behead people on camera, all this terrible stuff. OK? That's a far-left position."]
I'll withhold final judgment until someone gets me the complete transcript, and not just one paragraph taken out of context. It seems absurd to suggest that "Jewish liberals" are apologists for terrorism. But it seems to me that while O'Reilly first refers to "Jewish liberals", he then corrects himself and refers to the Jewish "far left." And while he paints with too broad a brush, it's undeniable that there are a few Jews [like their non-Jewish counterparts] on the far left who support anti-American and anti-Israel terrorism, and a greater number who are apologists for it. [Just look at Indymedia or antiwar.com some time.]
UPDATE: Thinking about this more, O'Reilly likely deserves criticism for hyperbole (to some extent, that is his schtick, no? and you can't expect every extemporaneous statement to be perfectly phrased), and he could have done a much better job at limiting his criticism explicitly to the far left. But, assuming this remark was in the context of a discussion of Jews who are protesting against Israel, it's hard to see this as an attack on "the Jewish left," as such, as opposed to left-wingers who are Jewish and are adopting the far left position on the Israel-Party of God War, when O'Reilly is supporting Israel. And this post has been edited to provide the text of O'Reilly's controversial remark, for clarity, and to avoid a side-debate over particular links.
What is the point you are trying to make with that sentence? I don't understand how the difference between "liberals" and "far left" changes whether O'Reilly's statement is anti-semitic.
When I wake up tomorrow, will this website be called the Bernstein Conspiracy?
"...it's undeniable that there are Jews on the far left who support terrorism."
(links deleted here -- but readers should follow them in Prof. B's post.)
Are you suggesting -- it sure seems like it -- that BTS supports terrorism? Is that indeed what you are saying? Of course the link you offer doesn't suggest that at all. Did you link to the correct story?
•••
For the record, I am not a BTS supporter. I went to one of their meetings once and found them to be well-meaning and, I thought, naive. But your statement is so incendiary (and also so confusing) that I thought to ask you to make sure you have not made a clerical mistake in linking or simply mis-read the story etc etc
So, if I'm understanding this post correctly, your complaint here is that the right sometimes mistakes the "far left" for the position of more mainstream liberals. I concur completely. I believe that such this broad-brush strategy (from both sides) is used to discredit people who don't actually hold the fringe view, but are simply on the other side of the political aisle.
I have no idea how that relates to anti-semitism.
As well, I see that you have not modified your post to correct the impression that it leaves about BTS. I hope that you will do so soon as until you clarify the wording in the post itself, this post is a tainted one.
Read his talking point tonight "The case against Israel"
He had Newt Gingrich on, and Mr. Gingrich started his comments, after O'Reilly had finished, by saying "Bill, you aren't gonna like this much...but I agree wholeheartedly with every word you said". Mr. Gingrich launched into the same line of reasoning, that Hezbollah, Hamas et al are about destroying Israel and killing Jews.
It was a very clear viewpoint, tonight, from Mr. O'Reilly. He stood up for Israel.
The guy in the article -- Herskovitz -- sounds like a fool with some sort of guilt complex. But there is a big difference between a fool who calls for disinvestment from Israel and a supporter of terrorism.
Look, Professor, the law is based on fine gradations and distinctions and I can't believe that they escape you. So let me just suggest that they also don't escape a lot of people. Arguments in support of Israel -- from anyone -- are undermined by exaggeration and mis-representation. Reality is bad enough that one does not need to embellish it. They are indeed well-meaning fools who will cause great grief even if not intentionally. But the source of the ill they do must be identified precisely. If you want to argue against Green Party people like Herskovitz by revealing the stupidity of their policies, fine. But I don't think it helps to claim that they support terrorism unless you have the goods.
I don't know what context you're looking for, but O'Reilly's comment that "liberal" and "far left" Jews welcome terrorist acts against Israel and the US is over the top no matter how you parse it. Your own links to a single guy who renounced his Judaism and lives in Ramallah with Palestinians doesn't justify the remark. And the link to the Green Party guy, someone I've not seen on t.v. or radio or who has any significant following, doesn't make it either.
Not even Chomsky says what O'Reilly claims and we know how much folks here at the VC dislike Chomsky.
O'Reilly's remarks are an effort to delegitimize those who are critical of certain aspects of Israel's actions over the past few months and its deep attacks into Lebanon.
I don't quite understand the complaint about O'Reilly. He isn't saying anything that you couldn't find in Commentary; is that an anti-Semitic magazine?
I didn't hear O'Reilly, whose radio show does not air in my market, but it might be worth pointing out that Dennis Prager spent much of his show on 7/20 addressing the same topic in essentially the same way. Also, on Hannity's radio show the same day David Horowitz was strenuously arguing with some other Jewish guest to the effect that Jews ought to know better than to romanticize Hizbollah or in any way to denigrate Israel's current efforts, and that Jews on the far left do exactly that. I don't think O'Reilly saying the same thing is remarkable at all.
Just like the good ol' Ziv days,
Steven Lauridsen
Of "the far Left" vs. "liberals," in terms of drawing distinctions, sure, though it depends upon both the issue being addressed and the degree to which the apathy or neglect of a "liberal" is, practically understood, tantamount to the active involvement of someone on the "hard Left". Steven Spielberg, applauding and lavishing praise upon Fidel, doesn't make him a full-bore, Marxian, Castro clone, but it does lend some popular appeal and in terms of any single, specific issue, could, conceivably, be decisive.
to use an imperfect analogy that will make the point clearer, if the u.s. were supporting iran in a war between iran and north korea, somebody might reasonably oppose iran's military policies and u.s. policy re iran without supporting north korean aggression or wanting the north koreans to win. they might, for example, want both parties to stop fighting and agree to what they think is a reasonable compromise. or you or, as others have mentioned, you can oppose the kyoto treaty without supporting global warming.
to be clear, i dont think israel is equivalent to iran, or to the kyoto treaty. i only think they are analogous in that one can refuse to support one (or even oppose one) without supporting the opposition.
there is a big difference between supporting X and supporting policy P that has the effect of promoting X. you might, for example, incorrectly believe that P will NOT promote X. you might also believe that P will promote X, but see this as a regrettable side effect whose badness is overridden by the other features of P. for example, capitalism seems to create sharp inequality. this doesn't mean supporting capitalism means thinking inequality is a good thing. you might well think inequality is neutral or bad, but think the benefits of capitalism justify its existence.
While there are many of us on the "non-far" left who are embarrassed by the excesses of our lefter Indymedia-esque brethen, we absolutely refuse to take the blame for antiwar.com which -- while clearly antiwar -- is either a right-wing antiwar site (e.g., Pat Buchanan), or simply a racist/antisemitic one (Justin Raimondo) depending on which article you read.
While many on the left are opposed to the war, and may side against Israel, that does not by definition make anyone who is anti-war and anti-Israel a left-winger.
We on the left have to deal with our own garbage, and would appreciate it if you dealth with your David-Duke-style rantings on your own side of the aisle, without tossing your garbage over the fence to our side.
From the left, we just need somebody to point out that the Bush Administration has helped install a pro-Hezbollah government in Iraq, thus suggesting that he is anti-Israel and pro-terrorist
I was not paying close enough attention to perfectly characterize the nature of the interviewee's protest, but O'Reilly's comment was to express his incredulity that Jewish-Americans were not supporting Israel in the conflict. O'Reilly asked a follow up question (very loosely recollected by me), "The IDF is going after a group that has the slaughter of Jews as their main goal. How can you be against an operation that targets such a group?"
I am a sometimes O'Reilly watcher and nuanced positions often escape him. However, IMHO his remarks are clearly not anti-semitic. To him this looks likes the Cowboys fighting the Indians. If Israel is the Indians, he cannot fathom why the Indians (Jews) in the U.S. are not supporting the overseas Indians in a shooting war.
How can I accuse the "far-left" of these things?
1. I was raised among it all, I have been to the protests, I have read the books, I have been them. I'm not Jewish but I'm from NYC and 90% of my friends who were just as left-wing were all Jewish.
2. Its all over the internet, in bookstores and magazines. Pick up a copy of The Nation; read some David Horowitz; go to one of these protests; you have to cover your eyes and ears to miss the evidence. The "far-left" are fully in support of Palestinian "resistance", Iraqi "resistance", any enemy of America and Israel (and other capitalist countries) "resistance." Today this amounts to being pro-terrorism.
From the front page of Indymedia today:
"Opinion polls suggest that majorities of US and Israeli citizens oppose the attacks [by Israel]. On 18 June, several hundred people demonstrated in Parliament Square in London. UK-wide demonstrations have been called for July 22nd by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition and various Muslim organisations. "
From the Jewsih Socialists of the UK website timeline of actions taken:
"1988 Holds two public meetings with Jewish and PLO Palestinian speakers in solidarity with Israelis and Palestinians fighting against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. Supports the launch of Friends of Yesh Gvul. JSG delegates active in the Joint Committee for Palestine. "
I could find you a hundred such quotes. The "far-left" support Palestine - both in Jewish groups and in secular groups.
O'Reilly is not anti-semitic, he's just pointing out a plain fact; and hypersensitive PC folk and leftists are unwilling to listen.
Now I would note we replaced the best friend of Hamas with a new best friend of Hezbollah. Read the papers, the Iraqi government's very pro-Hezbollah.
why are you wasting everyone's time with this nonsense? the "far left" are no more anti-american, anti-israel, or pro-terrorist, than any other political grouping. you're playing a game of semantics. some would argue that the u.s. is in some senses pro-terrorist. e.g. the phoenix operation during the vietnam war was a secret program that explicitly targeted civilians. moreover, the u.s. has supported various groups that engage in politically motivated violence, a perfectly legitimate definition of terrorism. but terrorism is not as much a matter of violence directed towards civilians or politically motivated violence, it is rather a matter of violence that the u.s. disagrees with. this is all such a convenient way of ignoring real issues. i suppose i would be considered somewhat "far left." because i tend to believe that industrialism and capitalism are negative to people and the planet. now would anyone even want to know why? if you say, no. i cannot see how rational that is.
And btw, capital simply exists, it's a matter of who controls it, or, the other alternative is to let it lay in waste, unused, unproductively.
I was referring to capitalism not capital. By at least one definition capitalism is an organization of social relationships--class relationships. But I see you no point in further elucidation since none was requested.
Moreover, I find the view that natural resources are only valuable insofar as they can be used as capital for human consumption to be spiritually deadening.
Or it could be that I know those groups and know that they are on the far left of the political spectrum.
Is socialism not far left? I quoted from a Jewish socialist organization. Also, Indymedia on the whole is made up of socialist news. The Stop the War Coalition works with trade unions and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and is clearly left-wing. Many other groups are listed in that indymedia article that are all left-wing - I find it strange that anyone should even try to debate this point.
However, if you think I am avoiding a debate of the real topic - please tell me what it is. I thought this thread was about whether or not O'Reilly mischaracterized the far-left Jewish communist when he said they were pro-terrorist. So, I pointed out that the far-left, both Jewish and gentile, are indeed pro-terrorist in that they support the insurgencies in their solidarity campaigns.
Which commie summer camp? I went to the same one as David Horowitz (much later) which was renamed Camp Kinderland when I went.
I will gladly debate capitalism vs. socialism with you all day; however this is probably not the thread for it.
Wrong. I expect you know it. You probably don't know everybody else knows it.
Phoenix was explicitly designed to capture or kill cadre--not civilians.
See, among others, Seabury and Codevilla, "War: Ends and Means" for a discussion of Phoenix. Their conclusion is pretty much conventional wisdom. Phoenix killed a lot of cadre, which meant progress for our side and didn't provide sufficient dead civilians for the left's use. Hence it had to be evil. Later on, it got corrupted, but never was explicitly aimed at civilians.
As you know and hope we don't.
Better luck next time.
For people (who probably aren't even Jewish) to have the chutzpah to get on this website to defend the indefensible is shocking. Real Jews don't want you to defend those Jews who are despicable enough to either support terrorists or act as apologists for them (which is just as bad). We want you to castigate them just like you would non-Jewish extreme leftists who support terrorists or act as apologists for them. So don't tell me that O'Reilly is an anti-semite. As a proud Jew - who comes from a long, long line of proud Jews - I find that absolutely ridiculous
Yet I would not shy from calilng Noam Chomsky and anti-semite. He most certainly is. Norman Finkelstein is another good example. Indeed, all one really needs to do to find Jews who honestly condone terrorism is look at the Israeli far-left.
One more point with regard to those who accuse O'Reilly of being anti-semitic: just as liberals often contend that not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, so too, liberals must accept that not all criticism of Jews is anti-semitic.