• Home
• News
• InDepth
• Blogs
• Judaism
• Sections
• Media
• Kidz
• Food
• InPrint

Glenn Greenwald
Photo Credit: YY

He has the flu, according to his latest ‘Comment is Free’ post, and I have flu-like symptoms due to a recent ill-advised flu shot.

The other more substantive commonality pertains to one acknowledgement in his post – one of seven miscellaneous observations by the Guardian’s new U.S. blogger.

In the context of complaining about the alleged recent smearing of Matt Stoller (former Democratic staffer and MSNBC producer) as a racist, Greenwald pivoted to make a broader point:

“There are few things more reckless and disgusting than publicly smearing someone as a racist – easily one of the worst things you can say about someone in America, for very good reason – purely for partisan gain. That’s especially true when you are well aware that you have no basis for the accusation.

For years, neocons did the same thing with “anti-Semitism” charges. They seized on a real and serious problem – anti-Semitism – and converted it into an exploitative, opportunistic weapon to punish those who deviated from their political views, particularly on Israel. The worst part of that behavior – aside from ruining people’s reputations by casting them as bigots without any cause – is that it dilutes the power of that term and makes it no longer effective to use when it actually appears.

That is precisely what spouting knowingly baseless accusations of racism achieves. Obviously, racism plays a substantial role in motivating some of the hostility toward the first African-American president, just as anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel. That’s precisely why it’s so vital to avoid casually exploiting those terms for gross partisan opportunism: because people will stop taking the terms seriously when they genuinely arise.

Few things are lowlier than tossing around those accusations purely to discredit someone for partisan gain. It happens often, but this case is particularly egregious given the accuser’s admissions in the comment section combined with the total lack of retraction or correction by that blog.

While I was shocked to read Greenwald acknowledge that “anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel”, I gather from his additional complaint about those who “exploit” the term “anti-Semitism” to “discredit” people that he may have been stung by criticism about his own record of advancing Judeophobic narratives concerning ‘dual loyalty’ and the danger of ‘Jewish power’.

I’ll leave you with a brief selection of quotes by Greenwald and you can judge for yourself if he has been unfairly smeared as a commentator who subscribes to anti-Semitic calumnies. (These quotes were documented in a report I wrote about antisemitism on progressive blogs for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in 2010.)

Glenn, the floor is yours.

Visit Cifwatch.com.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

No Responses to “UK Columnist Admits: ‘Anti-Semitism Plays a Some Role in Hostility Towards Israel’”

1. Bernie King says:

   November 2, 2012 at 12:02 AM

   When I read the Greenwald quotes above, my first thought was that they did not support the conclusion that he subscribes to antisemitic calumnies. But then I asked myself if I even knew what the definition of antisemitism was? So I went and looked it up from various online sources (e.g. Wikipedia, ADL, EUNC). Under these definitions (which seem to be widely recognized as authoritative), antisemitic speech can include more than objective expressions of anti-Jewish bigotry. In other words, it can also encompass a variety of tropes and historical imagery that could, conceivably, be used innocuously, even though they will carry the connotation of anti-Semitism to audiences familiar with that usage. Under this definition, the difference between coded antisemitism and innocent speech depends on the subjective intentions of the speaker, and identifying coded antisemitism involves ascribing to someone's comments a subjective hate or bigotry toward Jews. The variety and number of subtle antisemitic references throughout history surprised me and would probably surprise most young Americans. In some cases, identifying something as antisemitic is tediously complex. Speaking personally, I am not always sure where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable or antisemitic criticism of Israeli policies. With the caveat that I do not know Mr. Greenwald's subjective motivations, I am still not persuaded that his criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobbying organizations rise to the level of antisemitism. I am open to the fact that I might be wrong, and if that is the case, I welcome further discussion. At the same time, please don't attribute any antagonistic motivations to this comment.

   Log in to Reply
2. Bernie King says:

   November 17, 2012 at 7:21 PM

   When I read the Greenwald quotes above, my first thought was that they did not support the conclusion that he subscribes to antisemitic calumnies. But then I asked myself if I even knew what the definition of antisemitism was? So I went and looked it up from various online sources (e.g. Wikipedia, ADL, EUNC). Under these definitions (which seem to be widely recognized as authoritative), antisemitic speech can include more than objective expressions of anti-Jewish bigotry. In other words, it can also encompass a variety of tropes and historical imagery that could, conceivably, be used innocuously, even though they will carry the connotation of anti-Semitism to audiences familiar with that usage. Under this definition, the difference between coded antisemitism and innocent speech depends on the subjective intentions of the speaker, and identifying coded antisemitism involves ascribing to someone’s comments a subjective hate or bigotry toward Jews. The variety and number of subtle antisemitic references throughout history surprised me and would probably surprise most young Americans. In some cases, identifying something as antisemitic is tediously complex. Speaking personally, I am not always sure where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable or antisemitic criticism of Israeli policies. With the caveat that I do not know Mr. Greenwald’s subjective motivations, I am still not persuaded that his criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobbying organizations rise to the level of antisemitism. I am open to the fact that I might be wrong, and if that is the case, I welcome further discussion. At the same time, please don’t attribute any antagonistic motivations to this comment.

   Log in to Reply