The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Suzanna Sherry on DEI/Critical Race Theory and Antisemitism
Professor Sherry is an emerita professor at Vanderbilt Law School. Back in 1997, she and Professor Daniel Farber wrote a book, Beyond All Reason, critiquing Critical Race Theory. Perhaps their most controversial argument was that Critical Race Theory, in denying that there was such a thing as objective merit, and attributing all group differences to racism, was implicitly antisemitic in its inability to explain American Jewish success without resorting to antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Professor Sherry (who, by the way, is a political liberal), has written a short followup, DEI and Antisemitism: Bred in the Bone. Here is the abstract:
Last October, progressive Jews were shocked by the raw antisemitism displayed by their erstwhile allies on the political left. After Hamas terrorists tortured, raped, or murdered more than 1200 Israeli civilians and took some 200 civilians hostage, some progressives – especially on college campuses – celebrated. They chanted the Palestinian mantra "from the river to the sea," seeking to erase Israel (and Jews) from the face of the earth. The number of antisemitic incidents on campus soared, coming from both students and faculty. A Stanford lecturer forced Jewish students to the back of the classroom and labeled them "colonizers." Jewish students had to barricade themselves inside a library at Cooper Union, and Jewish students at MIT were told by faculty to avoid the university's main lobby for their own safety. Many university presidents who had previously sent out campus-wide emails condemning the murder of George Floyd, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, and countless other world events suddenly discovered the Kalven Principles and claimed it would be inappropriate for them to take sides, or issued weak statements about how the situation in the Middle East was complicated. This double standard continued as some universities responded to student calls for genocide of Jews by invoking principles of free speech, principles that had been notably ignored when the speech in question was directed at other groups. Most campus DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices, especially at the most elite universities, had nothing to say about the surging antisemitism.
This essay explains why no one should have been shocked, or even mildly surprised, by the progressive response to the massacre. Progressive or "woke" culture –as exemplified by critical race theory, anti-racism of the Ibram X. Kendi variety, and, especially on college campuses, the DEI juggernaut – is necessarily and inevitably antisemitic at its core. That these related movements have now exposed their antisemitism publicly is no surprise: antisemitism is bred in their bones.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Perhaps their most controversial argument was that Critical Race Theory, in denying that there was such a thing as objective merit, and attributing all group differences to racism, was implicitly antisemitic in its inability to explain American Jewish success without resorting to antisemitic conspiracy theory.
That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. By that logic, CRT must imply anti-Asian conspiracy theories too.
"By that logic, CRT must imply anti-Asian conspiracy theories too"
Well...
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/08/asian-americans-debunk-critical-race-theory/
And of course....
https://www.newsweek.com/critical-race-theory-has-no-idea-what-do-asian-americans-opinion-1608984
Armchair cites one of the top hits when searching for "critical race theory asian success," calls it a day.
To be fair, it’s more work than a lot of commenters will do
She indeed makes that argument. But perhaps you should actually read the paper before judging the argument.
Read?
LOL
Normally, I would assume that a paraphrase, by you, that is in the form of [strawman], [strawman], [non sequitur], could not possibly be a fair or accurate paraphrase of another person's serious work.
But then you provided an "abstract" consisting of little more than a "greatest hits" compilation of talking points from the same person, so I gather that the ridiculous argument you attribute to Sherry must, unfortunately, be closer to her actual claim than I might otherwise assume.
You are really aggressively ignorant, David. Eugene's a dilettante, Josh is a lazy troll, but you just inject poison into public discourse. Get a therapist.
We're already well aware that you have very limited capacity for reading comprehension, but thanks for the reminder Simple Simon.
And you, Vinny, can suck a dick.
Playground insults, oh no. Good job Simple Simon.
The person calling me "simple Simon" and asserting that I lack reading comprehension whines about "playground insults."
I'm engaging with you at your level, Vinny. Do better, and I'll try harder.
Level up your reading comprehension skills.
You are really aggressively ignorant, David. Eugene’s a dilettante, Josh is a lazy troll, but you just inject poison into public discourse. Get a therapist.
and
And you, Vinny, can suck a dick.
And all I said is "you can’t read". Simple Simon, I highly doubt you are capable of any better.
I, also, afford David about the level of discourse he deserves.
For what it's worth, I have earned from him the honor of having been "muted"/being treated as though I've been "muted," so a thoughtful evisceration of his mischaracterizations is unlikely to meet with any kind of response from him. But even such a comment would presuppose a willingness to engage in good faith, which both you and David lack.
Judging from your comment, reading the paper wouldn't have made me reconsider my conclusion. It's extremely dumb.
It’s extremely dumb.
Says the 70 IQ Nazi.
At an initial glance, it seems like a putative critique of CRT that begs the question - assume there is nothing nuanced or complicated to say about "Jewish success" in the US, abstract away European examples, and then "debunk" CRT from there.
But setting that aside, any serious scholar who thinks this is a subject worth writing more about might inquire as to whether there has been any response to this book, published nearly thirty years ago, and nuance their views accordingly. But David doesn't seem to have any interest in citing the earlier book except to set up some fresh invective, written for anyone except thoughtful defenders of CRT.
I do not understand why the VC has so many contributors who do not seem to understand what intellectual inquiry and academic work is.
Probably does -- it's definitely anti-WASP.
This was the thing Nietzsche never seemed to recognize, either. How could a religion built ostensibly on subservience, and therefore worthless, simultaneously be dominant over society?
He had the fortune to not see what the Nazis did with it. Crt folk? No such excuse.
Well, obviously: If there's no such thing as objective merit, then group differences in success have to be a result of some unfair process. Just being better at whatever they're doing has already been taken off the table, right?
If your description of someone's idea you're trying to rebut makes you and them sound extremely dumb, maybe you haven't described your opponent's view very well.
Famously, 'Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.'
Orwell would know. He went to war in the name of Trotsky.
Suitable intellectual response.
What do you mean? Presumably communism is what Orwell had in mind when he said that.
Not so much, he was referring to all kinds of unthinking partisanship.
(It is perhaps a misquote from that essay. Either way, that essay ought to be carefully read and reflected on by partisans of all stripes)
"Famously, ‘Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.’"
You're claiming to be an intellectual? I thought you were an engineer.
It's a false alternative, though. There is such a thing as objective merit AND it has little to do with a lot of people's actual success in life. Hunter Biden is a mediocrity who would be emptying wastebaskets for a living if his dad weren't Joe Biden. On the other side of that ledger, we will never know how many talented geniuses are emptying wastebaskets for a living because they were born into poverty and never had a real chance at success. So don't discount merit, but don't pretend it's the whole story either.
Objective merit exists, it's just a tool of white supremacy -- according to the CRT hustlers. https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1610635/smithsonian-talking-about-race.webp
So the graphic looks to be about things that are perceived as white, not whatever you're talking about.
Define "objective merit," then. Should be easy for you, eh?
'If there’s no such thing as objective merit, then group differences in success have to be a result of some unfair process.'
Yeah, and if someone says there's an unfair system, that means there's no such thing as objective merit, and if someone says objective merit exists why, then, unfair systems must not exist. I'd like to say this is an example of conservative intellectual thought hitting rock bottom, but conservative intellectual thought hits the rock bottom and then starts digging.
Biden claims to be a Zionist and combines his ongoing support for Zionist genocide with outrageously antisemitic assertions.
Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is insane.
Zionism is a depraved degenerate religion whose key elements of faith consist of:
The creed of the Zionist religion consists of the following:
I am a Jew. A Zionist cannot be not a Jew. If a Zionist is a descendant of a religious Jewish community, the Zionist is post-Judaism because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
The human race has an ethical obligation and categorical imperative to hate, to scorn, and to loathe the baby-killer nation, its colonial setter population, and every Zionist on the planet.
You're not a Jew. Or a theologian. Or a historian.
My maternal grandfather was a respected N. African poseq (does David Nieporent even know what a poseq is?) and Talmudic scholar. Zionist thugs almost beat him to death when he told his community not to live in homes that white European Zionist colonial settlers had stolen from Palestinians.
When my grandfather recovered, he issued an opinion that asserted on the basis of Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 20a (12) — has David Nieporent ever cracked open a Talmud? — that a Zionist is at most technically Jewish but cannot ever be a genuine member of the community of Israel
1. because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide and
2. because a Zionist is proud of genocide and theft.
Zionist genocide includes theft of identity because Palestinians are descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans and other peoples of Greco-Roman Palestine while no modern Jew is a descendant of a Greco-Roman Judean.
Rabbinic Judaism has far less connection to Biblical Judaism than Mormonism has to Christianity. Zionism is the greatest fraud ever sold.
False. Again, you'll have to tell these lies to someone who isn't familiar with your 30+ year history online, going back to Usenet days. You've fabricated and changed your name and bio repeatedly. You have as much Jewish ancestry as Mao Zedong does.
Insulting comment from the Reverend Sandusky in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ......
Progressive Jews are disgusting, evil people. They don't care about Judaism at all. If they did, they would heed Leviticus 18:22 instead of fighting for the "right" of their "gay friends and family" to ejaculate into the anuses of other men.
Voltage!
Leviticus 18:22, huh? Jumaira, do you eat shellfish? See Leviticus 11:9-12.
http://godhatesshrimp.com/
I remember when it came out that the Bangor ME drinking water was SO clean that it had microscopic shellfish in it. Could Jews drink it?
Rabbi said yes because the Lord never intended the ban to apply to something like this -- it was the highly contaminated coastal waters, with human and animal feces being washed in -- that the Lord was worried about. Something that the people at the time would never have been even able to know was in the water (they didn't have microscopes) wasn't intended.
In the same manner, I catch lobsters in water over 300 feet deep, over 30 miles from shore. You can't do that without a Diesel engine -- which they didn't have back then. The fishermen on the Sea of Gallalee --- I doubt they were in water more than 20/30 feet deep.
So Leviticus got it wrong and eating shellfish is not an abomination times three?
Don't mistake ritual uncleanness for abomination; in contrast, leftism is an abomination. God-botherers are just not supposed to eat shellfish, most bugs, random birds, rodents (including rabbits), snakes, Weiner dogs, and so on. Plus don't handle dead dogs or cats. And if a gecko dies and falls on your oven, you need to replace that oven. It's all very simple, really.
Leviticus 11:9-12 (RSV):
Agree or disagree, Michael P?
FWIW, I make a delicious shrimp salad with Old Bay seasoning. I obviously don't agree with Leviticus.
I’m an atheist and I think shellfish are mostly delicious, so I disagree as to substance. I agree that’s one translation of the original, but it loses important nuance. In particular, shellfish are less religiously offensive than homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Judaism)
For example, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:9-12&version=OJB uses "sheketz".
Don’t mistake ritual uncleanness for abomination; in contrast, leftism is an abomination
Conservative atheists do love to cloak themselves in a religious zealot's garb.
Leviticus was a revelation to a stone age people and hence in terms they understood. The Sabbath is defined as "sundown to sundown" -- what does that mean when you are in earth orbit where there is a sundown every 90 minutes? Or in Alaska where the sun doesn't set for a few months in the summer?
Leviticus was a revelation to a people who didn't know that Alaska even existed....
Suzanna Sherry seems to be the kind of liberal who speaks at plenty of Federalist Society presentations but has never participated in an American Constitution Society event.
That seems to be incorrect.
https://www.acslaw.org/acs-chapters/student-chapters/student-chapter-of-the-week/student-chapter-of-the-week-archive/
Don't stop him, he's on a roll.
You misspelled "he's a troll."
Yeah, he may be a troll, but he's our troll. Although frequently tedious he's occasionally funny and mostly harmless.
Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??!! Hell no!
I missed that one after wading through her page at the Federalist Society website, which reports not only repeated participation in Federalist Society presentations but also provision of Federalist Society commentary. Maybe she is a liberal who just looks like something else, or maybe she is a liberal in some eye but not others.
She might be a liberal in the sense that she's a Republican who doesn't support Trump. Eye of the beholder and all that.
You suggested she never participated in an American Constitution Society event.
I searched for her involvement with the American Constitution Society and found nothing. I searched for her involvement with the Federalist Society and found plenty.
She participated in an ACS presentation at Vanderbilt (her school) once. She has participated in six Federalist Society events -- including a national faculty conference in New Orleans and a Federalist Society national student symposium in Chicago. In addition, the Federalist Society website also featured her podcast (which she produced with a Federalist Society member).
A "Suzanna Sherry" Google search places her Federalist Society website page at third position. Noting about the America Constitution Society or anything else that could be considered liberal. (She apparently contributed to something for the American Enterprise Institute, though.)
It appears she is not an originalist but there is scant evidence (beyond Prof. Bernstein's unadorned assertion) that she is a liberal.
You were unambiguous with your phrase "never participated in an American Constitution Society event."
You are not a reliable source of information.
"You are not a reliable source of information."
Clue: The Volokh comments are the wrong place to consider as a source of reliable information.
I wrote "seems to be," you illiterate, bigoted, right-wing stain on modern America.
Any of you deplorable clingers want to wager on whether Suzanna Sherry is the liberal Prof. Bernstein claims she is? Prof. Bernstein's word on Prof. Sherry is every bit as credible as his ringing endorsement of John Eastman (the un-American asshole and disbarred felony defendant) was. Or is, because so far as I am aware neither Volokh nor Bernstein has retracted the enthusiastic endorsement of John Eastman for important public office.
"you illiterate, bigoted, right-wing stain on modern America."
Can't you come up with something more creative?
Like, "your head is so far up your own ass that when you clench your jaw you squeeze out your eyes."
My journalism background inclines me toward accuracy.
You are a bigot (which is what brings you here).
You seem to struggle with standard English.
You are among the right-wingers who are a receding, angry stain on modern America.
"You are a bigot (which is what brings you here)."
Speak for yourself, I come here for different reasons than you.
"My journalism background inclines me toward accuracy."
I typed "Suzanna Sherry" and "american constitution society" into Google, and found a link to an American Constitution Society event announcement, where Suzanna Sherry was a participant.
What kind of downscale, fly-by-night, diploma-mill "journalism school" did you attend?
Actually, he wrote that "she seems to be..." a person who never participated etc. He wasn't unambiguous at all. But I get that you're just trolling the troll, as it were.
I said he “suggested,” not that he said.
So I’m technically accurate, since that *was* the suggestion.
But how can someone “seem” as if they never did something they actually did? Did she cover up her involvement with the American Constitution Society, thus making it seem she wasn't involved with them?
Ha ha fair enough. "Technically accurate" is my favorite kind of accurate.
What took you so long? I can read you like a book Jerry, a pornographic book, but a book none the less.
Oh yes here we go again with the poor Jewish students who peed their pants in the library because people were protesting against Israel outside.
a) Protesting against Israel isn’t antisemitic, b) neither DEI nor CRT condone antisemitism, and c) finding yourself on the pro-war side of an anti-war rally is hardly comparable to racism. Even if you’re scared of the rallygoers.
On the other hand, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/2/2233007/-I-ve-Seen-Enough
Israel is a country dedicated to the violent deaths of its neighbors.
Hard to argue with that.It isn’t quite so obvious as it used to be that black people are just inherently violent savages dedicated to raping, robbing, and murdering their neighbors if they aren’t kept down hard enough.
So it’s very understandable that you and your kind would feel a need look for another, smaller group that you can say exactly the same shit about that you used to say about black people.
It’s been quite a while since Reconstruction, hasn’t it? All your talk about the illegal occupation, the settler-colonialist carpetbaggers riling up and arming the dark savages, the theft, the murder, the land-stealing has gottten kind of stale, and people just aren’t riled up by it any more. But you folks are just too unimaginative and too damn lazy to come up with anything new to say. So you have to come up with a way to tell the same old tales but pretend they’re about someone else, shovel the same old shit down a new target of opportunity.
Very understandable.
Can’t argue with that.
What? Your frothy admixture of sarcasm, strawmen, and racism left me confused. Are you trying to justify your own racism but then blame me for it at the same time? Who are the savages in your analogy, the Israelis, or the Palestinians? Neither makes any sense... is it someone else? What's going on with you.
You’re not fooling anyone. Asa Earl Carter, Wallace speechwriter who authored the Segregation Forever speech, invented the idea of continuing the post-Confederate oppression/redemption mythology by projecting the Klan myths onto a different, more sympathetic race. His Education of Little Tree fooled Oprah Winfrey, among others.
And he hated kikes every bit as much as he hated niggers. The Klan considered them the same race. You talk just like them.
You’re not fooling anybody.
Are you trying to justify your own racism but then blame me for it at the same time?
Why yes, yes indeed you are.If being identified as a racist antisemite upsets you, try not being one. This may be difficult, because it's really hard to change the deepest aspects of your identity.
It’s easy to not be identified as a racist antisemite by you asinine hypocritical nihilistic fucks – just support the killing of thousands of civilians!
A racist defending his racism by insinuating that others are racists. Nice job Randal
Excuse me - a Racist pretending he is not a racist by implying others are racist.
The right-wing bigots who operate and adore this white, male, conservative blog love to find a situation in which they can accuse others of bigotry, real or perceived, perhaps nearly as much as they love to find a chance to use vile racials with plausible deniability. Overlooking indiscriminate killing, illegal occupation, theocratic and bigoted government, land theft, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and the like is barely a consideration for these bigoted, desperate right-wing culture war casualties desperate to snipe at modern American mainstreamers.
This is kind of a catch-all piece of boilerplate. You can copy and paste this drivel into any discussion and fool the rubes into thinking it's intelligent. There are some rubes here, but most of the commenters - left or right - are WAY smarter than you. So I honestly don't know why you waste your time with this.
The issue isn't whether they are intelligent. The issue is whether they are (and/or embrace) bigots.
Care to guess how many times this remarkably white, odds-defying male, right-wing blog has published vile racial slurs so far this year?
What number would be required before you might begin to consider at least the possibility that this right-wing blog is a bigot-hugging, bigoted, bigotty blog?
(Prof. Volokh hopes you will consider quite carefully before responding, clinger.)
Probably better -- at least, at the Volokh Conspiracy -- not to respond to that question (how frequently must a blog publish vile racial slurs to precipitate at least suspicions concerning bigotry?).
At this Republican-right-wing blog, that's the elephant no conservative wants to acknowledge.
It's really striking, from a moral perspective, when Israel is killing aid workers in Gaza and Iranian officials in Syria, on top of starving Palestinians in Gaza after razing much of the country to the ground with large, dumb bombs, and on and on and on - that David and others save their ire for putative antisemitism in DEI.
The U.S. remains complicit in what will be revealed as an actual genocide in Gaza, after the dust settles. The numbers now are on a scale comparable to Myanmar's ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya - actually, worse. It's time to end our part in this and let Israel fend for themselves.
It’s really striking how, when Western airforces devastated Iraqi cities during the Obama and Biden administrations and killed civilians on a much vaster scale than Israel ever did, it was considered an ordinary part of how Westerners conduct war. The air campaign was even praised as a way to limit Western losses. And heavy-civilian-casualty air campaigns have been part of Western warfare practically since airplanes were invented. They certainly never stopped in the 21st century.
You didn’t say boo about the devastation in Raqaa, did you? Or any of the many other places? Of course not. You didn’t give a shit. You didn’t give a shit because you only try to claim to care when it helps you stop Jews from defending themselves and helps your campaign for Jews’ destruction. Otherwise, you don’t give a shit at all.
And you should have seen how immoral German propaganda portrayed the British for attempting to defend themselves!
when Western airforces devastated Iraqi cities during the Obama and Biden administrations and killed civilians on a much vaster scale than Israel ever did, it was considered an ordinary part of how Westerners conduct war
Was it? By who?
Yes, Everyone
It's interesting to me that you think, if given the choice between saying, (i) "I acknowledge that I have not always abided by the moral and legal standards I would apply to Israel in this case, and therefore recognize that I should have said more about American attacks on civilians at the time of those other attacks, and agree that those responsible for the strikes on civilians then should be held to the same standard I would apply to Netanyahu and the IDF now," and (ii) "Oh, in that case, I'm fine with everyone doing war crimes then," you think that I'd choose (ii).
You were given the choice. You chose. You chose back then not to have a problem with it.
You now have to live with your choice.
No Jews were involved, so you didn’t care. You don’t get to pretend to care now when you suddenly realize, years latwr, that it has something to do with Jews.
You don't, in fact, have any idea what I said, or would have said, about specific American airstrikes ten or more years ago. Nor am I in any real sense bound by positions I may, or may not, have taken at the time. People can come to understand that their views are mistaken, or inconsistently applied, or whatever.
There is no philosophical, moral, logical, or legal principle that requires the conflict in Gaza be judged by whatever standards you might choose to attribute to me or anyone else, which you do only for ease of argument.
Israel is engaged in war crimes in Gaza. The United States may have engaged in similar war crimes in its own military campaigns of the past. And the fact that the U.S. might have "gotten away with it" is no reason whatsoever to ignore what Israel is doing now, when we still have the chance to stop it.
It's as easy as that, Reader. Do you see? I don't have to engage in any of the pretzel-logic or internet-rules you have to invoke in order to maintain your position, which is (apparently) "war crimes are fine."
Israel is engaging in acts of routine self-defense that everybody else routinely does and nobody calls a war crime unless Jews are involved.
It’s like suddenly demanding that a voter has to have the Constitution memorized and be able to translate it into German to be able to pass the literacy test when the would-be voter is black, after passing all the white people.
Israel is no more committing widespread war crimes than the professor who took care to memorize the constitution but couldn’t translate it into German was illiterate. Your opinion of what constitutes a war crime carries the same weight as, is every bit as valid as, that literacy test examiner’s opinion of what constitutes literacy.
'Israel is engaging in acts of routine self-defense that everybody else routinely does and nobody calls a war crime unless Jews are involved.'
Let's see, the US gets accused of war crimes all the time. Who else? Putin? Assad? The Saudis? None of them get accused of war crimes? Even Ukrainian soldiers have been accused of war crimes - the execution of captured Russian prisoners iirc. You're fabricating bullshit to justify, yup, war crimes.
Israel is engaging in acts of routine self-defense that everybody else routinely does and nobody calls a war crime unless Jews are involved.
This is such a lazy and transparent lie that I wonder if there's any point in rebutting it. But, no, in fact, we can cite several examples where similar campaigns have been undertaken, resulting in mass civilian casualties, which have been described both contemporaneously and after the fact as "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," "war crimes," and "humanitarian disasters." There are so many recent examples that can be cited that I can only surmise that your apparent ignorance of them must be feigned.
The only thing unusual about Israel's war in Gaza is the diplomatic cover they're getting from the U.S. for their crimes.
That cover is receding rapidly.
Mainstream newsgatherers are reporting that Israel used three air strikes to kill the seven culinary volunteers guilty of trying to feed people in Gaza.
Three strikes. How fitting.
Israel has been demonstrating lately that they have the ability to take out their targets with precision strikes, when they want to. Iranian officials? Hezbollah members? Aid workers? Sure.
Hamas? Well, no way to get to them except by dropping huge bombs on multiple apartment buildings and destroying hospitals.
Maybe not for much longer, Mr. P. The reaping and sowing is likely to churn, and soon. If you know any of the decent people in Israel, encourage them to get the fuck out of there while they still can.
They should have just used nukes back in October.
And said that the next time something like that happens, they will instead nuke Mecca. Israel could do it....
Ed, I can interpret this comment as either a stupid, inflammatory Islamophobic remark, or as so blindingly ignorant of the fact that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, a nation with which Israel has been working to normalize ties in order to counter Iran's regional influence (including through Hamas), as to be difficult to fathom.
Which would you prefer?
Ed, we keep pointing out to you that even the smallest backpack nuke spreads the damage too widely to use in Gaza without destroying a good bit of Israel.
As well, that's probably the one thing that would push the rage against Israel into the mainstream, instead of it being a fringe position humored by left-wing elites.
Fortunately, Israel's government isn't stupid enough to miss either point.
.
Israel's government is backward, parasitic, belligerent, counterproductive, gullible, superstitious, bigoted, authoritarian, and stupid.
What else would anyone sensible expect from a government of right-wing assholes elected by right-wing assholes?
.
Settler violence?
Illegal occupation?
Repeatedly shelling food relief volunteers?
Violent theft of land?
Shooting three hostages waving white flags?
Superstition-based government?
Destroying half the homes in Gaza?
Routine?
That sounds like indiscriminate killing aimed to clear someone else's land. That sounds like a selfish, authoritarian, immoral government.
Israel is entitled to do as it wishes. But it is not entitled to American support and, increasingly, its right-wing belligerence is costing Israel the multifaceted support on which it has relied for decades. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of low-grade, superstition-addled, right-wing jerks.
'You didn’t say boo about the devastation in Raqaa, did you?'
Many of the the same people criticising the current IDF campiagn have been routinely dismissed here as traitors and cowrads and Anti-Americans for objecting to various kinds of US warfare since 9/11. Most of the people supporting the IDF campaign were full-throated in their support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most of the civilians killed in the Iraq War died while Bush and Cheney were in office. How many of the later deaths resulted from setting that conflict in motion? I protested the Iraq war back during the Bush administration, and I didn't vote for Obama for other reasons, although the increased deaths in Iraq were in his second term anyway.
It is difficult to determine how many Palestinian deaths in Israel Hamas war were civilians, but the more than 30,000 deaths recently reported are variously estimated to be 60 to 90 percent civilians. Relative to the populations of the Gaza Strip and Iraq, that's a much greater scale in only six months.
Simple Simon is Exhibit A as to why Israel should have simply nuked Gaza.
While you're a sad example of how leaded gasoline has really held back the Boomer generation.
Daily Kos? Well, that explains randal.
Israel is a country dedicated to the violent deaths of its neighbors. Hard to argue with that.
How do you prove you aren't an antisemitic Nazi? By not posting antisemitic lies like this.
Your support of Israeli women being raped to death is duly noted. Please continue to remove your mask for all to see.
Sure, in the same way that defending Derek Chauvin isn't racist: as a matter of formal logic it isn't, but everyone knows it really is.
Two words: Mohammad Noor.
The problems in that department extend far beyond mere racism.
everyone knows
I don’t think this attitude that you share with the ADL is helping anyone. The ADL says that Jews are intrinsically tied up with Israel, so to criticize one is to criticize the other. Well if that’s true, then Jews bear responsibility for the actions of Israel. That means,
as a matter of formal logic
at least, one can blame Jews qua Jews for the actions of Israel without it being antisemitic.I suggest that’s not where you want to end up. I don’t think Jews bear responsibility for the actions of Israel just by being Jewish. It needs to be possible to be critical of Israel without being tarred as de facto antisemitic. Otherwise your self-fulfilling prophesy will come true: you’ll convince us that Jews as a whole are responsible for Israel and therefore anyone who has a beef with Israel has a beef with Judaism.
It would be a really boneheaded move for you to turn this war into a referendum on Judaism.
Whoosh! You proved my point exactly.
The new blood libel is going to be that all Jews are responsible for the IDF slaughter of Gazans. And it won't just be anti-semites on the left taking advantage of the conflict to attack Jews who will use it, it'll be the anti-semites on the right supporting the slaughter who will make sure of it, it'll group all the Jews together as distinct from everyone else quite nicely. They don't care. The same assholes were patriotic-crazy for the wars post 9/11 and nobody holds that over them. But in assuming the authority to declare what is and isn't anti-semitism, they're assuming the authority to decide what is and isn't Jewishness. Just listen to Trump.
The problem with Israel doesn’t involve Judaism (any more than than other flavor of superstition); it involves a bunch of right-wing assholes electing a bunch of right-wing assholes who engage in right-wing belligerence, a problem compounded (for Americans) by American involvement in Israel’s wrongful conduct.
Do you think modern, educated Americans would object to settler violence or Netanyahu's conduct less if the criminals were Muslim, Catholic, agnostic, Buddhist, atheist, or Pastafarian?
And it’ll be David, David, and the ADL taking advantage of it… because the more people they can call antisemitic, the more it amplifies their cause. Just look at how many antisemites outed themselves just this week! Biden, Jose Andres, Sunak, plus lots of other world leaders. The antisemites and the anti-antisemites all win by escalating this facet of the culture war.
Judaism loses.
Right-wing assholes need to stick together as the world continues to pass them by -- that's the natural explanation for clingers rallying behind Israel's right-wing assholes on a "drunk or sober" basis -- but it won't accomplish anything beyond buying a bit more time before these right-wing jerks get stomped (whether in Israel or the United States) by better people and better ideas.
"everyone" knows defending Derek Chauvin is race-ist?
You need to get out more
Frank "How did Trump win? nobody I know voted for him!"
"Sure, in the same way that defending Derek Chauvin isn’t racist: as a matter of formal logic it isn’t, but everyone knows it really is."
Brought to you by Brand Y believers. Because when it comes to being a believer, not everyone believes in Brand X.
(Brand Y is for everyone else.)
It is a characteristic of ideological zealots that they portray their most extreme opponents as representative of all opposition. Thus for example policies practiced by most European market capitalist countries regularly get portrayed as communist.
This post has suspicious hallmarks suggesting that that is what it’s doing.
I would suggest criticizing specific people and their specific ideas, statements, and actions, rather than conjuring up a vague ism as a bogey.
And frankly, blacks and Jews have a lot in common regarding the way people of European descent, and Arabs, treated them.
It’s worth remembering that in terms of sheer numbers, the number of Africans enslaved by the Arab/Muslim world was comparable to the number enslaved by Europeans.
I wouldn’t be so quick to burn the bridges here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Jewish history has no commonality with black history. European Jews were highly involved in the European slave trade. The European Jewish community was often de jure or de facto considered to be part of the 2nd Estate. During the US Civil War American Jews both in the South and also in the North were some of the staunchest supporters of US slavery. We don't have copious evidence for the Islamic world, but available documentation (e.g., the Cairo Geniza) suggests that Jews were disproportionately represented among Islamic slavers.
WASPs are treated as bad as Jews....
How many country clubs get attacked the way synagogues have been?
Wouldn't churches be a note analogous comparator? https://www.christianpost.com/news/over-400-attacks-on-us-churches-since-2018-analysis-finds.html has counts, although some are Catholic rather than Protestant. (Of course, the US has often had widespread anti-Catholic prejudice, and only one Catholic President plus one Catholic Resident, equal to the number of "no religion specified".)
I don't remember Louise Woodward belonging to a country club.
not Bushwood anyway, it's restricted.
Professor Bernstein,
You regularly criticize racial categories, and you’ve particularly criticized the historic identification of Arabs as white. But it might be worth noting that the Ottoman Empire and dependents conducted a vast African slave trade which rivaled thst of Europeans - as well as conducting a vast European slave trade which held a amaller number if Europeans, still in the millions, as slaves.
My I suggest their history supports their designation as white? And of course Sha’are Tefillah held that Jews are classified as non-white.
May I suggest that it’s totally absurd for the descendents of slaveholders and slave traders and oppressors on a vast scale to somehow claim bullshit association with Africans just because they have a somewhat darker skin color than Europeans, and the Ottoman Empire, which acted as a European power until then, lost a 20th Century war just like Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia? I mean the Germans claimed that Western Europeans oppressed and colonized them. These folks are having the same bitterness about having lost a war they believe they, with their superior religion and civilization, should have won,and are making claims of oppression similar to Germany’s between the wars. The whole colonialism/oppression shtick has to be looked at in that light.
Our current Vice President is the descendant of a slave OWNER.
So are you, in all likelihood.
So are you, in all likelihood, given that Slavery's been around since before written history, on every Continent (except Antartica as far as I can tell) and given a "Generation" of 25 years, Written history beginning some 5,000 years ago, you've got 200 generations of Ancestors to prove didn't own Slaves. Do you have a car? Dishwasher? Stove? Housekeeper?, Lawn guy? that's all Slaves were back then, which is why Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, William Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and yes, U.S. Grant owned them.
Frank
Frank
Most people in the U.S. are not descendants of slaves or slave owners.
If you go back far enough, into pre-history, there's an excellent chance everybody is descended from a slave owner. All I can say about myself is that none of my ancestors owned slaves in America; They all immigrated here after the 13th amendment, after all, and from countries such as France, Germany, Ireland, where slavery had been illegal for decades prior to the US civil war.
All those countries continued to have very profitable connections to slavery long after they abolished it in their own states. Lots of Irish, for example, had holdings worked by slaves in Jamaica and Barbados etc. Not enough to make it likely you're descended from one of them, but enough not to rule it out.
That's why I said that all I could really say is that none of my ancestors owned slaves in America. Though the fact that none of my ancestors were particularly wealthy, (You think maybe wealthy Irish emigrated during the potato famine?) makes it seem unlikely.
Hardly matters, though, except as a curiosity. People are not guilty of the sins of their great, great, great grandparents.
Oh, Irish people owned slaves in America, too.
Isn't "Gone with the Wind" a great movie? my favorite scene...
Field Hand : Quittin' time! Quittin' time!
Big Sam - Field Foreman : Who says it's quittin' time?
Field Hand : I says it's quittin' time!
Big Sam - Field Foreman : I's the foreman. I's the one who says when it's quittin' time at Tara. (short pause) Quittin' time!!!!!!
Frank
Not after the 13th amendment, they didn't. All my ancestors came to the US after the Civil war. I literally have frying pans older than my family's roots in the US.
So how do you know your GreatGreatGreatGreatGreatGreatGreatGreatGreat
Grandfather didn't own any? They even had Slavery in "Civilized" Europe, it's where the word "Slav" comes from. And is it really anything to brag about that someone doesn't own slaves when 1: it's been outlawed 2: Probably cheaper to pay some wetback $50 to do your lawn than have to pay for his entire upkeep. If you owned 1000 Acres in Alabama in 1824 you'd do everything yourself? Yeah, right
Frank
Actually no -- slavery was abolished here in 1803 and no one in my family could have afforded one before that.
How the (redacted) can you know that? 1803 was 11 generations ago, and that's just when it was "abolished", you know your entire family through all of recorded history? My Great Great Great Grandfather owned some, because it wasn't abolished in Jaw-Jaw until 1863 (or was it 1865?) and he could afford them, as could about 50% of families in the South
If you go back that far, you have lots and lots of ancestors, and you have no way of knowing what they were all up to. (Or even who they all were, given the possibility of illicit affairs, etc.)
So are you, in all likelihood.
Your understanding of probability is as bad as your understanding of...well...just about everything else. During any historical period, those who could afford to own slaves...and chose to do so...have always been a tiny, tiny fraction of the human population. And given that the tendency among humans is to pair/mate with others from within their own social strata the likelihood of any random individual being descended from someone who owned one or more slaves is relatively small.
‘Progressive or “woke” culture –as exemplified by critical race theory, anti-racism of the Ibram X. Kendi variety, and, especially on college campuses, the DEI juggernaut – is necessarily and inevitably antisemitic at its core’
The more people on the right try to explain anti-semitism in these terms, the stronger the case that there is a genocide being conducted against the Palestinian people, because erasing the existence, the humanity, the suffering of an entire race of people even as it is happening live on the news is what you do when you heading for genocide.
The purpose of all this is to paint 'wokeness' etc as a new form of fascism/stalinism, something that will eventually lead to death camps and gulags; that equality, diversity, the protection of minorities will inevitably, somehow, lead to horrific bloodshed and crimes against humanity. Yet here *they* are, deploying 'anti-semitism' as a shield for thousands and thousands of needless deaths while the woke mob are, generally, the ones objecting to the slaughter.
Well, if the Israeli people were willing to simply bend over and allow themselves to be slaughtered, deaths of people whose lives matter to you would certainly not be necessary. They are accepted as necessary only to people who are permitted to defend themselves.
Which is most people. Every single war from World War II to the campaign against ISIS (which almost completely destroyed several major Iraqui and Syrian cities) to the Ukrainian war has cause huge numbers of civilian casualties without people like you complaining. (Nobody complains about the casualties the Ukranians inflict.)
It’s worth remembering the horror stories ex-Confederates told not only about Union devastation of the South in prosecuting the Civil War, bit about the atrocities free black people supposedly inflicted on them. Every petty act a black person did was blown up into yet more proof they are a savage race eho need to be kept in cages to avoid white people being murdered and rape.
Hamas has closely followed the Confederate/Klan playbook. Like the Klan, they routinely surround themselves with women and children when they lynch people. And like the Klan, they and you routinely scream bloody murder whenever someone, attempting to stop a lynching or rescue a hostage, harms one of the surrounding civilians.
The difference between the Klan of the last century and Hamas of today is that Israelis are able to defend themselves. And that means all you and Hamas can do is repeat the old Klan stories about how atrocious the act of members of inferior savage races defending thenselves is. Just like the Klan, you and Hamas blow routine things that happen in every war when people defend themselves out of all proportion and pretend that self-defense, things that in every other war people recognize are part of routine self-defense, are somehow murder and genocide.
But sir, unlike the Klan you now have to deal with people who actually CAN defend themselves. All you can do is sputter tthis bullshit out of your ass, openly proclaiming your belief that for races you,Hamas, and the Klan regard as inferior, peoples you wish to subdue and enslave or wipe out, self-defense of any kind is always both competely unnecessary and criminal.
As I wrote before I disagree with Professor Bernstein’s whole approach. Professor Bernstein might not only want to reconsider his attitude to critical race theory, he might even want to consider using a form of critical race theory to explain anti-semitism. In general, portraying black people and Jews as having completely opposite interests and goals does not strike me as politically astute at this juncture. It strikes me as downright stupid.
If Hamas is playing from the Confederates' playbook, you're playing from Hitler's.
Thanks, Godwin
It truly amazes me how useless you are.
'Well, if the Israeli people were willing to simply bend over and allow themselves to be slaughtered, deaths of people whose lives matter to you would certainly not be necessary'
'The slaughter of these thousands and thousands of non-combatant civilians, including women, children, doctors, aid workers and the occasional Israeli hostage is necessary for our survival' is a bit genocide-y.
'to the Ukrainian war has cause huge numbers of civilian casualties without people like you complaining'
Obviously, you are lying. Stupidly.
'And like the Klan, they and you routinely scream bloody murder whenever someone, attempting to stop a lynching or rescue a hostage, harms one of the surrounding civilians.'
I'm sorry, how many thousands of innocent people were slaughtered in the war against the Klan?
'The difference between the Klan of the last century and Hamas of today is that Israelis are able to defend themselves.'
Trying to imagine what the US would look like today if black people had risen up and slaughtered thousands of innocent non-Klan-members in their war against the Klan. A lot more Klannish, I suspect.
'In general, portraying black people and Jews as having completely opposite interests and goals does not strike me as politically astute at this juncture'
Well, for one thing, portraying Jews as all having the same interests and goals is.. well...
“How many thousands of innocent people were slaughtered in the war against the Klan”?
Estimates of total casulaties in the American Civil War start go up to well over a million, including at least 50,000 white civilian casualties. The South had a higher overall death rate than any belligerent country in World War I.
And of course, from the Klan’s point of view, every single one of those Southern casualties was innocent, slaughtered by invading, conquering, and colonizing Yankees.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
And of course, if black people had been in a position to stop lynchings, they would have had to slaughter thousands of people to do so. Lynchers, being (like Hamas) no fools, knew to regularly surround themselves with women and children, often creating a picnic/party atmosphere, in part because they knew any attempt to stop the lynching would require harming them.
And that’s exactly why, in saying it’s wrong to hurt women and children to stop a lynching, you are in practical effect simply defending lynching as a practice. You’re saying it’s a crime to stop it.
If black people had had adequate weapons, if they had had the power, they would have been willing to do what was necessary to protect themselves. And the people who would be blaming them and crying war crimes would be the Confederates and the Klan.
Of course, you’re blaming and crying war crimes WHILE THE LYNCHING IS STILL GOING ON.
If you really don’t want civilians hurt, why not urge the lynchers to stop the lynching and release the hostages?
Don’t you think lynchers bear some small measure of moral responsibility for the ordinary and normal consequences of their actions when they try to lynch people capable of self-defense?
.
If you are referring to Israel, you are writing checks the United States of America is increasingly unwilling to cash. The big talk and violent belligerence are going to lose much of their sting (and stink) when the United States withdraws its multifaceted subsidies.
Israel has chosen the losing side of the American culture war (without being required to choose sides), the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas, and the wrong side of history. For a country that depends on help from others to survive, that's an inexplicable route to follow. But they get to make that choice, just as they get to sustain the predictable consequences.
You’re seriously trying to shit us that you believe trying to find and free compatriates taken hostage, a number of hostages that exceeded the World Center deaths as a proportion of the population, is nothing but “big talk and violent belligerence?” Seriously?
I’m sorry, Rev. Costco. But if you think it’s OK to kidnap and enslave others – that’s what Hamas is doing to the hostages it holds – because you think having what you think is a superior culture just entitles you to do it to your inferiors, and you think the inferior backwards people have no right to touch you ‘cause they’re just backwards and inferior, you need to change your name to Rev. Confederate.
Progress and reason my ass. As I’ve written before, the Confederates used the same progress and reason schtick you use to justify slavery. As the progress and reason people in their own eyes, they considered themselves entitled to own the backwards irrational people. They believed, as you yourself just said you do, that allowing people with an inferior culture to live their own lives risks letting culture go to pot. Asa Earl Carter said the same.
Have a nice day, Rev. Confederate.
I will have a nice day. I'm not in Israel. My country will be around longer than I will be alive.
Antisemitism does not exist today. A vacuous charge of antisemitism is used to shield Zionists from accusation of genocide. An eminent Jewish studies scholar like David Engel avoids the word antisemitism.
Explaining Antisemitism and Racism (I am really tired of vacuous accusations of antisemitism)
An example of racism is the treatment of blacks under Jim Crow. White racists hated and oppressed blacks. Blacks reciprocated with hate, but the black hatred cannot rationally be considered racism.
During the 19th century modernization caused the traditional Jewish economic niche gradually to vanish in Central and Eastern Europe. In response in order to maintain incomes, Jewish business practices in finance (loan sharking) and in commerce (unfair dealing) became nastier. This changing economic behavior caused friction and tension.
The lower bourgeoisie and peasantry reacted with antisemitism (a genuinely new concept), but this antisemitism was not racism. It was the hatred of the exploited class for the exploiter class. When the exploited class reacted to exploitation with violence, Jews were often able to obtain protection from the state. Jews often responded to this antisemitism, which I call "traditional", with hatred that probably qualifies to be called racism.
Traditional antisemitism was dwindling in the 19th century as the Jewish and gentile communities worked out issues of modernization. 19th century German or Austrian antisemitic parties were failures and vanished in the early 20th century.
The Nazis created a new antisemitism in the 1920s. This Nazi antisemitism combined remnant traditional antisemitism with fear and loathing of the Soviet Union, whose face seemed and was disproportionately Jewish. Few non-Jews realized how much the Jewish section of the Soviet Communist Party persecuted more traditional Jews like the members of my father’s family. (My mother's family consisted of N. African Jewish Berbers and did not have to deal with the same sorts of issues of modernization until the family was tricked into emigration to the Zionist state, which I nowadays call the baby killer nation.
Today neither traditional 19th century antisemitism nor Nazi antisemitism exists to any major extent.
We, who hate, scorn, and loathe the baby killer nation, are just like my father’s generation that abominated the Nazi nation because of its racism, because of its mass slaughter, because of its war crimes, and because of its genocide.
Gentiles, who worry about antisemitism today, seem confused and befuddled by a history that only specialists understand.
A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.
I am a Jew. A Zionist is not a Jew. A Zionist is post Judaism because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
But no genocide is occurring in Gaza. What is occurring is a large number of civilians deaths, which is regrettable, and common for urban warfare, And all these deaths could have been averted had Gaza not gone to war against Israel, and many averted if, after war began, Hamas had conformed to the laws of war by not hiding themselves and their weaponry amongst civilians.
There is one side interested in genocide in the current war - and it's Hamas.
The evidence indicates Israel is trying to destroy as much infrastructure as possible, engage in indiscriminate killing (anything that moves and "fighting age men" have been described as the approach, whether prescribed by military commanders or practiced at lower levels), and chase as many people out of Gaza as possible.
Israel's conduct in the West Bank -- abusing Arabs, stealing land -- dispels any reasonable sense that Israel is motivated by a desire to do the right thing.
Hamas sucks. Right-wing Israel sucks, too. Neither is likely to be, or should be, rewarded for recent conduct.
Get Jerry Sandusky talking about someone elses "Conduct"
Jerry Sandusky, lifelong Republican and well-connected conservative whose crimes were covered up by other right-wingers in the part of Pennsylvania that might as well be in Alabama, Kentucky, or Idaho.
Those right-wing write-offs in central Pennsylvania are still trying to display a statue and/or name a stadium to honor Joe Paterno, a lifelong phony who concealed criminal activity for decades to protect a football program.