The right-wing need for victimization and Israel

[Jefferson23]

Saturday, Mar 27, 2010

By Glenn Greenwald


As rabid and unhinged as the American Right generally has become of late, the right-wing blogosphere is, as usual, several degrees more twisted. Here is Powerline's Paul Mirengoff, a lawyer, protesting Obama's treatment this week of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and comparing it to how a small African country would -- and should -- be treated:


One Israeli newspaper summarized the encounter this way:

"There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea."

But Obama would never treat the president of Equatorial Guinea that way.


In other words: Obama subjected Netanyahu to the kind of treatment that should be reserved only for Africans, said the unnamed Israeli newspaper. But, Mirengoff hastened to add, Obama would never treat Africans that way -- only Jews. Citing Mirengoff's post, Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, got the point loud and clear and, in the midst of offering several bizarre conspiracy theories, made it even more explicit:


WHY HAS BARACK OBAMA TREATED NETANYAHU SO RUDELY? "Obama would never treat the president of Equatorial Guinea that way."

Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That’s plausible -- certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really.


As usual, nothing is more severe and desperate than the right-wing need to turn oneself into a victim of extreme persecution. Do you think that Equatorial Guinea, if given the option, would choose to be treated by the U.S. Government the same way Israel is: with billions of dollars of American taxpayer money transferred to them each year, automatic diplomatic protection at the U.N. for anything they choose to do, American-backed loan guarantees, weapons transfers on demand, one-fourth of their bulging military budget provided by the U.S., an American law requiring the Obama administration to maintain their military superiority, a White House Chief of Staff who twice served as a civilian volunteer in their army, and a Speaker of the House who proclaims -- in the midst of her own's government conflict with that foreign country -- that the entire U.S. Congress "speaks with one voice" in support of them rather than their own government? I doubt Equatorial Guinea -- or any other country on the planet -- would complain much or consider themselves victims if they received similar treatment from the U.S.; quite the contrary.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[Enthusiast]

1. Yeah, it would be awful to be treated

the way the U.S. treats Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I wish Australia were treated the way the US treats Israel! n/t

[oberliner]

3. Author of the Salon misses the point of the comment in Ma'ariv

The comment in Ma'ariv wasn't about the way the US treats Israel.

The comment was about the way Netanyahu himself was treated on this particular visit.

The whole paragraph in this Salon piece about how Equatorial Guinea would love to be treated the way Israel is actually supports the point that the comment in Ma'ariv was making.

That is to say that since Israel is a country that is given such preferential treatment (as evidenced by the list presented in the OP), it is surprising that a visit from its head of state would result in no photo-op, joint statement, or any of the other public pleasantries that one would think would accompany a visit of the leader of a country that is clearly treated well by the US.

Has the president of Equatorial Guinea ever met with Obama personally?

[shira]

5. Yep, just another emotional argument that feeds the belligerant, ignorant, & self-righteous

..who believe all the big lies and are unreasoning, irrational and intolerant.

New Left meet old Right.

[azurnoir]

8. Perhaps you missed the part where

it is actually Glenn Reynolds that makes jump from the President of to the country of, but then again perhaps not

In reality it is the same old same old trying to equate criticism of Israel or its government with Right wing extremism we've seen it so so many times before

[shira]

10. Greenwald responded to Obama and Nutty's meeting with a strawman argument

Not that I expect better from someone who writes for Pat Buchanon's rag and, like Buchanon, employs tropes like Jews' dual loyalties and power over the media.

[Jefferson23]

20. If you think you can slander Salon because of a Buchanan article,

and then falsely connect that to Greenwald as you have in your statement, you are either uninformed or lying.

Greenwald does not work for Buchanan, and Salon does not belong to Buchanan.

David Horowitz has written for the Huffington Post, the other many contributors to Huffington DO NOT necessarily share his opinions. Using your
analysis, Huffington Post must now be a far RW "rag."

[oberliner]

21. I don't think the poster was talking about Salon but rather The American Conservative

That is the magazine that was founded by Pat Buchanan that Greenwald has been a contributor to, I believe.

[Jefferson23]

23. Even if that is the case, the rationale slandering of Greenwald remains

a false one. As I said earlier, that Huffington will publish Horowitz on occasion, who's opinion is not generally shared by the majority of that online publication, the same applies to Greenwald and Buchanan.

[oberliner]

25. I think the Huffington Post is a different animal altogether

The Huffington Post is an online-only site that includes literally thousands of bloggers and a myriad of different types of blog posts.

The American Conservative is a print magazine (with an online site, of course) that has a much smaller number of contributors.

Now I would agree that just because you allow a site to publish something you wrote does not mean that you agree with the overall politics of that site. However, aren't there some magazines or online publications that are so loathsome to you that you would not consent to be a contributor to them?

[Jefferson23]

28. If you read Greenwald's contributions to AS, one can determine

very easily why he was asked to contribute, and why he agreed to be a contributor. The number of contributors at Huffington vs AS is of no relevance in this discussion imo, the individuals in question, and the alleged devious motivations that were stated by the above poster, most certainly are relevant.

As far as a publication being so loathsome that I would not consent to be a contributor, that is a fair question. When I read the article
Horowitz wrote for Huffington on the subject of Obama's inauguration speech,it wasn't difficult to understand what may have motivated Huff to include it.

Horowitz gave a favorable review of Obama's speech, so perhaps that is why they were motivated to publish it. Considering that he and many other neocons were not trusting of an Obama administration on foreign policy, this was an unpredictable opinion for him to express. This point
of view, coming from a neocon was one to help, even if only temporarily on the subject of Obama. Keep in mind all the efforts that were used to de-ligitimize his candidacy...he can't be trusted on Israel!


Imo, it was Horowitz who was seeking to achieve relevance for himself with his OP, as he was witnessing a man who against all odds, won the hearts and minds of most American voters.

I don't think he wanted to be left out of the spirit most Americans were feeling at the time....which was truly extraordinary. But that is just my take on him, as I do not share his world view, nor approve of his tactics on many subjects.

The choice by Huffington to include, even a guy like Horowitz, or Buchanan including Greenwald, one needs to
consider the content of that article. Does it speak well of Huffington and AS that they will add contributors with differing views, for the most part, yes, I think.

Another question one could ask, would David Horowitz ever consider having Greenwald contributing a dissenting opinion about Israel on his website?

I doubt that would ever happen, yet, Huffington has had several contributions by Alan Dershowitz that I have found appalling..so which publication has more confidence to include differing views and allow their readers to make up their own minds? I say both, anyone who knows
Greenwald understands what he advocates for politically. If someone imagines he is being used by AS, they make a false claim. I don't believe
Huffington is being used by Dershowitz nor Horowitz, nor do I believe their vile views will achieve legitimacy as a result of Huffington
publishing it.

[shira]

26. Greenwald deserves to be criticized harshly for his ugly demonisation efforts

http://blog.z-word.com/2010/03/glenn-greenwald-keeps-an-ugly-calumny-alive/

He holds many of the same views of Israel that Pat Buchanon of the AmCon holds. Proving once again that on Israel, the new far Left and the old far Right are indistinguishable.

[azurnoir]

27. you have "proved" nothing here shira

and once again you do realize that Buchanon is no longer with the American Conservative do you not? Your link was unimpressive at best a down right weak smear job at worst

But it is enlightening to see Greenwald added o the ever growing list of "bad jews"

[shira]

31. You mean Greenwald doesn't share almost all of Buchanon's views on I/P?

And since when is it just 'criticism' to use old bigoted tropes like powerful Jewish influences and dual loyalties?

At best, Greenwald is ignorant and doesn't realize he argues like any enemy of the Jews the past few centuries. Why pretend what he writes is not bigoted or that it leads to hatred?

[azurnoir]

24. Pimping that again huh?

please name the so called "rag" that Greenwald has written for, if it is The American Conservative many authors have written articles published in that magazine BTW you do realize that Buchanon is no longer associated with that publication

[Jefferson23]

6. Greenwald is rather clear in pointing out the hypocrisy, which was the objective.

On edit to add link: UPDATE: For the rest of history, human beings will have a pure, Platonic expression of "rank, oozing hypocrisy" (h/t Blue Texan).

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/israel/index.html

[oberliner]

13. But the Ma'ariv quote was saying something else

The Ma'ariv quote was saying that Netanyahu wasn't treated the way the leader of a country who is a big-time ally normally is treated when they visit the US.

The paragraph in the Salon piece about how Equatorial Guinea would love to have all the benefits from the US that Israel gets does not really speak to the quote itself.

In fact, I would argue that the Salon paragraph strengthens the point the writer in Ma'ariv was making.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. And what point do you think that Ma'ariv writer was trying to make?

Y'know, here I was thinking it was more right-wing crap, but you seem to think there's something to what essentially was an ugly and stupid comment...

[oberliner]

17. That Netanyahu's treatment was surprising considering the US-Israel relationship

Usually you get the photo-ops, the joint press conference, and other niceties for a visit to the President of the US by the PM of Israel

Instead there were no photos released and no joint statement made.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I think you've missed the entire point of the article n/t

[Jefferson23]

18. I think you're missing Greenwald's intended emphasis, and I'll

leave it, we just disagree.

[oberliner]

22. You might be right

I just don't think the point was made as artfully as it could have been. I also think he read some things into the Ma'ariv quote that may not have been intended.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. He didn't miss the point at all.

The comment in Ma'ariv was ugly and typical of the idiotic dribble of the Right...

[oberliner]

11. I think you mean "drivel" not "dribble" nt

Drivel: foolish or senseless talk

Dribble: a small quantity of liquid falling in drops or flowing in a thin stream

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I meant "dribble"...

[oberliner]

14. Common Errors in English Usage

“Dribble” and “drivel” originally meant the same thing: drool. But the two words have become differentiated. When you mean to criticize someone else’s speech as stupid or pointless, the word you want is “drivel.”

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dribble.html

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Yr behaviour is getting really disruptive. Could you stop doing the grammar police stuff please?

I don't know if anyone else has noticed the way yr repeatedly trying to 'correct' my spelling and grammar etc, but if you haven't got anything to say about the conflict and can only behave how you've been behaving for the past two posts, could you please give it a rest? If you refuse to, I will start alerting on yr posts as they really are getting to the stage where they're disruptive. I hope it won't get to the point where I have to alert...

[oberliner]

19. Another potential response would have been: "Thanks for the info!"

Or maybe even: "Wow, I never realized that. Learn something new every day!"

In any case, no offense was intended. I appreciate, however, that you find this to be disruptive so I am happy to refrain from any future correction of your errors.

With respect to the Greenwald article, I think it's weird that he did not even take the time to find out what the "unnamed Israeli newspaper" was or who made the comment. Took about 45 seconds of Googling to get that info!

I mean, this is a man who won an Izzy Award for investigative journalism, yet he couldn't do a little bit of investigating to get that info?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No, they weren't potential responses because you weren't correcting any error...

Thanks for yr genuine and sincere apology, though! I really do appreciate that you can see how trollish and disruptive yr behaviour was being!

With respect to yr claim about the Greenwald article, how do you know he didn't know what the 'unname Israeli newspaper' was or who made the comment? Also, could you supply a link to where you got that info?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

9. Victimization and accusations of bigotry

have become the very life blood of the right wing on both sides of this issue one literally needs the other to survive