Posted September 27, 2002

Isn't It Ironic?

Regarding "Smearing the Germans":

Hail to Justin for his latest article.

To be honest, after having cursed these days (as usual) the notorious German bureaucracy, which would always delay a five-minute job for a whole month or more, I am now about to say that I deeply respect the Germans for the choice they made. So my problems with the bureaucracy now look like a minor matter -- well, I may have to call the official in question five hundred times till I finally get the job done, but what really matters is that the people in this country acted wisely, at least as far as the elections are concerned. Not being German, I am so proud of them and I hope they hold to their views.

And yes, I also agree, it is no coincidence warnings about Hitler strategies being repeated in the US came from Germany -- a country which has once suffered under such a regime and which would never like to repeat its history, especially regarding the Jews (ask any German in the street, he will tell you). And it is also ridiculous that the politicians drawing parallels between Hitler and Bush are called anti-Semitic. The truth is, the CDU coalition lost the elections because the leader of their supposed partners, the FDP, made anti-Semitic, anti-Israel (strange analogy though) and anti-foreigner statements. The result was a devastating election result for them, which also paved the way towards defeat of their partners. Isn't it ironic?

~ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Free Speech

Regarding "Smearing the Germans":

Mr. Raimondo's article was excellent and a real eye opener as to what is going on with Israel's and the United States' agenda. ...

Mr. Raimondo's comments showed great courage amidst the insanity of the current atmosphere of condemning and punishing anyone who expresses a different view of Israel and the United States. Both Israel and the United States "brag" to the world what great democracies they are, especially the free speech part. Well, for the past year there has been a desperate but powerful effort to stifle the free speech of anyone who is against the slaughter of helpless civilians in Palestine, Iraq and places we probably don't hear about. Our president, congressmen, and other government lackeys' slavish devotion to Israel is destroying the United States as it becomes more corrupt, brutal and perverted each day. ...

~ Joe P.

Heroic Raimondo

Regarding "Smearing the Germans":

I must write to say that Mr. Raimondo just couldn't be more accurate and honest in his journalism. This is a powerful piece of writing that to anyone with any intellectual (or otherwise) honesty is simply irrefutable. My only disappointment is that he is probably preaching to the choir. I wish all Americans could read his work. He is a readable, witty and concise writer who backs up his statements (love those links) and a hero in an age of cowards and paid propagandists pretending to be journalists. And, because of his sense of justice (and humor) I contributed to your site.

~ M. Johnson, Hawaii

O'Neill Versus Cantinflas

Regarding "Forget the Evidence," by Brendan O'Neill:

Regarding the fact that almost "... everyone now accepts the right of America and Europe to interfere in Iraq's affairs." Mr. O'Neill is one of the very few who write about nonintervention on principle. Guess not many persons are so lucid. But politicians are the worst -- everywhere in the world. Most of what they say is so confusing that it reminds me of a funny character created by Mario Moreno, the great Mexican actor. His name was 'Cantinflas'. He was very ignorant, poor, naive, sentimental and had a particular way of talking -- he'd blabber for hours. In the end he had said only utter nonsense or nothing at all. ...

~ Maria Cerritelli

From Childcare to World Affairs

...The U.S. is trying the ploy that many a parent has tried on children down through history: "Do as I say, not as I do." But that doesn't generally work with kids, and it works even less well with other nations and world leaders! They see it for exactly the sort of self-righteous hypocrisy that it is.

The US regards much of the rest of the world like some parents regard kids-rowdy little rascals to be kept in line with lectures and discipline when necessary, and even a swat from time to time. The funny thing is, the rest of the world often regards the US as the child, a rich, spoiled, headstrong brat and bully that always wants things its own way, and if it doesn't get it, it's gonna take its marbles and go home!

So it's not that great a leap from childcare to world affairs sometimes! And, just as you might warn a child that pride cometh before a fall-or, more bluntly, "Watch out, kiddo, because you're cruising for a bruising" -- people are trying to warn the US that it's setting itself up for a big fall. Sad to say, they're not listening!

~ Ted Rudow III, MA, Menlo Park, California

Boycotts

I have some concerns with Justin Raimondo's recent column, 'Smearing the Germans,' although not with the main thrust of the article. As another example of Mr. Raimondo's justified distaste with the overuse of 'anti-Semitism,' not to mention his admirable stance against the War Party, the article is just fine. (Hussein was once described as worse than Hitler by George I? Dear me...) Rather, I disagree with some of the finer details.

The issue of boycotts is a difficult one, lying at the intersection of legitimate protest (against the actions of the Israeli government) and freedom of speech (of individual academics with a wide range of views). There seem to me to be two issues: (1) is this the right way to proceed at all?; (2) if so, should Israel be solely singled out?

My own feeling is that academic boycotts are the wrong approach -- like sanctions, they hit the wrong people, albeit not with the same deadly force. The academy is, despite its flaws, still a forum that allows for and sometimes even encourages intelligent debate, or at the very least allows for a multiplicity of views. In the US, the imperfect academy still allows for the views of, say, Lawrence Summers to coexist with the views of those professors in the Campus Watch dossiers. And when commentators like Mr. Raimondo object to critical voices being shut down or rendered suspect by spurious cries of anti-Semitism, for example, I support those views as being supportive of open debate. Of course, most of the Israeli academics would be barred from international discourse in areas that do not relate to Israeli politics. Will these academics rise up and overthrow the government (or at least critique it) like the citizens of Iraq during the Bush sanctions, or will they feel increasingly under siege? And will the Israeli public be convinced, or will they see the rest of the world attempting to eliminate the participation of certain academics from international discussion, on any topic? What would be the point?

As for whether Israel should be solely singled out for boycotts, or divestment, here is where watchdog groups are particularly liable to cry anti-Semitism I disagree -- it's not 'anti-Semitism But that contrary position would be easier to maintain if there were clearer criteria for what nations would have to do to earn the blanket condemnation of foreign academics and universities.

Singling out Israel requires a coherent argument that, of all the nations of the world, only Israel has crossed a line warranting such action. Are there no other countries deserving of similar treatment? Perhaps not. But such a case should be made clearly, as opposed to being assumed. My view is that believing that Israel has uniquely crossed a human rights line is about as realistic as believing that Iraq has uniquely crossed a weapons of mass destruction line. Lets boycott a dozen nations that flagrantly ignore the rights of some within their borders and declare war on North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel again, as countries with WMD that have raised the spectre of using them. Or better yet, let's not do either. It is fair, meanwhile, to single out Israel as being a massive recipient of US aid, and to point out that the blood of Palestinians is on American hands in a financially direct way, and not vice versa. I think the point is compromised by phrases such as "mow down a few more Palestinian kiddies," which unnecessarily creates the impression of bias while sounding, to be blunt, a bit silly. It should be possible to decry one-sided American involvement without necessarily promoting an overly simplistic one-sided view of the conflict.

Mr. Raimondo characterizes the proposed academic boycott and recent dismissal of two Israeli academics from an editorial board of a linguistics journal as justifiable acts against individuals based on their views...

There are some problems here. First of all, would Mr. Raimondo support an academic boycott of a hypothetical "antiwar and anti-Semitic" position among American academics as a legitimate weapon in the war of ideas, and not the act of pro-Israeli hooligans? Second, there is no reason to believe that the academic boycott is targeting the expressed views of individuals, particularly as many of the academics who would be affected are in fields that have nothing to do with Israeli politics. The two professors already affected were in linguistics, they weren't working on military policy. ...

It's worth mentioning in closing that Dr. Summers' 'sanctimonious tirade' includes several views that seem to be consistent with Mr. Raimondo's own, ones that are not highlighted in the latter's selective review. For example:

"Of course academic communities should be and always will be places that allow any viewpoint to be expressed. And certainly there is much to be debated about the Middle East and much in Israel’s foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously challenged."

Or:

"I have always throughout my life been put off by those who heard the sound of breaking glass, in every insult or slight, and conjured up images of Hitler’s Kristallnacht at any disagreement with Israel."

In his second-to-last paragraph, Mr. Raimondo preemptively conjures up his own image, fast in danger of becoming an Antiwar.com cliché -- raising the spectre of other people raising the spectre of Kristallnacht. In so doing, he implies that people like Dr. Summers, the subject of most of his article, might do so. So it was ironic to follow the link to the Harvard speech and find the president raising the same concern. That said, I agreed with many other points raised by Mr. Raimondo in his critique of that speech.

Enough complaining. I want to take this chance to thank Mr. Raimondo and Antiwar.com for consistently providing an open forum for positions that are too often underrepresented. Every source I used to dispute particular aspects of 'Smearing the Germans' was identified through links provided within that article, a level of journalistic responsibility that we could use more of. It's a pleasure to read thoughtful and coherent articles that I agree with more often than not and, as I have learned, it is a pleasure to disagree with you as well. ...

~ Andrew Ryder, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Suggestions

Regarding "Help...or Farewell":

You need help? You bet you do.

How about for starters try being a bit more objective. This will allow a broader coalition of truly sincere folks who want to change the world as opposed to complaining about it. ...

Be more tolerant of others not sharing your views.

Give equal time in the Backtalk forums. Not all folks against war share the same ideals.

These suggestions brought to you by a combat veteran. I hope they are received in the spirit for which they were intended.

~ DB

The Backtalk editor replies:

The letters posted in Backtalk reflect, as accurately as possible, the antiwar letters we receive. Your argument may be with the senders, rather than the selectors.

Editor's note:

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz is profiled in the Real World section of October's Smart Money magazine (print version only, not available online).