It seems that Andrew Sullivan has removed his lips from Barack Obama’s posterior stopped obsessing over Barack F. Kennedy Christ just long enough to fire a few bullets toward the way of Israel. His desperate attempt to “make up” for his ardent support of the Iraq War has officially reached proportions totaling not just wrongheadedness, but pure, venom-laced support for evil. The following toxic, intellectually dishonest screed was accompanied by an AOL poll sponsored by Sullivan inquiring as to whether the United States has “double standards” regarding the rhetoric of Israel and Iran:
But after the carnage of Gaza, with the ethnic cleanser Lieberman at his side, sitting on a massive stockpile of nukes, does Netanyahu really not see why others might be alarmed, if not terrified, when they hear this analogy? Muslims are human beings too. Up against the military might of the US and Israel, they can feel like permanent victims. And when one side has over a hundred nukes, is threatening a strike, and the other is trying to get material for one, the fear is legitimate on both sides.
The danger of religious fundamentalism is everywhere…
The ‘carnage of Gaza,’ which consisted of Israel literally dropping planeloads of fliers advising Palestinians to flee before Israel’s military arrived. The ‘carnage,’ which involved a response to a paramilitary terrorist organization lobbing bombs into Israeli cities. The ‘carnage,’ which targeted only militants, rather than innocents. Maybe if Muslims want to stop feeling like victims, they can stop trying to kill Jews all the time. That way, Israel would leave well enough alone. But in the perverted mind of Sullivan, self-defense is aggression, and when the bullied strikes back at the predator, it’s nothing more than the victim perpetuating some sort of ‘cycle of violence.’ Moral equivalence abounds; motivations mean nothing. Hitting is hitting, and hitting is bad, bad, bad. Once this Kool-Aid has been digested, the barbaric savagery promoted by Hamas and the modern democracy of Israel are one and the same.
Now, what is this analogy Sullivan speaks of? It’s the comparison by a Netanyahu adviser of Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the spirit of ‘Amalek,’ which manifests itself as the eternal enemy of the Jews, a la Nebuchadnezzar or Adolf Hitler. Sullivan attempts to trace the history of ‘Jewish overreaction’ to such threats, implying, through a bizarre analysis reliant on scriptural literalism, that Netanyahu may want to attempt genocide against the Iranian people.
Now, now, says Sullivan: he knows that’s not Netanyahu’s intention, but hey, religious fundamentalism is everywhere, after all:
Now, I do not for a moment believe that this is Netanyahu’s intent or belief. I do not for a second believe that he wants to kill every Iranian man, woman and child, and steal their cattle and clothing. I think he wants to erase every single aspect of the nuclear program out of a genuine security concern for his country. I do think, however, that the understandable Jewish fear of another Shoah sometimes obscures how some statements can be read or interpreted by others – and this cluelessness can hurt Israel. I mean: does Netanyahu believe invoking an ancient religious commandment to annihilate a regional rival is the best way to move diplomacy forward in the Middle East? If Ahmadinejad had cited a command by Allah for the genocidal annihilation of every single Jewish man, woman and child, and if he brought up this religious text to explain his attitude toward Israel in the current moment, do you think Norman Podhoretz would explain it away as unserious or inoperable?
I’ll disregard the continual shameful moral equivalence — lunatic apocalyptic dictator, legitimately-elected prime minister — pah, what’s the difference? — and note that that’s not quite what the adviser was referring to. He was referring to the existential threat posed by Iran (which appears to Sullivan to be of a dubious nature). Does Sullivan think that Israel would even be discussing Iran if its leaders weren’t threatening to wipe Israel off of the map? Does he think that Israel likes having to be constantly fighting a battle for its survival?
It’s modern liberalism epitomized: the bully hits, the bullied hits back, and the bullied is blamed for sticking up for himself.
Rest assured, though, Andrew feels some sympathy for the Jewish state:
Just because the Israelis are paranoid doesn’t mean the Iranian leaders aren’t out to get them.
The Israelis are paranoid perpetuators of carnage.
Khamenei and Netanyahu are just two sides of the same coin.
Bully acting out of malice, bullied replying out of self-defense — it’s all just a cycle of violence, really.
This is what passes for nuance today. God help us.
PS, Mr. Sullivan: I know you know who I am.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
May 30th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Remember this Sullivan classic regarding Obama’s race speech? hahah
“Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.
I love this country. I don’t remember loving it or hoping more from it than today.”
May 30th, 2009 at 1:54 am
No need for crudeness Alex. If you want to make the leap to “real” journalist we you grow up time to lose it.
May 30th, 2009 at 2:50 am
I agree with 2. that first line detracts from your ability to be taken seriously by serious people. maturity and tastefulness still count if you ask me.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:46 am
You might also try a bit more nuance yourself — or at least innuendo that is somewhat more subtle.
Anyway, Sullivan’s colleague Jeffrey Goldberg flatteringly counters:
As a rule, Sullivan’s glib armchair analysis of religions and their motivating beliefs is worse than useless.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I concur with #2 & #3. Quit acting like a boy. Be a man. Real men don’t talk that way.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:48 am
You can’t expect to be taken seriously by the intellectuals you so idolize if you rant like a 13 year old potty mouth.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I read the first line and stopped. Why use such language on this site? You have a gift of communicating. You don’t need this type of shock to make your point.
It is a shame – i think i wanted to read this post.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Sullivan has become the court jester of the political left. What a joke he has become…I cannot believe I used to be a fan of his. Was he lying to us the entire time?
May 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Thanks for the edit. Much more appropriate for a site like R420XX
May 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Who’s Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olberman’s substitute host? A blogger for DailyKos? An Executive VP at ACORN?
May 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Congrats for getting under Sully’s skin Alex. You are now in esteemed company (Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus, etc.).
What’s really bizarre about this column was that I read the Daily Dish back in 2002 during the time of the Gaza incursion and if memory serves he was saying the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying now. Of course, one can’t go on Sully’s website and find the pertinent blog posts because they’ve been scrubbed clean, wonder why.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Alex, you are a gifted writer, but this is childish. I respect your defense of Israel and, by and large, I agree with you. But, for God sakes, can’t Israel stop building new settlements and expanding existing ones? They are quickly losing my patience.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
If you people put half as much energy into opposing the evils of Hamas as you did into bitching about Israel’s settlements, we might be able to actually put some pressure on.
In a competition of savages against modern men, you side with modern men. Always, always, always.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
By the way, you people whining about Cheney’s first name really need to grow a pair under your own.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Michael,
Maybe it’s the fault of the biased reporting of the settlement issue in the mainstream media, or perhaps it could be attributed to anti-semitic propaganda being disseminated on your campus, but you are grossly misinformed. Israel is not building any new settlements; nor are they further encroaching upon Palestinian land in the West Bank by expanding the borders of existing ones. They are, however, allowing housing construction to occur within the boundaries of existing settlement communities. That is well within their sovereign right, and prior to Obama coming into office, no American president had ever pressured the Israeli government to prevent growing families from building extensions or new houses adjacent to their parents’ homes.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Netanyahu: No new West Bank settlements
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212451798&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
May 30th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The road to hell in the entire current iteration of the conflict was paved by the concept of “Land for Peace,” in my view.
The idea that one party can use violence to extort land from the other party is abysmal.
Israel has made every effort to adhere to national and international law at every step of the way. Those who would do them in nowadays claim to recognize no other laws than the laws of God, in the form of Islam.
Reconciliation under these terms is out of the question.
In my view, the only acceptable resolution of the conflict would be for Israel to bargain with the two countries in the region that have recognized the legitimate right of existence of the Jewish State — Jordan and Egypt — to take back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively.
It would be better for Israel, cynically speaking, if the accomplished local authoritarian states sat firmly on the warlords of the Palestinians — who conveniently became a “people” once the Jews arrived from Europe. Before then, there were only Muslim Arabs as an acknowledged grouping throughout the region. These peoples were distinct from the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians and/or Persians.
Figuring out how to get a bunch of tribal wannabe despots amongst the Palestinian tribes to settle down and bargain with Israel, which they all attempt to out-hate to keep their popularity up, is a complete waste of time.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
17 – Certainly. The “compromise” that people are asking for is one between a bank teller and a bank robber. Or between cake and cyanide. It’s pretty obvious that one side is actually winning and one side is actually losing. Thus, there can be no “compromise” on fundamental values.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:53 am
And, of course, you can’t resist the self-aggrandizing plug at the end of the post…
Craven ambition needs to be tempered by humility.