Psst!

Guess what? I’ve got a secret to tell you, and it’s something that, judging from current discourse, I ought to be ashamed of.

I kinda like Noam Chomsky.

I think he’s a damn smart writer.

Unlike countless writers who conveniently forget to include a citation, I’ve never once seen him write "America deserved it" about September 11th.

But even if you dislike Chomsky, using lies to disparage him should be out of bounds.

Which brings me to the usually-admirable blog The Poor Man, which tells us "if Noam Chomsky said the sun would rise in the morning, it probably would, but I’d still prefer to hear about it from someone who doesn’t admire Pol Pot quite so much…" (But see the updates below.)

This is a common lie about Chomsky, and I assume The Poor Man wrote it in good faith. But it’s still a lie. As far as I know, the lie originated in criticism of Chomsky’s 1979 book (co-written with Edward Herman) After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology. In that book, Chomsky compares the slaughters in Cambodia and East Timor. In 1980, Steven Lukes accused Chomsky of understating the Cambodian massacres and thus adding to "deceit and distortion surrounding Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia." Over the years, Likes’ critique (aided by such notable writers as David Horowitz) has warped into the lie that Chomsky is an admirer of Pol Pot.

But this critique makes no sense. As Robert Barsky points out, Chomsky’s book makes

I wonder how many of the bloggers who have bashed Chomsky have read any of his books?

UPDATE: I got into a mini-debate with Andrew Northrup in his comments section, a debate which Andrew did not wish to have. I got snarky, which I shouldn’t have.

(Update to the update: Andrewhas more-or-less said the comment I was objecting to was a joke, and he and I pretty much agree on a compromise criticismof Chomsky. So, thanks, Andrew.) Andrew also posted a brief follow-up postdirecting readers to a good post on The Rittenhouse Review.

The Village Voice has a good article on feminism and the Central Park Jogger case (as does Newsday). Susan Brownmiller, unfortunately, provides the obligatory "what a jerk feminists are" soundbites (although other feminists reacted better). But Brownmiller is on to something when she says that feminists shouldn’t be the ones blamed for the way black activists and feminists failed to connect a decade ago. Were feminists at fault? Absolutely - feminists, like everyone else, should have been skeptical of police statements and of confessions generated under unfair police pressure. (Of course, some feminists were skeptical at the time - including, unsurprisingly, some feminists of color).

But let’s not forget that some defendants’ advocates were misogynistic in ways that feminists rightly found it impossible to ally themselves with. Kharey Wise’s lawyer questioned (insanely) if a rape had taken place at all, and also suggested that the guilty party might be the victim’s boyfriend, whom the victim was lying to protect. Feminists were right then to consider this approach a misogynistic lie - and none of the new evidence changes that.

That was mild compared to what some non-lawyers were saying. According to Newsday (July 17 1990), "Some of the more vocal spectators denounced the defense lawyers for not questioning the jogger about her sexual activities around the time of the assault." From The Sunday Times, July 22 1990:

Some suggest the jogger was in the park looking to buy drugs; others say she was raped by her white boyfriend. One black woman last week even claimed that the police photographs were fakes. ”That wasn’t pictures of the jogger. That was just some corpse they got for the case,” she announced.

The low point of this type of behaviour occurred when the jogger left the courthouse. Several black women surrounded the police van carrying her away and shouted: ”She’s a prostitute, she’s a whore, she’s part of it.”

I think it’s great that some feminists are questioning their role ten years ago, and looking for ways to take anti-racist action today (according to Newsday, several feminist groups have joined protests and "have called for a federal investigation into the way the case was handled"). I hope that at some point, some of the defendants’ advocates from ten years ago will find time to question their own misogyny and victim-blaming, as well.

(Links via Body and Soul. Much of this post’s text was "recycled" from a post I wrote last month).

UPDATE: Via Negroplease, I came across A Burst of Light’s excellent blogging of the Central Park Five case. Here’s a bit of sick irony: three of the youths missed chances for parole because they claimed they were innocent.

Also, Jason brings up a good point for folks writing about this case - is it time to start calling this “the Central Park Five” case, rather than the “Central Park Jogger” case?

Has anyone noticed that the war/antiwar crowds have reversed their positions when it comes to Afghanistan? The Bush administration (despite its vocal claims otherwise) has been quietly pulling back on commitments to Afghanistan, blocking a planned $174 million in Afghan humanitarian aid (including $2.5 million that was desperately needed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs). There’s also been a lot of hemming and hawing over doing the most important thing - expanding the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In August, the Bush administration reversed itself and said it might support expanding the ISAF. In September, the State Department issued a report saying just the opposite.

Meanwhile, feminists, human rights groups, the UN, and democrats - groups that have been, in general, more skeptical about invading Iraq - all want the ISAF increased. Why? Here’s a few reasons…

• Gunmen in Afghanistan have forced the closing of a girls’ school, the Feminist Majority Foundation reports. This is just the latest of a series of incidents in which girls’ schools have been attacked, bombed, and burned down.

• The Kabul government has just reinstated "virtue and vice" police, the Taliban’s forces in charge of beating women who dressed "improperly." Reports indicate that the new "virtue and vice" police won’t be as awful as they were under the Taliban, a comparison which gives new meaning to "damn with faint praise."
• Last week, forces belonging to Abdul Rashid Dostum - who is a minister in the U.S.-supported Kabul government - drove hundreds of civilians away from their villages, looted their homes, and committed multiple rapes. (Should we worry about who we appoint to replace the Taliban? Not according to conservatives like Catherine Seipp, who mock feminists for "hand wringing about the Taliban’s replacements.")
• A combination of bad medical care and lack of women’s rights makes has given Afghanistan the second-hightest infant mortality rate in the world (1,700 out of every 100,000 pregnant Afghan women die in childbirth; for comparison’s sake, the number in the US is 12 in 100,000). "In addition, the study also noted that 80 percent of the women interviewed considered sex with their husbands obligatory. Nearly half said that a husband had the right to physically abuse his wife for disobedience."
• A drug smuggler strangles his wife because he suspects her of infidelity. The police chief’s reaction? "That woman committed a crime. Her death was her punishment."
• Human Rights Watch has documented that harassment, assault, and rape (including gang-rape) are ongoing problems for many women in Afghanistan, especially women who live outside of Kabul. Even in Kabul, however, too many women still have good reason to fear breaking the Taliban’s edicts on women’s behavior. According to the British group Womankind, "Women continue to be assaulted or abused for not adhering to former Taliban edicts that strictly controlled women’s behavior, dress, expression and movement." As one women interviewed said, "It doesn’t matter that the Taliban are no longer here, because the Mujahidin are here."

• Taliban-style sharia law is still the law of the land - including in Kabul. One of many "lowlights" from this article: a female police officer suggesting that rape isn’t possible: "Can you force the thread through the needle if the needle is jerking around?"

• According to Womankind, "Trafficking in women and girls has increased. Girls are purchased in Afghanistan, trafficked through Pakistan and sold into prostitution or marriage in the Persian Gulf countries."

Have things improved for women in Afghanistan as a result of U.S. actions? On the whole, yes - as several of the sources I’ve linked to, particularly the Human Rights Watch report, document. But why do so many apparently sane people think it’s time to uncork champaign and declare victory in the fight for Afghan women’s rights?

The truth is, "better than under the Taliban" is not one-tenth of the way to "good enough." As Laura Bush said nearly a year ago, "fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity - a commitment shared by people of good will on every continent." (Emphasis added.)

The commitment Ms. Bush spoke of has not been fulfilled. There’s more to be done. The next step - increasing security forces, so that improvements to women’s rights can spread beyond Kabul - is obvious. The people who are opposing war in Iraq want more intervention in Afghanistan. So why the delay?

Laura Bush, where are you?

UPDATE: After writing and posting the above, I remembered Unqualified Offerings‘ recent post on Afghanistan. Jim is too smart to join the "everything in Afghanistan is okay now" crowd. Nonetheless, he argues against increased intervention, saying that “conquering Afghanistan in a matter of weeks is no big deal - the Soviets did it in 1979. Holding it is the hard part. [US leaders] desperately do not want to be the Soviet Union in 1980 or, god forbid, 1986. ”

Jim makes a persuasive case - but I’m not totally convinced. Fifteen years ago, warlords were able to stand against the Soviets because they were being propped up by US aid and support. Today, there isn’t a power in the world able to prop up the warlords against focused US action (or even an international action). So the two situations aren’t the same.

UPDATE 2: Body and Soul, and her readers,are having an interesting discussion of the ethics of enforcing western values in non-western cultures.

How George Bush is trying to prevent peace talks.

I don’t know how I missed linking to this excellent post by Jim at Objectionable Content last week: "I think that, at times, alarmist reminders are valuable — if the situation is alarming. But one cannot cry ‘holocaust’ at every injustice. This charge has been leveled at some Jewish people, and it is ironic now to see it leveled at Palestinians too."

UPDATE: Whoops, it turns out I already linked to Jim’s post (as Jim pointed out to me via email). You know, I kindathought I had, but I couldn’t find it. Oh, well, it’s good enough to link to twice.

Two articles on the olive grove situation: one from the Guardian nicely summing up recent events, and another from Israeli peace activists searching for a way to help (scroll down for the section about olive groves).

Armed Liberal responds to an email I sent him - thanks, A.L.!. I’ll try to respond sometime in the next week. (If the permalink isn’t working, then go to Armed Liberal and scroll to the entry for October 14, 2002, entitled "I see smart people.")

Finally, I recommend this essay by Michael Walzer, arguing that there are not one but four wars going on between Israel and Palestine.

The first is a Palestinian war to destroy the state of Israel.
The second is a Palestinian war to create an independent state alongside Israel, ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The third is an Israeli war for the security of Israel within the 1967 borders.
The fourth is an Israeli war for Greater Israel, for the settlements and the occupied territories.

Although I don’t agree with every word (Walzer’s take on Camp David is, in my view, overly biased towards the blame-Palestinians-for-everything view), on the whole it presents a very useful lens through which Israel/Palestine can be examined.. Through this lens, he brings up a solid (albeit not new) critique of settlers:

For the settler movement is the functional equivalent of the terrorist organizations. I hasten to add that it is not the moral equivalent. The settlers are not murderers, even if there are a small number of terrorists among them. But the message of settler activity to the Palestinians is very much like the message of terrorism to the Israelis: we want you to leave (some groups on the Israeli right, including groups represented in Sharon’s government, openly support a policy of "transfer"), or we want you to accept a radically subordinate position in your own country. The settlers’ aim is Greater Israel, and the achievement of that aim would mean that there could not be a Palestinian state. It is in this sense only that they are like the terrorists: they want the whole thing.

He also (to bring up a subject that I’ve talked about too much lately) has a good critique of the "divestment" movement:

The current boycott campaign against Israel, modeled on the 1980s campaign against South Africa, aims at a very one-sided delegitimation. And because the other side isn’t led by an organization remotely like the African National Congress, or by a man remotely like Nelson Mandela, the success of this campaign would be disastrous. It would strengthen the forces fighting the first war. Only when European critics of Israel are prepared to tell the Palestinians that there will be no help for a PA complicit in terrorism, can they ask American critics of the Palestinians to deliver a parallel message to the Israeli government. Intellectuals committed to internationalism can best serve their cause by explaining and defending the two messages together.

Waltzer argues for the next step:

Ultimately, the partisans of wars two and three must defeat the partisans of wars one and four. The way to peace begins with these two internal (but not necessarily uncoordinated) battles.

But also acknowledges the vast uncertainties involved in his approach:

An American or American/European sponsored truce would help the moderates on both sides, but, at the same time, the success of the truce depends on the strength of the moderates. Right now, it is hard to judge whether the "reform" of the Palestinian Authority would increase that strength. All good things don’t come together in political life: some of the most moderate Palestinians are among the most corrupt, while the suicide bombers are no doubt idealists. Democratic elections in Palestine may well play into the hands of nationalist and religious demagogues; this is a real possibility in Israel too. Still, a more open politics among the Palestinians would allow public expressions of support for a compromise peace, and that would be a major advance.

I don’t mean for this to become an "all-Israel, all the time" blog, although it’s felt that way lately. Israel and Palestine is a lifelong interest of mine, but it’s not my only interest. There are another few big blog posts on my plate about Israel and Palestine, and then I plan to take a break from the mid-East, so that some of the other topics that have been waiting in line shuffling their feet (Oregon politics, manners and morals, and abortion, for example) will have a chance.

Many of the above links were found via the excellent Third Way blog, by the way.

Shortly after September 11th 2001, my pal Kevin - whose links page compliments me by comparing me to a fart, bless his heart - drew this cartoon, which is my favorite of all the political cartoons I read that week.

(You can view a larger version of Kevin’s cartoon here).

Now Instapundit says the cartoon is "monstrous," because (he says) the two scenes aren’t equivalent.

I’d say Glenn is being comics-illiterate. Kevin drew the cartoon at a low angle - the point of view is exactly the height of a child’s eyes - with a child’s head at the center of each panel. To anyone who knows how to read cartoons, this means the scene is being viewed from a child’s perspective.

And from a child’s point of view, the two scenes are equivalent. In both cases, outsiders are brutally killing people for reasons that children know nothing about.

That Glenn thinks it’s relevant that an adult law professor sees a big difference, suggests that Glenn doesn’t understand the cartoon.

Killing innocents is what’s monstrous, Glenn. And even if the actions that kill innocents are justified, necessary, and unavoidable, it’s still monstrous to kill innocents. Pointing out this truth - a truth that children understand quite well - is not monstrous As Mark Kleiman says, "If you’re not willing to kill a bunch of people who haven’t done anything in particular to deserve it, then you’re not ready to wage war."

Meryl Yourish has posted a legal brief by some folks who were suing to shut down the "“Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement" (Occam’s Toothbrush posted some quotes from the same document). A few comments:

I have no way of knowing if most of the document’s claims are true or not; it gives next-to-no verifiable information on where its facts come from (not even for such a basic question of where the list of speakers was announced).

I do agree that if the document’s claims about Sami Al-Arian, Hatem Bazian and Mahdi Bray are uncontroversially true, then inviting them was, in the most generous possible interpretation, the work of ignorant morons. What’s more likely is that the people who invited them are asshole anti-Semites, in which case the conference will do nothing but harm; harm to Jews, harm to Israelis, and harm to Palestinians.

However, in the two cases in which I was able to double-check the brief’s claims against reality, the brief was deceptive.

1) The brief says: "The University of Michigan, while officially claiming to be neutral and not endorsing the stated goals of the Conference, features a link to the Conference website on The University of Michigan’s official website, http://www.umich.edu, at: http://www.umich.edu/palestineconf.html#safety. Links to opposing organizations’/conferences’ websites are not listed on the official University of Michigan website."

It’s true that the website has a link to SAFE, the conference organizers. But the same document also has links to U-M Hillel and Michigan Student Zionists, both of whom oppose the conference.

2) The brief says this about two scheduled conference speakers.

But in context, Shapiro and Arraf were advocating that suicide bombers should use "nonviolent direct action" instead of terrorism. From the article "Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada":

Personally, I disagree with Shapiro and Arraf on many things, but that’s not the point. Shapiro and Arraf are arguing for less violence and in favor of nonviolent resistance; the brief used out-of-context quotes to give exactly the opposite impression. No matter what you think of Shapiro and Arraf, the way the brief quoted them was dishonest.

I think it’s quite possible, from what the brief says, that some of the conference’s organizers and speakers are anti-Semitic shitheads. But I can’t be certain, because the brief itself doesn’t seem trustworthy.

The Lincoln Plawg has a good piece dissecting Larry Summers’ famous speech (as regular readers know, this is a subject I’ve commented on a time or three myself). Here’s a sample from the Lincoln Plawg:

It’s a little bit close to “fisking” for my taste, but it’s nonetheless a nicely-done examination of a bad idea. Check it out.

Anti-Semitism is rampaging over our college campuses, right? Well, maybe not.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - a group who no one could accuse of being in denial about anti-Semitism - ran a survey which found just the opposite. According to the ADL, “campus faculty and students are the least anti-Semitic” group in America. Not only is anti-Semitism on college campuses “virtually non-existent,” the ADL clearly finds that criticizing Israel doesn’t correspond with anti-Semitism: “Importantly, while criticism of Israel is high relative to the national population — especially among college faculty — there is no corresponding evidence of significant anti-Semitic sentiment.”

(Who is most likely to be anti-Semitic, according to the survey? Blacks, hispanics, the less educated, older folks, and people who are racists or homophobes.)

The ADL’s results pretty much matches my experience as a Jew at several of the most liberal campuses in the US (Oberlin, UMass Amherst, and Portland State University). To hear conservatives talk about it, liberal students on American campuses routinely sit around perusing Protocols of the Elders of Zion and planning David Duke rallies; but is that even remotely plausible? Especially considering that many campus liberals are themselves Jewish? Most campus liberals are almost as as terrified of being labeled “anti-semitic” as they are of being “sexist” or “racist.”¹

Who is anti-Semitic on college campuses? In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, it’s the religious fundimentalists. I’ve occasionally heard Muslim or Islamic fundimentalists talk about how “the Jews” are responsible for [insert moronic conspiracy theory du jour here], for example. According to conservatives, these folks are “the left” - even though those sexist, homophobic religious fanatics have more in common with Ralph Reed than Ralph Nader.

It may also be that many Blacks and Hispanics are anti-Semitic - that’s what the ADL survey found - but I haven’t experienced it personally, except from some Nation of Islam types. Perhaps I’ve been lucky in the folks I’ve known.

I’ve also heard Campus Crusade for Christ folks cheerfully predicting the day when their oh-so-just God will send all Jews to burn in hell for eternity - which is also anti-Semitic, but since it’s not anti-Israel no one minds. (Certainly no one on the political right.)

Even among religious fundimentalists, in my experience, the large majority on campus are not anti-Semites. This is unsurprising, considering that evidence shows anti-Semitism is “virtually nonexistant” on campus. So why have conservatives focused so unerringly on campus anti-Semitism, while ignoring more prevalent anti-Semitism virtually everywhere else in America?

It seems to me the real issue here isn’t anti-Semitism, but opposition to Israel. Fair enough - but I wish conservatives wouldn’t reflexively call everyone who dissents from their views on Israel an anti-Semite. It distorts reality and trivializes real anti-Semitism.

1. This sentence originally read Most campus liberals are as terrified of being “anti-semitic” as they are of being “sexist” or “racist.” That isn’t a statement I can believe or stand behind, so I’ve edited the sentence to reflect my actual beliefs. (back)

(Note: I’ve also criticized leftist anti-Semitism and partisanship. But because this post responds to others’ disagreements with me, and no one disagreed with that point, it doesn’t come up in this post.)

In an earlier post, I wrote this:

This wasn’t the main point of my post, by the way. My main point was deploring how pro-Israel partisans label all anti-Israel activism as anti-Semitic. A clear example is the Harvard divestment petition, which Larry Summers called "anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent." Yet absolutely nothing about the petition is anti-Semitic, if anti-Semitism means displaying animus towards Jews in general. (It does criticize the current Israeli government, but you can dislike the current Israeli government without hating the Jewish people - right?). It seems to me Summers’ statement represents a harmful broadening of the term "anti-Semitism," for purely partisan purposes.

Unfortunately, none of the folks who responded to me explained how someone saying "I favor divestment from Israel to pressure the Israeli government to remove settlements" is anti-Semitism. Instead, people responded to me about the word "feminazi." Armed Liberal wrote:

Lynn of In Context lays out a similar case:

Both these folks are mistaken about where the term "feminazi" comes from. The term was invented by Rush Limbaugh. He didn’t mean it as a friendly gibe, the same way AL’s friends might call AL a "safety nazi," or that my friends have called me "wedding nazi" (I’m a wedding coordinator for a living). The term is not restricted to rigid feminists - even Naomi Wolf, who flirts with being pro-life and writes prose-poems about loving penises, is called a feminazi. And Rush (who Lynn presumably doesn’t know of) explicitly meant the term to accuse feminists of perpetrating a Holocaust. Rush used the term to suggest that Nazis are to Jews as feminists are to babies, which is Rush’s idea of contributing to the abortion debate.

So. Do I think the term "feminazi" is anti-Semitic?

I think there’s a good case to be made that it is. The comparison trivializes the harms done by Nazis to Jews, and it shows (at best) a stunning indifference to Jewish feelings. These two elements combined suggest - if not actual anti-Semitism - well, then, a perverse willingness to not give a shit about Jewish history or feelings. (Over the years I’ve explained this to several conservatives who use the term "feminazi," but only one responded by giving up the term).

Going further, AL and Lynn are very quick to assume it’s not significant when the word "Nazi" is used against a movement that has been led disproportionately by Jewish women. I’m not sure I agree. There is no way of overstating the impact Jewish women have had on American feminism: to list just a handful, where would feminism be without Betty Friedan, Gloria Stienem, Bella Azbug, Naomi Wolf, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, Shula Firestone, Robin Morgan, Rebecca Walker, Katha Pollit, Karen Nussbaum and Judy Chicago?

If conservatives recognize the historic connection between feminism and Judaism and deliberately choose to use "nazi," that’s plainly disgusting. But even if we assume that conservative critics of feminism don’t know much about feminism, they’re still not off the hook. The term "feminazi" has such hellish staying power because it stings, it bothers feminists like no other epithet; and a major reason it stings is because so many feminists are Jewish. Maybe the folks perpetuating "feminazi" don’t know that; but they sure enjoy seeing the sting, and that’s why they keep using the term.

What would we say about someone who is (somehow) unaware of the racial history of the term "boy," but who likes using the term against NAACP members (not all of whom are black), because he’s noticed it has such a sting?

But I’ve forgotten to answer my own question. Do I think the term "feminazi" is anti-Semitic?

I’ve been thinking about this all week. And the answer is, no, I don’t.

Most people who use the word "feminazi" are thoughtless at best, cruel at worse; and they have (to repeat myself) a perverse indifference to Jewish history and hurting Jews; but they probably don’t have any particular animus against Jews. And at the end of the day, Anti-Semitism has to involve prejudice against Jews because they are Jewish. Otherwise the term loses meaning.

However, that’s my opinion.

It’s not Cathy Young’s opinion; it’s not Larry Summers’ opinion; and I presume it’s not the opinion of anyone who agreed with Summers’ speech. Why? Because Summers’s speech presented a radical new idea of anti-Semitism: anti-Semitism in effect, even when there isn’t anti-Semitic intent. In this new version of anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitic action is one that hurts Jews, whether or not prejudice against Jews - "intent" - is involved. (Say, if an earthquake levels a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, is that anti-Semitism?).

But here’s my problem with Israel’s paritsans - they want to have it both ways. When it comes to criticizing liberals, they use the broadest definition of anti-Semitism imaginable, so that even a purely political action against the government of Israel, conducted by folks who have never shown any sign of anti-Jewish prejudice, is anti-Semitism.

But let their attention be drawn to a conservative action - such as the tarring of Jewish feminists with the term "Nazi," or attempts to institutionalize Christianity in schools and public functions, or Christian fundimentalists who say Jews are going to Hell; - and those same people will become fountains of excuses and special pleadings. It’s not anti-Semitism unless there’s a comparison to the Holocaust. It’s not anti-Semitism because there was no prejudicial intent It’s not anti-Semitism to call liberal feminist Jews Nazis, it’s only anti-Semitism when Zionist Jews are called Nazis. It’s not anti-Semitism because it’s just a funny joke (funny to whom?). In short, when it comes to the things conservatives say and do, suddenly anti-Semitism is defined as narrowly as possible.

It is ridiculous. It is intellectually dishonest. And it is nakedly partisan.

Pick one standard and stick with it. If you criticize leftists for anti-Semitism for the smallest thing - like signing a petition that says not one word against Jews - then have the moral fiber to admit that, defined that broadly, the term "feminazi" used against Jewish women is also anti-Semitic; and so is someone who thinks Jesus belongs in our public schools. Personally, I think that’s an overbroad definition of anti-Semitism, but it would at least be consistent.

Or, if you want to say that the word "feminazi" is appalling, but not anti-Semitic, then that’s fine too - but show the same leniency when talking about liberals and leftists. Either anti-Semitism requires prejudicial intent, or it doesn’t. Either it’s defined narrowly, or broadly. You can’t have it one way for conservatives, and another for liberals.

Related links: D-Squared Digest thinks he has a solution: Let’s just stop using the words "Israeli" and "Zionist" and replace them with "Likudist". (The permalink doesn’t seem to be working, so scroll around for the October third entry named "Politics and the English Language, redux.")

Organizers of the Harvard petition respond to Larry Summers.

Junkyardblog says "ya got me. Fair ’nuff" in response to this post of mine. I gotta say, I admire that - it takes class to admit you’ve made a mistake. It would have been even better if he hadn’t made excuses for the ways conservatives use "Feminazi" - excuses that I doubt he’d make for left-wingers who think calling their opponents"Nazi" is funny.

UPDATES: Armed Liberal and In Context have both posted replies to my post. Also, Meryl Yourish has posted her thoughts on the divestment issue.

Regarding the “talking about Israel if you’re not also talking about every other abusive state in the world is anti-Semitism” meme, I think D-Squared Digest pretty much covered it:

Finally, thanks to Ignatz for his very kind link to this post.