Attackerman Attacked for Attacking Anti-Semitism

Spencer Ackerman has up a very sensible, bordering on mundane, article objecting to the use of the term "Israel-firster". The point is simple: "Israel-firster" has a sharp anti-Semitic pedigree (not to mention it might be conceptually incoherent if we're to accept the premise that even minorities are allowed to construct and forward their own conception of American "interests") and should be abandoned. It's not like it plays some critical role in buttressing the progressive argument regarding the proper US/Israel relationship or the best policies for securing a safe, democratic, Jewish state of Israel. That's a debate progressives are well-positioned to win on the merits, what with the GOP going all one-stater.

Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer who's just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).

Ackerman on Beinart on Iraq

Former TNR writer Spencer Ackerman comments on Peter Beinart's explanation for why he supported the Iraq war, calling it "one of the most honest, reflective, and insightful things I've read in a good long while."

Peter explains his support for the war through his admiration for the Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya. Kanan, one of the most guileless and brave people I've ever been privileged to meet, is someone I hold in similar esteem. (It probably says something about the times we live in that Cruelty and Silence -- an overview of Iraqi desperation and its apologists -- appears more apt and poignant than Republic of Fear does.) If there's anything I'd add to Peter's column, it would be this: it wasn't Kanan's fault that anyone supported the Iraq war -- wait, wait, hang on, let's make this more personal. It wasn't Kanan's fault that I supported the Iraq war. It was for wanting to believe so badly in the righteousness of America's terrible swift sword. I wanted to be worthy of the respect of such a brave man as Kanan that I ended up unworthy of it by abandoning rigor.

One final thing. Many of you out there really, really dislike Peter Beinart. I hope you'll read his column and see him as I see him: a scrupulous, honest writer who doesn't stop challenging himself. If he falls short, he acknowledges it and tries to learn from the mistake.

Ackerman's blog is titled "toohotfortnr," which points to the circumstances of his departure from the magazine. Both Ackerman and Beinart speak for me on this issue, and I urge everyone to read both of their pieces.