History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Jeremy Boggs will host History Carnival XLI at ClioWeb on 15 October. Send nominations of exemplary posts since 1 October to his contact or use the form.
Scott McLemee,"To Tell the Truth," Washington Post, 10 October, reviews Myra MacPherson's All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone.
Emma Brockes,"My Times with Susan," Guardian, 7 October, reviews Annie Liebovitz, A Photographer's Life: 1990-2005, the years of her relationship with Susan Sontag.
Richard Byrne,"A Collision of Prose and Politics," CHE, 13 October, explores the tensions in Iranian/American intellectual life that are revealed in Hamid Dabashi's public attack on Azar Nafisi's best-selling novel,
Reading Lolita in Teheran. See also: Richard's sidebar,"Peeking Under the Cover," CHE, 13 October.
i'm a little surprised to see otherwise well-informed people spreading these rumors about Israeli immigration. ANY conversion from any rabbi in the US is acceptable for the purposes of citizenship. Even the gay reform rabbi who performed my wife's conversion. she's an Israeli citizen now, as am I.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
True the issue is not settled, but as of now the religious courts have control in issues of marriage and divorce. Not immigration.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Those are good questions--and that's why, in my one election as an Israeli voter, i voted Shinui--the rightwing anti-religious party . . .
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
The ADL is certainly wrong to try to "silence" Judt, if that's what they are doing. But the WaPost article seriously underestimates the offensiveness of Judt's position. In his NY Review articles, in particular, he presented a "Jewish cabal" theory of modern history--the ADL is right to be concerned.
Here's the best thing yet written on Judt. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031027&;s=wieseltier102703
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Sorry about the link--you can find the whole thing by doing a Google search--it's a great article.
In any event, the ADL completely denies Judt's charges:
New York, NY, October 5, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement in response to accusations by New York University history professor Tony Judt regarding the cancellation of his speech at the Polish consulate in New York City. In a widely circulated e-mail, Judt claimed the October 3 "talk was cancelled because the Polish consulate had been threatened by the Anti-Defamation League."
Tony Judt's accusations about the Anti-Defamation League's supposedly forcing the Polish consulate in New York to cancel his appearance are unfounded and part and parcel of Judt's conspiratorial ideas about pro-Israel groups and "Jewish control" of U.S. foreign policy.
In no way did the League urge or demand that the Polish consulate cancel the October 3 event. Indeed, Polish consular officials have publicly made clear that the decision to cancel the talk was theirs and theirs alone.
ADL does not believe in stifling freedom of speech on this issue or any other. Rather, we believe strongly that all views should be heard in our free society, and that the answer to extremist or offensive speech is to counter it -- just as vigorously -- with more speech.
Sadly, Mr. Judt is now using this incident to mount a campaign of disinformation to tar his critics and to further his claim of a conspiracy to stifle anti-Israel activists from having their say. His arguments lack credibility, given the many prominent public forums he has enjoyed over the years including, the op-ed page of the New York Times and many speaking engagements in New York City, most recently at Cooper Union, and elsewhere.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
I admit that it's possible--maybe even likely. But I also know that the ADL, and Jewish organizations generally, are often accussed of "pulling the strings" behind the scenes. It's a pretty classic accusation.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Yes, I agree, although no one (neither I nor teh ADL) said anything about anti-semitism. But if Judt' speech was cancelled because he has spoken of his "hatred" for Israel, does that make persecution of him a witch-hunt?
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Yes, it's also a little odd when a man who holds an endowed chair at a major university--a man whose every word makes its way to the NY Times and the NY Review of Books--a man whose latest book is a bestseller--insists on presenting himself as a victime of a big bad lobby out to "silence" him.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
I agree that the rhetoric should be restrained, but so far the ADL has denied calling the Polish Embassy, or doing anything of the sort. Other than just instinctively knowing that they, you know, lie, does Ralph have any evidence that they contacted the Polish Embassy? And, if not, why is so confident that he's right?
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
"but there's no claim that the ADL had _no_ contact with the Polish Embassy about Judt's talk."
So we're again back to proving a negative. There's no proof, that I know of, that you don't own slaves. I'll take your word that you don't, however, because it would be out of character.
I allowed that it was possible that the ADL contacted them--you assert it AS FACT.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Fair enough. If Judt were out and out lying, the ADL would let us know in more strident terms.
David Lion Salmanson -
10/12/2006
But why should my kids have to convert at all? And why do the religious courts have any auhtority other than kosher certification?
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
What's true for our respective spouses is not true for our children, nor is the issue settled.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
We're in the same position, basically, and it's roughly coeval with the Palestinian question with regard to my extremely tepid support of Israel in practical terms.
Judt's solution, though, as I understand it, is not to clarify the situation, but to abandon it. "If I can't play, nobody can play" is a very troubling position to take on matters of such significance...
David Lion Salmanson -
10/11/2006
Ok, Jonathon, but as a Jew I don't see it the way you do. Judt is right in noting that a relatively small proportion of ultra-religious Jews in Israel hold disproportionate amounts of power and use it in ways that are offensive to other Jews. My kids can't emigrate to Israel without going through Orthodox convesuib because their mother wouldn't be recognized as Jewish even if they were synagogue members and had Bar Mitzhav etc.. This is blatantly a problem, and not one that we (Jews)talk about publicly enough. But face it, the religious auhtorities in Israel are heading down a road that leads to Judaism equals a race not a creed.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
do you think I was unaware that you are Jewish?
No.
I don't know that I think identity constitutes expertise in these things
It's not expertise, but perspective. You don't see these arguments the same way I do. That's a fact. Identity is not expertise per se, but the experience of identity over time is a kind of knowledge....
Do you think Tony Judt's not Jewish?
I don't care: his argument amounts to abandonment of the concept of Israel as a Jewish nation and homeland which binds the Israeli and Diasporic communities.
And, if you're referring to canards, you might name them.
I did name them: you don't agree with my characterization of them, is all.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/11/2006
All due respect, Jon, but do you think I was unaware that you are Jewish? I don't know that I think identity constitutes expertise in these things. Do you think Tony Judt's not Jewish? Do you think he doesn't know that he's been on the receiving end? And, if you're referring to canards, you might name them.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
All due respect, Ralph, but some of these arguments do sound a bit different when you're on the receiving end of them, and it gets tiresome beating back the same canards over and over....
Ralph E. Luker -
10/11/2006
I have yet to see any indication that any of them have the illusion that Israel has no self-determinative right or that Jews, individually or collectively, should have no right to defend their self-interests in public, private, or political venues. The ADL would have been well within its vaunted claims as an advocate of free speech had it lobbied for the hearing of an alternative perspective. It did not, apparently, go that route.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
The last time I heard reports about it, Judt, et al., had not lobbied to deny public platforms to their critics
They're arguing against Israeli self-determination, and against the rights of Jews to argue in their own interests in the political arena. They don't have any trouble finding friendly venues.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/11/2006
The last time I heard reports about it, Judt, et al., had not lobbied to deny public platforms to their critics. Sure ..., there's no law against doing it and probably shouldn't be, but when it happens, the people who do it need to be called out for their behavior and shouldn't be allowed to pose any longer as advocates of free speech. That's the hypocracy exposed by the ADL's own press release. The ADL could have lobbied for an additional presentation from another point of view. The consequence of their actions was to deny a public venue to someone with whom they disagreed.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
That's not really where that road goes, I don't think. I'm simply saying that it cuts both ways: Judt, M\W, etc., think that there's far too much free speech and free association going on among Jews, too.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/11/2006
The ADL is responsible for the intentions of their speech. Really, if you go down this road, you can bar all discussion of Israel in this country -- except those that are in lock-step agreement with its government's policies. I know you well enough to know that that isn't where you want to go.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/11/2006
Your summary errs. Judt made the claim, ADL doesn't deny it (when its self-interest would have made that a reasonable claim to make, if it were true), and you allow for the possibility. A reasonable person can conclude that it is true.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/11/2006
Is the ADL responsible for all of the effects of their free speech (and to be fair, this is one of the issues they have with Judt, as with M/W, that the effects of their speech go well beyond their "good intentions"), or is it the Polish government who made the decision of reasonably free will?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
ADL might have made its commitment to free speech very clear had it made a claim for an additional presentation that offered an alternative perspective. The effect of its contact was to close speech down -- not to open it up.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/10/2006
Every since reading Mill's On Liberty I've run across many examples of a contradiction .... no, a tension, which runs through all free speech discussions. Judt is free to say anything he wants, anywhere he is invited or otherwise free to go.
But the ADL, its representatives, allies, etc., are also free to say anything they want, in public and in private.
People who control venues -- halls, universities, publications, broadcast media -- have to make decisions about what's appropriate for their audiences and their purposes. They even have the right, within the limits of contracts and agreements, to change their minds. (I wish more people would change their minds publicly. It's not an admission of failure, but of growth. Sometimes)
I'm not in favor of "behind the scenes" action, and this is what disturbs me about the Judt case, as with so many others: I want our disagreements to be active, ongoing, public. That's the way to make progress. It's an old position, but still a powerful one: more speech, not less. But quantity and quality are two different things: speech which engages is better than that which harangues; dialogue is better than monologue; clarity is better than fogginess (and here is where I mostly fail)....
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Look at the ADL press release that _you_ quoted. When it had the most obvious opportunity to deny having contacted the Polish Embassy regarding Tony Judt's appearance, the ADL doesn't deny doing it. It obviously wants to make clear that the cancellation is the Embassy's responsibility, but there's no claim that the ADL had _no_ contact with the Polish Embassy about Judt's talk. What sort of evidence would convince you? Would ADL e-mail threatening to nuke Poland convince you?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Look: nobody's come anywhere _near_ talk about a conspiracy or "an evil cabal to ruin America." When you run the rhetoric that high in response to criticism, you try to make criticism itself altogether impossible. The fact is that the ADL contacted the Polish Embassy about Judt's speaking there. His speech was cancelled at the very last hour. If the ADL were acting to extend free speech, it would have acted otherwise. Nothing you've said changes that.
David J Merkowitz -
10/10/2006
No it doesn't however one of the hardest things to disprove is a conspiracy. Especially when the conspiracist often finds it easy to shift from a cabal with meetings to a cabal by virtue of mindset. I am not speaking particularly of Judt or Mearsheimer here but the broader question of how does deal with being implicated in an evil cabal to ruin America.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Ah, I see. _That_ Judt is already well-published makes is acceptable to sabotage _some_ of his speaking engagements. Start tolerating that behavior and there's no end to it.
David J Merkowitz -
10/10/2006
I don't know Ralph. It just doesn't smell right. I really do think that anti-Semitism has become far more insidious in public discourse in recent years and the fact that some Jews are fellow-traveling doesn't really change the reality.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Isn't that the characteristic accusation anytime anyone says anything critical of a Jewish organization? Anti-semitism is too serious a business to name it every time someone criticizes an action by a Jewish organization. The overuse of the insinuation, with the intention of immunizing the group, can have the effect of making the charge lack telling power when it's needed and accurate. If the ADL made the contact prior to Judt's appearance -- and not with the intent of stimulating additional speech but stifling speech -- it was out of line.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Don't be naive, Mr. Reich. The ADL does not deny that it contacted the Polish Embassy in regard to Tony Judt's talk and _something_ caused the Polish Embassy to cancel the talk at the very last minute. Had the ADL taken an interest in promoting free speech, it _might_ have contacted the Polish Embassy following Judt's talk and suggested some speaker to appear in the future to offer a different perspective. That didn't happen. What happened was that the ADL contacted the Polish Embassy and a talk was cancelled.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/10/2006
Because it is "subscriber only," your citation isn't very illuminating. We are left to your assurance that Leon Wieseltier thinks that Tony Judt promotes a "Jewish cabal" theory of modern history. Having read a good bit of both Tony Judt's and Leon Wieseltier's work, I'm skeptical that all is as you say it is.
