« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

An Anti-Semite?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 26th, 2011 at 08:59 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m so used to being called a Zionist, among other things, I am actually shocked tonight to learn Jenn Rubin thinks this statement makes me anti-Semitic:

A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it.

I nor the friend of mine who offered that up are anti-Semitic, but it has apparently hit a nerve that I did not intend to hit and I feel I do need to apologize for that. A friend of mine explains to me that a Jewish-American might find it insulting because it suggests they put Israel ahead of the United States.

I had not thought of that when writing it and was not my intention. Where I finally had enough of Jenn Rubin was her position on Jonathan Pollard that I cannot in any way, shape, or form comprehend as being the right position. It was that position of hers and her positions on national security, terrorism, and Israel (all three of which she and I see eye to eye on) that didn’t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that’s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism.

I do not think Jenn Rubin is a conservative. On those positions she and the Politico chose to highlight on fiscal issues, I actually don’t buy that she is as right as claimed, though certainly more center than left. Through the budget shutdown fights of the past year, she routinely chose to side with the establishment GOP, not the conservatives trying to fight for smaller government, has been less than kind to Jim DeMint, etc. The one anomaly has been her coverage of Rick Santorum.

But all of that is another matter to this anti-Semitism business. My initial reaction was that I must have hit close to home for her to cry foul in that way. But after a friend explained to me the implication — that it suggested a loyalty to Israel above a loyalty to the United States among other things — that’s absolutely not what I meant and certainly do apologize for leaving anyone, including Jenn, with that impression.

We can fight on other matters, including whether she’s a conservative, but I don’t question her love of this country.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    Supporting Pollard is putting Israel above the United States.

    That’s a charge I wouldn’t level against anyone else on the Right, but her mania on the subject is enough to call Rubin’s actual loyalties into question.

  • Green_Lantern

    from a principled conservative looks like, ladies and gentlemen.

    As opposed to what you hear most often:

    “I’m sorry people were too stupid to know what I meant.”

    Erick, even though you aren’t trying to be a leader by apologizing for something you said, you are still being one.

    /kindness

  • Green_Lantern

    n/t

  • panhandler

    On this topic, I thought I’d mention a recent experience of mine. On my car, I recently decided to put a license plate frame on my car that says “I stand with Israel”…available from Cafepress.com (shameless plug). I have always supported Israel, but as my conservative Christian views have become better defined over the past three years, that support has become stronger. I didn’t give it a lot of thought, but when I was introduced the other day to a very nice Israeli Jew at an event, I realized my acquaintance who introduced me had ASSUMED I was Jewish because of my license plate. It seems that there may be a lot of Americans who feel the only people who possibly support Israel are Jewish, which is obviously not the case. It is more important than ever for us as Christians or conservatives to be more public in our support of Benjamin Netanyahu and his embattled nation. They are among our closest allies, and deserve our steadfast support.

  • rubb

    Thank you Erick. What you wrote didn’t affect me personally, but it is nice to see somebody step up, and be a man about what they wrote. No slick, no slime, just straight.

  • daemonocracy

    You had nor eason to apologize, all you had to do was explain what you meant. so she pulls the anti-semite card like your typical liberal and you backpedal immediately?

    You did nothing wrong, you have nothing to apologize for. She couldn’t answer your criticism so whipped out the intolerance card.

  • Michael Dugas

    If she actually thought you meant she was putting Israel BEFORE the United States how is that anti-Semitic? She has every right ti think it’s insulting in some way , if she chooses so, but I can’t see how in any way shape or form it can be construed as anti-Semitic. Makes no sense.

  • aesthete

    that dates back to the Cold War casting Jewish-Americans as a whole as Bolsheviks and fifth columnists whose allegiances were to leftist movements in general, Zionism, and sometimes both. It tends to be associated with the Old Right, though it was also an attack levied by nationalist leftists. Today, it is more prevalent among authoritarian and labor movements on the left than it is among the broad right (though it is not a mainstream view in any part of American society, thankfully).

  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    If you assume that someone who is Jewish and pro-Israel puts the interests of Israel before those of the US, based on them being Jewish and pro-Israel, that’s anti-Semitic; it indulges a stereotype in place of analysis, and one that is very commonly deployed by anti-Semites. It’s what Obama did in his 2002 war speech to Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

    But if you argue that there is actual evidence that someone who is Jewish and pro-Israel puts the interests of Israel over those of the US, that’s not ant-Semitic. And that’s what backing Pollard is – it’s the rare case where US and Israeli interests are in direct collision, and Rubin favors the Israeli position.

  • lucasblack

    I think Erick did the right thing. I have no doubt that he meant it the way he has explained, but sometimes by mistake your comment can be misinterpreted. I don’t like weasel word apologies – I’d rather an honest and clear apology or none at all. Nor do I see what he did as ‘backpedaling’ – he repeated his position and clarified it. Good for him!

  • drivlikejehu

    I don’t understand why Erick apologized. Let’s be real here- does Rubin seriously think he is an anti-semite? Obviously not. It was a card she played because it’s a powerful attack, far more so than just the regular old race card. Erick was clearly referring to her political views.

    It does serve as another demonstration of Rubin’s left-wing mindset, whereby she uses the fact she’s Jewish to dodge legitimate criticism of her politics and ethics. Conservatives should completely reject that sort of thing, which is all the more ludicrous when you consider she did it against an ardent supporter of Israel.

  • daemonocracy

    My point is there was no need for an apology, just a further explanation of what he meant.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    1. I posted yesterday on her 7:30 “bits” site a rather aggressive attack…but it didn’t appear; I decided to break-it-up in future postings, and I will aggressively monitor her site.

    2. She is a disappointment, the Frum/Brooks of print-media mirroring the Smerconish/Scarborough of the broadcast-media; my friend Bob Guzzardi and I have dubbed these pundits as extreme-RINO’s…using the term “DIABLO” [Democrat In All But Label Only].

    3. I met her in suburban-Philly a few months ago @ an event sponsored by the RJC; she didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know, but she was enjoyable.

    4. I have read/viewed passionate arguments for/against Pollard’s release, but it is erroneous to portray this as a polarized “Isvael v. America” debate.

    5. I function from the premise that there is no justification for any “sunlight” to exist between the public policies of these two Big/Little “Satans.”

    6. Knowing this, there is no justification to elevate this debate to the level of prejudicial accusations.

    7. Viewed within the context of the Romney-shill portrayal, the conflict between WaPo and RedState is metaphorical for the intra-GOP fight for the POTUS-nomination [nominally, Mitt v. Rick].

    8. Each posting that she provided [all-day] was anti-Perry; for example, even as the consensus view is that the race remains “fluid,” she would want to claim Perry is finished…even as he has internally/externally relaunched.

    9. I equate anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, for multiple reasons; this is the level of radar-alerting that must be applied when vetting the commentaries that range from neo-isolationists [Paulites on the Right] to progressives/statists [BHO-accolytes on the Left].

    10. My bias remains pro-Perry and [increasingly] anti-”Everyone Else.”

    These concepts will be now applied to the aforementioned essay.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …let’s analyze the dynamics of what is transpiring, recognizing that it carries wide-ranging implications within the GOP. [In this regard, the talking-heads @ MSNBC are self-marginalized, for they invariably demonstrate the tendency to toss stink-bombs and, thus, must be viewed solely for entertainment-value.] Here, the discussion starts with the assumption that all parties are “sincere,” but that motivations must be probed…for it is fair-game to “poke” [as Rick feels can be done regarding BHO's Birther situation, channeling The Donald].

    1. It is incorrect to portray the Likud as socially-liberal ["Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy"]; it has many factions.

    2. The label “Likud” is itself problematic regarding its being “tough as nails,” noting the effects of Bibi’s prisoner-swap last week; one must note a subset of this group led–for example–by Moshe Feiglin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin#Feiglin_in_the_Likud] as more reflective outside-Israel of what actually exists inside-Israel.

    3. EE should not have adopted an apologetic posture, for doing so actually plays into the hands of those who would attempt to manipulate either/both (a)–his message…(b)…the way his message is conveyed/perceived.

    4. I do not see [c]overt anti-Semitism afoot, here, and Ihave been, during my adult-decades, highly sensitive to any manifestation of anti-Semitism , as emerged locally as I rail against those who support a pseudo-conservative blogger [http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/news_columnists/jd_mullane/bucks-tea-partier-sells-nazi-items/article_e9a60866-83c1-5a62-ac8b-4ad914606589.html?success=1#user-comment-area].

    5. Often [and the ADL has been particularly noted for such activity] the charge of anti-Semitism is intended to ameliorate conservatives; I recounted some experiences @ the aforementioned blogging-site that–almost two decades hence–haven’t altered my perception of how people mangle others who are unsuspecting targets for such unfair accusations.

    6. For this reason, you were properly self-aware ["My initial reaction was that I must have hit close to home for her to cry foul in that way"], behaving precisely as she had intended; the subsequent comments clearly show that your actual viewpoint of Jennifer [NOT "a loyalty to Israel above a loyalty to the United States "] was actually on-point.

    7. The import of the initial comment supra ["her mania on the subject is enough to call Rubin?s actual loyalties into question"] is the gravamen of what should properly emerge from this altercation; indeed, recognition of this powerful dynamic dramatizes the profundity of the challenge faced by fact-checkers whom bloggers such as Jennifer are openly subverting.

    8. To illustrate the actual dynamic at-play, I recall attending a D.C. event years ago and hearing a broad range of opinions on many defense-related matters] @ a meeting of JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]; I was amazed @ the lack of homogeneity [all well-supported conversationally] by these insiders.

    9. Applying this recollection to Pollard, therefore, it is necessary to look @ the situation broadly/legally; if the U.S. Government reneged on its plea-deal, this should be the unified focus of attack…but if he truly damaged America’s deepest secrets [and not just Osirak], then the necessary retooling reflected a strong “rogue” nature to his [mis]conduct.

    10. Thus, pragmatism [informed, for example, by disinterested portrayals of the database @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard] must prevail; regardless, however, “anti-Semitism” accusations were totally bogus.

  • celador2

    I agree there was no need to apologize and it was for Rubin to back up the anti Semite charge. The charge deflects most policy criticisms as it did now Erik is defending himself and Rubin is a victim?

    She is more concerned for Israel than US it looks to me. I took that for granted, Her politics are too liberal for me too. Ther is more to constitutional conservatism than foreign affiars. In fact not medmdlin’ is more my cup of tea.

    Where is Romney on Pollllard?

  • celador2

    if there are any apologies in orde and I think not–
    Rubin owes RS and/or Erik an apology for her slander if the remarks now require to apologize.

  • gmscan

    – says all I need to know –

    “You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?” Rubin asked. “My arms are not long enough to punch down that far.”

    Whatever else she may be she is an East Coast elitist. Kind of what Joe Scarborough has become.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    Erick, you need not have apologized. I like and will use the label DIABLO. I think this label applies to Ms. Rubin.

    David Jacobson, DO

  • bobguzzardi

    Supporting or opposing the release of Jonathan Pollard is not, by itself, anti-Semitic, in my opinion. The Pollard issue is perceived by many American Jews, particularly older Jews who have experienced a Double Standard, incorrectly, in my opinion, as selective enforcement of the law. It is crystal clear to all and admitted by all that Jonathan Pollard is a traitor, acting as an agent of Rafi Eitan and the Israeli government, who did great and very costly harm to US national defense.

    I am a Zionist, a Jew who believes the Torah are God’s Words to us, and an American and never thought there was an contradiction or dual loyalty although I am sensitive to that charge. In my opinion, supporting Israel’s interests, which is not always the same as the government’s interests, is necessary for American national defense. Whom should America support, serial mass murdering terrorist Bashar al-Assad or the numerous other serial, mass murdering terrorist dictators in the Middle East.

    I am very active supporter of what I consider the only Jewish Defense organization in America, the Zionist Organization of America.

    May I ask how would a “Palestinian” State, another terrorist state in the Middle East reduce violence or promote peace in Middle East and elsewhere. Even though GW Bush and Tony Blair supported the idea, even lip service encourages violence.

    Erik Erickson, like Rick Perry, is a solid supporter of Israel’s interests, (markedly different from interest of Likud, Labor or the Netanyahu government itself).

    Jen Rubin is a nice person, and a very smart person, She is a Neo Con Liberal and Romney spokesperson. Too bad. Being smart is not always the same thing as being right although try telling that to the pseudo intellectual, faux sophisticates at WaPo.

    Jen Rubin identifies, it seems to me, with the WallStreetWashingtonEstablishment, not a friend of the Forgotten Taxpayer or Constitutional Conservatives.

    Thanks Erik for all you do. Bob Guzzardi Ardmore Penna www.thelibertyblog.org bobguzzardi@bobguzzardi.com.

  • bobguzzardi

    The free Pollard movement is driven by American Diaspora Jewry which sees the sentence as one not fitting the crime ( personally, I think some of these traitors should be executed).

    Israeli governments have asked for release because of pressure from American Jewry. As we can see, it has not happened and, if all goes well, it won’t.

    The Israeli government was complicit with Pollard and it was a big, big mistake resulting from monumental arrogance and misplaced support of an attention getting Pollard.

  • devereaux

    Rubin is throwing down a poisonous charge. Trying to silence. But it does work.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    EE should WITHDRAW his apology!!!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …it need NOT “work”!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    As per Guzzardi’s posting, you are in-error when you write “US and Israeli interests are in direct collision” regarding this issue.

    As we have painstakingly explained, there are many fundamental concerns harbored by both sides of this issue THAT ARE DEVOID of reflex assumptions; Zionists argue both perspectives, because we prioritize the Talmudic balance of justice and mercy.

    Guzzardi also noted the sad collision of Wall St. v. Main St., and this is the proper underlying paradigm that must be confronted when choosing a POTUS-GOP candidate; other questions then answer themselves.

  • WY_Cowboy

    I don’t think Rubin actually addressed Erick’s orginal column at all, at least not publicly. I never saw Jennifer Rubin call Erick an anti-semite. She just didn’t make that charge, at least not publicly. I think it was John McCormack at the Weekly Standard that called into question Erick’s original blog post, and he did it in a constructive and appropriate way.

    CNN Contributor & RedState Blogger Erick Erickson Calls WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin “Likud”

    I, for one, appreciate Erick’s clarification. I think it was appropriate, as were his criticisms of her positions on some issues, especially with regard to Pollard.

    In the end, no harm, no foul.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Recall this heinous quote:

    ?You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?? Rubin asked. ?My arms are not long enough to punch down that far.?

    And then ask yourself why EE [directly/indirectly] was slimed.

  • YnotNOW

    That the US must stand strong with Israel as our closest and most embattled ally. And even more so for conservatives and Christians that have important philosophical ties with the Jewish people.

  • WY_Cowboy

    if Erick believed his comments didn’t need clarification, and if he didn’t believe he needed to apologize, he wouldn’t have done it. You seem to imply that EE is easliy cowed by anti-semetic charges and wrongly clarifies and appologizes for comments that require neither, simple because the charge is levied. Doesn’t square with me.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …that anyone wishing to blog on the Weekly-Standard site must be a subscriber; perhaps someone may wish to provide a hyperlink to this site thereupon, so that a fair/balanced assessment of what was inappropriately done to EE can be provided to its readership.

    I will not be extorted into subscribing simply to do this, particularly because of what is now emerging to be a Perry vs. Establishment-GOP tug-of-war.

  • barleycorn

    I think apologizing is called for when you have been rude or unfair. Inadvertently stepping on a sore spot you didn’t realize existed should be something that a simple explanation makes “all better”.

  • RonLewenberg

    “d I see eye to eye on) that didn?t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that?s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism.”
    Erik, you don’t know what you are talking about. The Likud Party has been privatising Israel’s economy, implementing free trade, and ending government monopolies.
    It is not tough as nails on terrorism. The deal to free 1000 plus terrorists for one Israeli soldier proves that.

  • Michael Dugas

    That’s not even close to the same thing. And Rubin has a lot of gall talking about ?You want a Washington Post journalist to comment on an anti-Semitic screed by some blogger?? Rubin asked. ?My arms are not long enough to punch down that far.?
    She was a blogger herself so where does she get off dissing bloggers?
    Also Rubin is NOT a Conservative Republican. She is what I call a small (r) republican in the same cast as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And the likening to Likud is NOT anti_Semitic as like Likud she is anti terrorist and pro security but leans left on just about everything else.

  • publious