I should have mentioned that I saw this video clip on the excellent Mondoweiss blog, which has a new entry on the Harvard opposition to Peretz here.
September 26, 2010
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I should have mentioned that I saw this video clip on the excellent Mondoweiss blog, which has a new entry on the Harvard opposition to Peretz here.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“Martin Peretz is a good example of that subset of Americans whose single-minded dedication to Israel makes them, for all intents and purposes, agents of a foreign power.” — Lawrence Davidson
http://www.counterpunch.org/davidson09202010.html
Comment by Karl Friedrich — September 26, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
“We were for the last Gulf War and for aid to the Contras,” Peretz said. Comparing The New Republic to its close competitor The Nation, Peretz said, “Whatever The Nation was for we were against. Whatever The Nation was against we were for. The only thing we share was we were rather soft on Stalin in the late 1930s.” — Marty Peretz
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02212003.html
Comment by Karl Friedrich — September 26, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
good riddance to Marty.
Comment by Jihad Punk 77 — September 27, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
actually, there’s really not that much difference between The Nation and The New Republic, except that The Nation provides a forum for those who want to engage in handwringing about Israel and the rightward drift of American politics
at the end of the day, they support a very similar group of politicians, and both oppose BDS
Eric Alterman is a pretty indication of where The Nation is really at, other columnists and articles aside, and he’s not that far removed from Peretz
Comment by Richard Estes — September 27, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
I think the Nation has its faults, but after all it is a magazine that publishes Chris Parenti, Jeremy Scahill and Greg Grandin. Of course, there’s a lot of liberal pap but it *is* preferable to The New Republic.
Comment by louisproyect — September 27, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
That’s true about Alterman, basically a not-so-closeted Zionist, who may have been slightly uncomfortable about the War in Iraq but had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan.
He tried redbaiting me once the only time I met him, on a Nation Cruise, the scrawny little schmuck, with his smug little grin: “What, are you a communist?” he scowled. His jaw dropped when I retorted back with a question in front of his female friends: “What, are you a capitalist? I’m for expropriating the expropriators and if you’re not then you’re in the minority on this boat.”
This was before Hitchens, who was also on the ship, transmogrified into an arch neocon, and still defended Cuba, although he insisted they needed UN monitored elections for him to sustain his defense. I asked him if he meant elections like those imposed upon the Sandinistas, with CIA backed opponents and an imperialist financed opposition press. He said yes.
The next day Alterman spoke in front of a hundred fifty or more in an auditorium on the ship and was booed off the stage when he argued that it was tough at cocktail parties to defend lazy welfare recipients.
The clueless bastard didn’t realize 80% of the old fogies in attendence were ex-CPers, about the same percentage as what’s left of the the Nation’s readership.
Alterman’s being definitely determines his consciousness, which is just a notch below an Aristocrat.
Comment by Karl Friedrich — September 27, 2010 @ 10:06 pm