iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
MJ Rosenberg

MJ Rosenberg

Posted: September 8, 2010 04:42 PM

As Rosh Hashanah begins, and Ramadan ends, the virulent Muslim-baiting continues.

The controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is only a pretense to express the hate that was already there. On Wednesday, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives refused to condemn the burning of Qurans by a deranged fanatic in Florida. He even suggested a moral equivalence between the building of the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan and the burning of the Qurans. He refused to condemn the Quran burning despite the echoes from Berlin in the 1930s and despite General Petraeus' warning that defiling Qurans would endanger American troops in Muslim countries.

It's getting bad.

This past spring, the radical right and its mouth pieces (especially Fox News) were all about immigrant bashing. But, by summer, the illegal immigrant bogeyman was replaced by the "Sharia-imposing" Muslims. As we've learned, there is absolutely nothing one cannot say about Muslims, no lines that can't be crossed when it comes to them.

But while Muslim-baiting has become part of the right's platform, that doesn't mean liberals are guiltless.

Take for instance Marty Peretz, owner of the New Republic. Peretz is no right-winger. In fact, he is on the left on most issues and so is his magazine. As long ago as 1968, he took a considerable chunk of his wife's fortune and put it into the anti-Vietnam war movement and Eugene McCarthy's candidacy for president.

But he hates Muslims. Initially, he limited his hate to Arabs, particularly Palestinians. But once the Israeli government came around to accept the legitimacy of Palestinians as a negotiating partner, Peretz began to lose it. He felt betrayed by Israelis -- he is positively obscene in his loathing for Israeli President Shimon Peres -- who for some reason are not as willing to fight to the last Israeli as he is.

Yesterday, Peretz wrote that American Muslims should not be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. Here is the full quote, which also includes the observation, standard for Peretz, that "Muslim life is cheap" (it is to Peretz).

According to him:

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

In this quote, Peretz manages to outdo Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Emerson, Pam Gellar, and even Daniel Pipes.

In general, the right invokes the Constitution (and particularly the First Amendment) as protection for all Americans and then segues into the argument that although Muslim Americans have First Amendment rights, they should show "sensitivity" and not invoke them.

But not Peretz. He believes Muslims are unworthy of the rights that even protected Nazis marching in Jewish neighborhoods and those Kansas lunatics who loudly picket the funerals and publicly cheer the deaths of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Peretz suggests that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right but rather offers a "privilege" to which Muslims are not entitled.

At a time when prejudice and hate seems to have taken a hold in public discourse unlike anything seen since the days of Jim Crow, a quasi-liberal publisher in Massachusetts has taken mere hatred and raised it to the level of advocating the denial of constitutional rights to millions of Americans because of their religion.

Because Peretz is still known as a Democrat and even a liberal by those who have not followed his relatively recent descent into racial paranoia, his proposal for stripping Muslims of First Amendment rights will have traction.

Peretz has now unambiguously joined some of the most hateful elements in America, many of whom would strip adherents of his own faith of constitutional protections, too. He is now beyond the pale.

Nonetheless, on Sept. 25, Peretz is being honored by "former [Harvard] students, friends, business colleagues, fellow faculty and journalists" who will be endowing the "Martin Peretz Undergraduate Research Fund."

According to an e-mail sent out by an organizer of this tribute, "The Fund will support undergraduate thesis research, special projects and the kinds of intellectual inquiry that Marty encouraged in his students. We will honor Marty at the 50th anniversary celebration in Cambridge on September 25, 2010."

Here is the list of those soliciting support for the Peretz honors. Some you will recognize.

Bill Ackman, Michael Alter, Linc Caplan, Gerry Cardinale, Susan Carney, Jim Cramer, Alan Dershowitz, EJ Dionne, John Driscoll, Daniel Dusek, Dan Ertel, Joe Finder, Frank Foer, Donald Gogel, Russell Goldsmith, Al Gore, Jamie Gorelick, Larry Grafstein, Don Graham, Marc Granetz, Amy Gutmann, Glenn Hutchins, David Ignatius, Janno Lieber, Donal Logue, Charles Nesson, Fern Nesson, Rob Oden, Steve Pinker, Lisbet Rausing, Henry Rosovsky, Nitza Rosovsky, Abigail Thernstrom, Stephan Thernstrom, Craig Turk, Sherry Turkle, Judith Walzer, Michael Walzer, Rich Waldhorn, Leon Wieseltier, Tom Williamson, Juan Carlos Zarate, Leonard Zax, Edward Zwick, and Jesse Zwick

To be fair, none of these Peretz associates knew what he would write yesterday. But surely all or most of them know that Peretz has been virulently racist in his writings about Muslims and Arabs for years, even decades. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein pointed out, "Peretz is rarely held to account, largely because there's an odd, tacit understanding that he's a cartoonish character and everyone knows it."

But he's not so cartoonish anymore. He has become a thuggish racist who, at a dangerous moment in our history, is doing everything he can to fan the flames of hatred.

The progressives on the list should get their names off, and fast.

As Rabbi David Saperstein said at yesterday's interfaith event in Washington denouncing Muslim-bashing, "We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent. It cannot happen here in America in 2010."

But it is. It is time to fight back.

***
To my Jewish and Muslim friends: L'Shanah Tovah and Eid Mubarak!

 

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

 
 
  • Comments
  • 128
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
07:11 AM on 09/26/2010
Why did it take this long for people to get onto Marty Peretz's bigotry? Eric Alterman has been writing about this for years. But, alas, the Washington press corp was silent.

Compare this to Helen Thomas:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/22/peretz_tho­mas_and_th­e_middle_e­ast_double­_standard/

It took the Helen Thomas a couple of days to play out.

And unlike Peretz, she did great things and great journalism:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100453
10:35 AM on 09/12/2010
Oh and unless Democrats have been privately longing to be better able to compete with Republicans when it comes to race-baiting middle white America about the "heathen brown hordes" they'd be smart to publically and unequivocally condemn a prominent Democrat claiming a group of some 3 billion people shouldn't be entitled to the "privileges" of the first amendment should they be American citizens. Saying that a particular enormous group of human beings isn't able to handle having too many rights is a horror best left to the right IMO.
10:30 AM on 09/12/2010
This canard about Muslims not crying out about Muslim on Muslim violence is just that - a canard and misleading and dishonest and so on. It's on par to the oft-repeated Republican line about black people not opposing black on black crime which is why the poor Republicans have been stuck with "speaking out". The first people to condemn Muslims committing violence of any sort in this country are usually Muslims and Arabs. That goes for Nidal, 9/11, "honor killings", that even goes for non Muslim Israeli CHRISTIANS who get caght committing murders. After Abuelazam got caught the first people shouting that he should be condemned where Muslim and Arab local organizations and mosques. As for Muslim on Muslim violence, basic Google searches will reveal hundreds of organizations dedicated to speaking out against Muslim on Muslim violence throughout the Muslim world including ostensible American allies like Egypt and Pakistan.

Much as black Americans have always loudly fought for more peaceful neighborhoods, better education, and more anti-violence initiatives and that too can be confirmed with a simple Internet search. But when the only time you talk about black people is to criticize them or to use Sharpton or Jesse for a ten second soundbite so you can pretend you care about "black issues" or that they speak for the black community as a whole - I suppose that kind of willful ignorance can be understood though not supported. The parallels are pretty striking IMO.
photo
submergingmkt
Economist, lawyer, investigative journal,activist
03:58 AM on 09/10/2010
To be fair, in context, Marty's remarks are just a rather insensitively-worded complaint about the hypocrisy of Muslims who criticize US and Israeli violations of Muslim rights while remaining mute about Muslim-on-Muslim violations.

Coming from anyone else, this might be worth debating. But most readers know by now that Marty Peretz usually approaches such subjects with his mind made up.

For all his early "liberalism," he has long since acquired a well-deserved reputation as a rather one-dimensional, reflexive Zionist -- perhaps a little more urbane than Alan Dershowitz, but no less obsessed with his own ethnicity.

Of course that is the very opposite of "liberal."

As a former tutee in Marty's Harvard Social Studies department back in the 1960s, I was also invited to that upcoming Cambridge confab. But I'm not going. This was a painful decision for me, but I made it long before Marty's latest off-the-wall remarks.

The fact is that many of us deeply admired Marty for his inspiring intellect and progressive values back in the late 1960s.

Since then, however, we've watched him gradually evolve into someone who is basically consumed by parochial loves and hates. That isn't unique -- many other once-liberal American Jews and non-Jews, blacks and whites, of that era also set out to find justice and peace in the world, and they also got lost. But we'd really prefer to remember Marty Peretz as he once was.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Sharmine Narwani
07:54 PM on 09/10/2010
You make really good points, but then fall into that narrative about Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Might you consider that Muslims might view this as plain "violence?" If a Muslim kills another Muslim in a Muslim-majority country - you think maybe this is looked upon as just a murder, instead of a "Muslim-on-Muslim" crime? We certainly don't call a shooting in Southeast DC a Christian-on-Christian murder. Which it normally is.

And anyway, how would you know if Muslims remain "mute" about violence in their various countries? It is pretty apparent to me that they are screaming at the top of their lungs about the atrocities going on in that part of the world.

The way we perceive things over here is so completely through our own lenses, it is no wonder our foreign policy initiatives are in the toilet.
05:30 PM on 09/09/2010
Eid Mubarak and Shanah Tovah!
photo
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
05:18 PM on 09/09/2010
Is anyone shocked that a Zionist Israeli doesn't think Muslim Americans count? Not shocking, a lot of them in New York....that is why this became such a big deal...

Someone like this should know better than to hate based on religion or ethnicity....seems he forgot about the events of WW II....short memory.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Jeff Cunningham
04:00 PM on 09/09/2010
the First Amendment applies to everyone who lives in this country. Period. End of story. We cannot, and must not, ever compromise on this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:29 AM on 09/09/2010
this may be off thread if so please excuse my temerity.
I am concerned that these folks from gainsville are going to get some folks killed and possibly expand the war. i am assuming the war in afganistan is a declared war. that being said the u.s. should be under the war powers act. this gives our president sweeping authority to do things. like stop lunatics from enciting a billion people against us(even more)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
12:01 PM on 09/09/2010
But it's their Constitutional right to do!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 PM on 09/09/2010
during a congressionally declared war the constitution is "put on the shelf" in the interest of national security .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
nastywolf
Pass 28th Amendment: Separation of Cash & State
11:15 AM on 09/09/2010
It's time for society to find a way to scrutinize certain religious practices and start doing something about those that are most repugnant, whether Chritian, Islamic, Buddhist or any other. Our Republic can not long tolerate being attacked by the systemic hate and acts of violence encouraged by many religions, behind the guise of free speech rights.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:26 PM on 09/09/2010
damn buddhists!!!!
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:28 AM on 09/09/2010
In Germany it is illegal to advocate Nazism.
Turkey has limits on the practice of Islam.
These nations limit free-speech right because they know the damage ideology does.

It is treason to advocate overthrowing the US government.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not be a theocracy.

It is clearly illegal to advocate that Sharia or Christian law be implemented in the US.
It is treason. There is a limit on all free speech, even here in the US.

So cut him some slack, he is not completely irrational, assuming he applies same to Christianity.
photo
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
05:20 PM on 09/09/2010
He is hating based on a religion AND ethnicity, that is wrong. Don't support racism and hate, our Constitution protects people against YOUR and HIS rhetoric, that can incite violence.

Interestingly enough you left Judaism off your little list up there...so his religion is exempts from your "limits".
Typical.
10:26 AM on 09/09/2010
I think Peretz is simply stating that the tolerance of intolerance is not progressive. We didn't do it for Communism and Facism so why should we bend to another totalitarian ideology. Having said that, I am also hostile to fundamentalist Christians and Mormons but at this historical juncture, their nutballs are a smaller minority than the 25-30% Muslim minority that has radical views according to Pew Research center surveys that are consistent in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. Still a minority mind you, but a fairly substantial one.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Sharmine Narwani
12:34 PM on 09/09/2010
Please link to the poll you refer to - "radical views" mean different things to different people. For instance, I would not consider it "radical" for 25% of Muslims to have an unfavourable impression of Americans, or our occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan or our support for Israel. But someone else might.

Polling is funny that way, and if you have ever taken a course on it, you will of course find that the questions skew the outcome. I just checked out Pew's homepage and didn't immediately see anything like you mentioned - so pls direct us to your poll. I did however see a recent poll that showed almost a fifth of Americans believing Obama is a Muslim - and that number keeps growing. Obviously there is a huge amount of ignorance and intolerance in this country - we probably should tackle that first before pointing fingers at others.
07:39 PM on 09/09/2010
Well spoken! If only wisdom were valued more in this country in all facets of life.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
03:27 AM on 09/12/2010
Sharmine Narwani  did I make you Laugh? only a little?
10:22 AM on 09/09/2010
Well, the liberals on Peretz' list probably won't be compelled to distance themselves from his hate-speech. They've never had any problem being associated with Alan Dershowitz, so I'm not hopeful the people on that list will feel any shame being associated with Peretz' particularly vile brand of hate either. The reality is, few of these people have any shame. They silently applaud their comrades' insanity; it gives voice to their real feelings. Ideologues on both the right and the left will continue to clamor; and idiots on the right and the left will continue to believe their idiocies. A pox on all their houses, as far as I'm concerned.
10:18 AM on 09/09/2010
Although SOME of your rights are MENTIONED in the constitution, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right". You had the same rights before the constitution - heck - you were BORN with them, no matter who or where you are. Why are you so insistent that we must ask permission to have rights? I, for one, do not hate Muslims. I am glad there are more than a hundred mosques in New York City. I do not think it was WISE to INSIST on building the community center right there. That's all - simple.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:33 AM on 09/09/2010
Don't be crazy, the rights you are born with depend on the laws of your country. "Natural rights" don't exist, though it seems like they should.

Think of the right to marry: you're not born with that right, marriage is a social invention. Belongs to everybody, not to you.

Throughout history humans have been tribal, the idea of individual versus group rights was absurd to them. You followed the tribes rules or you left. Same here: Ayn Rand is wrong. Society is what matters, not the individual. We'll all be dead 130 years from now, but hopefully society will still exist. People then won't give a fig about us as individuals, just as a group: did we wreck their planet?
billstewart
Not a micro-biologist
03:00 PM on 09/09/2010
The authors of the Constitution believed in natural rights. They also believed some rights were important enough to require explicitly listing them, not that that's been 100% effective in getting them enforced. But there are rights, like voting, that actually are created by the Constitution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:41 PM on 09/09/2010
we find these truths to be self evident , that all men (i prefer people)are created equally....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JibberJabberwocky
06:35 PM on 09/10/2010
Um... that's not from the Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
07:27 AM on 09/09/2010
Political debate in this country has a third rail which few dare touch. Is our foreign policy controlled by Israel and its agents here in the United States? And Congress afraid of offending Jewish political donors? It certainly knows the fate of those representatives who speak for a little more even handedness in the Middle East.
So, with all due respect to M. Rosenberg, what needs to be addressed is the impact of this on our economy, and jobs, and young lives sacrificed as a price for keeping that interest going in the Middle East, and not, the ravings of an unbalanced individual.
Time to abandon Israel to its fate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StCuthbert
Anytime the mods are ready...
08:58 AM on 09/09/2010
"  Is our foreign policy controlled by Israel and its agents here in the United States? "

You tell us, Ergon. 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
09:11 AM on 09/09/2010
Yes, as will be evident during the annual AIPAC convention.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downtown
10:18 AM on 09/09/2010
that'd be a big "yes"
06:47 AM on 09/09/2010
The underlying explanation for Peretz's attitude is clear: the form of Jewish fundamentalism known as Zionism. Like other forms of religious extremism, it sets itself up as supreme, and spews hatred toward others, especially those who would challenge it.
It should be no surprise that liberals are just as capable of bias and hatred as conservatives. The condition has nothing to do with politics, though a person's politics is influenced by their hatreds (as well as other things, obviously).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheLonelyGod
The oncoming storm
08:31 AM on 09/09/2010
I think you might need to relearn what Zionism is:

http://zionism-israel.com/zionism_definitions.htm
10:15 AM on 09/09/2010
You went to a site called zionism-israel to get the definition of Zionism? That's like going to a gov't website and reading the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. Obviously there's going to be a slant.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downtown
10:19 AM on 09/09/2010
nothing like self-referential citations. what's next? the bible is true cuz the bible says the bible is true? same diff...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pkafin
10:50 AM on 09/09/2010
Zionism is not a form of Jewish fundamentalism. The modern Zionist movement, started in the 1880's or so, was markedly secular and not really supported by any of the strains of "fundamental" Judaism at the time. Israel could more accurately be seen as the result of fundamental nationalism. But that movement is not specific to Jews or religious folk, so maybe it doesn't have the same punch for you, 24b4Jeff.