Sort of without me noticing, TNR's various blogs, writers, and outlets have been hosting a rollicking debate on anti-semites. Bret Stephens, for instance, thinks what's really important is a finely tuned ant-semite-radar, because, "spotting an anti-Semite...requires forensic skills, interpretive wits, and moral judgment." That, I think, is among the most hilarious lines I've ever read, at least until we get to the totally earnest conclusion of, "still, were it up to me Judt, Mearsheimer, Carter et al would be run out of polite society. What's wrong with that?"
Alan Wolfe proceeds to inform Stephens of exactly what's wrong with that. David Greenberg timidly disagrees, and says, "I rather wish that the same outrage that attaches to using the term anti-Semite would attach to using words like "Nazi," "apartheid," and "war crimes" in reference to the Jewish state." Which is weird, because a few sentences earlier, he positively endorses the use of the term "anti-semite" "to shake the scales from the eyes of naifs" who believe words like "apartheid" and "war crimes" can be used in good faith. So it's really not clear what he thinks of any of these words. Alan Wolfe responds in his customarily graceful, devastating, fashion.
And elsewhere, Marty Peretz -- I swear to God -- criticizes George Soros for a spate of delayed JetBlue flights. Could The Spine even get more awesome? The answer is no, my friends. The answer is no.
