Marty Peretz, who no longer owns part of the magazine, for the first time since 1974, will remain as Editor in Chief.

Full release after the jump  read more »

Well now in The New Republic, John Judis has joined me in legitimizing this question. Here is the money quote:

On the one hand, Rosenfeld, Harris, and others want to deny that American Jews and American Jewish organizations like AIPAC suffer from dual loyalty in trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. It's anti-Semitic or contributes to anti-Semitism, they say, to make that charge. On the other hand, they want to demand of American Jewish intellectuals a certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and to Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists. And that's probably the case. Many Jews now suffer from dual loyalty--the same way that Cuban-Americans or Mexican-Americans do. By ignoring this dilemma--and, worse still, by charging those who acknowledge its existence with anti-Semitism-- the critics of the new anti-Semitism are engaged in a flight from their own political selves. They are guilty of a certain kind of bad faith.

This is intellectually valiant work, Judis should be applauded; and TNR praised for running the piece. As for the demand made on Jewish intellectuals to be loyal to Israel, it is one that anyone who has worked for the New Republic (I did it once, and carried Marty Peretz's anti-U.N. water for him) has experienced.

In electing Tom DiNapoli, the legislature treated Governor Spitzer the same way they treated Governor Pataki.

A rookie Assemblyman who tried complaining about DiNapoli's election was booed.

At least $100 per vote was spent in Tuesday's special election in Nassau.

Some city officials are eyeing their next race.

Errol Louis says more needs to be done to clean up the bench.

The New Republic is still debating whether Israel should preemptively attack Iran.

Identifying the neoconservatives as Jewish is one of those unspoken/spoken things in public life today. Two years ago, Wolfowitz was asked a question about the neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and quipped, "Don't you mean Jewish?" He was being ironical; his point was that the identification was itself antisemitic.

Ginsberg's book came out in 1993 and is an important work for anyone trying to understand Jewish power, the Jewish presence in the American establishment. Indeed, though Ginsberg's politics are opposite to mine, I admire him for doing what an intellectual should do, and working to describe new social patterns. Ginsberg's historical theme is simple: Jews have risen again and again because our skills have proven essential to states trying to become modern. We made Spain what it was in the 15th century. We allowed the German and English states to rise in the late 19th century. "Jewish academics, intellectuals, and artists were the leading figures in German theater, literature, music, art, architecture, science and philosophy.... " Etc. The words "Jewish financier" appear countless times in Ginsberg's book, for an obvious reason: the Jewish genius for finance has lifted and empowered the modern state. (Yivo, which burlesqued the issue of Jews & Money by inviting the vapid Niall Ferguson to talk about it, should invite Ginsberg to make up for the lapse).  read more »

In the January Commentary, Gabriel Schoenfeld returns to his theme, Jewish powerlessness, when he argues that the U.S. government has always supported Israel for its own (goyische) reasons, not through any Jewish prodding. By this analysis, AIPAC should fold up its tent tomorrow, it's wasting a lot of hardworking people's money. And the ailing British chemist Chaim Weizmann should never have rushed to the White House to extract a commitment from Harry Truman to a Jewish state in 1948, again, a waste of time, Truman was planning to defy his own State Department and oppose a binational state.

But in his 2001 book Righteous Victims, Morris several times refers to the Zionist and Israel lobby. He says, quite accurately, that Zionist pressure tactics were used on the Truman Administration to bring about American support for partition in '47 (in defiance of the State Department and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Inquiry Commission, the equivalent of the Iraq Study Group of that time). And Morris honestly describes the Israel lobby as a potent force in U.S. politics when he cites the secretary of state's threat to cut off "all public and private aid to Israel" to punish Israeli belligerence in the Suez crisis of '56:

President Eisenhower had just been elected to a second term; he could allow himself to ignore Jewish lobbying.

It just goes to show: Everyone knows there's an Israel lobby. The journalistic challenge is, what are its dimensions? The New Republic and Commentary have chosen to react angrily to the non-Jewish authors' statements rather than doing what they should do, telling us how the lobby works. By responding so defensively, these journals have damaged themselves, and the discourse; American readers deserve better.

The three leading contenders all have ties to Wal-Mart, a decidedly controversial company among Democratic primary voters.

Between 1986 and 1992, she served on the Arkansas-based company's board of directors, a position that let her rake in about $12,500 per year. During the 1992 campaign, she still owned about $80,000 in company stock.

Skip

Last January, the senator scolded Wal-Mart for not doing enough about healthcare--but withered when asked if she ever suggested a change when she served on the board. "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago, I have to remember." Not a good answer.

Clarke notes that John Edwards "used to own company stock--stock he conveniently managed to sell in 2004."

In an impressive demonstration of historical repetition, the senator's wife, Michelle, earns about $45,000 per year (plus stock options) serving on the board of a major Chicago food company whose biggest customer is--one guess--Wal-Mart. If that connection seems pretty distant (and, really, the connection is pretty distant) just think about all the tenuously relevant personal details that can railroad a perfectly respectable presidential campaign. Campaign critics can make a four-course meal out of pretty thin gruel.

I suppose I ought to have known. I'm still sore at Ferguson over the lazy lecture he gave at Yivo a few weeks back, on a hot topic, Jews & Money, which turned out to be all cliches and chestnuts and threadbare Scottish homespun.

Leon Wieseltier does a pretty good job of it in the last New Republic, in a forum on what to do in Iraq.

"Since I was a supporter of the war, I have its consequences also on my own conscience. I do not believe that American troops should die for some heartless Kissingerian notion of American credibility in the world, or the like. (Anyway, it is the war itself that is doing the most damage to American credibility. After terrorism, the most immediate problem for American foreign policy in the age of Bush is anti-Americanism.)"

There's some other stuff to nod your head to here, like the frank admissions that more troops wouldn't have made any difference, that the war has increased terrorism and emboldened terrorists, that it's been a great setback to the dreams of universalists in the Middle East. (A new key on Wieseltier's piano, universalism; though of course he particularistically dismisses the Palestinians.) But I admire Wieseltier's moral tone on this one. He's taking some personal responsibility, and doing so in an open and sincere manner.

The mayor has better relations with minorities than during the police shooting of Amadou Diallo seven years ago.

Two Council members have called on the police commissioner to resign.

An advocacy group wants congestion pricing in the city.

Political parties can now spend money during primaries in New York.

Eliot Spitzer will get to fill at least two upcoming vacancies on the state's highest court.

Al Gore told Time magazine that despite traveling by jet to promote his global warming lecture, he does live eco-friendly.

Time magazine simply asks whether a Mormon can be president.

"Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured, and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale."

And Andrew Cuomo told Page Six that he asked Louis Freeh, a Clinton foe, to be on his transition team because of his legal expertise, not because of politics.

Following Niall Ferguson's talk about Jews & Money, a lady in the second row asked whether the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British government committed itself to a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, arose from a need by the Brits to gain the support of "influential Jews in the United States," who might help determine the outcome of World War I. Ferguson didn't know the answer, but that didn't keep him from offering insights into Lord Rothschild (to whom Foreign Sec'y Balfour's declaration was addressed) and the Germans and Muslims and other issues. (And I'm not going to try and answer the question here; I don't know, though it's intriguing...)

My sense is that Peretz misspoke. The usual nutshell on The New Republic is that Lippmann and Herbert Croly helped start it along with the young Felix Frankfurter. I wonder if Peretz meant that future Jewish Supreme Court Justice, not Brandeis?

The letters also show that after the Balfour Declaration, Brandeis was among those who lobbied his friend the President, Woodrow Wilson, to echo the British commitment. As Wilson did in 1918, thereby defying his own State Department. Brandeis subsequently visited Palestine with Frankfurter and a man called Rudolph Sonneborn, the son-in-law of the great American banker Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb. And Sonneborn in 1947 supplied arms to the fledgling state of Israel thru a fictitious entity, the Sonneborn Institute.

I go on this historic bender to make a point. Powerful American Jews have played a crucial role in the Zionist cause, often behind the scenes. Marty Peretz knows something about this history. The world of Louis Brandeis and Eugene Meyer and the White House—Peretz, who is a friend of Al Gore's, knows its later incarnations in his fingertips. And how regrettable it is that from the moment that Walt and Mearsheimer addressed the idea of Jewish influence, Peretz's response has been altogether defensive and vituperative, seeking to blacken these scholars as antisemites. There is a great Jewish scholarly tradition that seeks answers to important questions, not obfuscation. What an education it would be to hear Peretz's thoughts on Washington and Israel. Though yes, we got a peep out of him the other night.