Eric Alterman in the Nation on January 15:
And yet even this criticism–misguided in my view–sounded positively Gandhi-esque compared with that of Peretz’s assistant and informal mini-me, James Kirchick, who termed J Street an American Jewish “Surrender Lobby.” The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb chimed in by calling J Street “obsequious” to terrorists and “hostile” to Israel, but Commentary’s Noah Pollak won the contest by stringing together “appalling,” “contemptible,” “unrealistic,” “silly” and “dishonest” before adding the predictable “anti-Israel.”
Eric Alterman in the New York Times today:
Commentary’s Noah Pollak called J Street contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel; James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby; Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel.
So Alterman is lazy. But what about the New York Times editors? Isn’t David Shipley even the slightest bit embarrassed to be running retreads from the country’s leading organ of far left opinion? Probably not. Update: Another one, but at least in a foreign paper this time. Alterman in Le Monde on October 6:
Commentary’s Noah Pollak called it contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel. James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby. Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel.
Oddly, his writing — or his editing — seems to have gotten worse since the first rendition. And this guy’s a professor of journalism?
