An article in last week’s issue of the Forward, the prominent New York Jewish paper, made the point that “major players in the liberal blogosphere were keeping, by their own admission, decidedly quiet” on the question of Israel’s actions in the current conflagration with Hezbollah.
Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com was quoted in the piece, saying that when it comes to Israel the “venom … is just, from my personal experience, just a whole order of magnitude greater than with garden variety political topics.” He said he “touched off the fireworks” when he suggested that “Israel has a right to respond strongly when they have a border incursion over the Lebanese border … Some readers think that because I’m critical of our policy in Iraq … I’m going to be reflexively critical of what’s going on now, which I’m not.”
But is it true that other liberal bloggers are staying away from this most divisive of issues for fear of sparking venomous responses? Kevin Drum wrote last week that there’s more to it than just bloggers trying to stay clear of long threads composed mainly of spittle, bile and nastiness. His theory: it’s all just too damned complicated. Not only does the conflict seem intractable but, Drum writes, it “is fantastically complex, and the partisans on both sides are mostly people who have been following events with fanatical attention to detail for many decades. Ordinary observers can hardly compete in this atmosphere — do you know the detailed history and long-accepted norms of behavior that have developed in the conflict over the Shebaa Farms since 1967? — and this has produced an almost codelike language of its own over the years. One misuses this code at one’s peril.”
Drum concludes with this point, which comes the closest to answering the question: “I’d add that liberals have a bigger problem here than conservatives. As near as I can tell, most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way. The fact that this hasn’t worked very well in the past doesn’t deter them. Liberals don’t really have a similarly undemanding position that’s suitable for the quick-hit nature of blogging.”
But David Adesnik of Oxblog thinks complexity doesn’t cut it as an excuse. “[A]fter all,” he writes, “there is no issue more complicated or more written-about than Iraq. Clearly, something else besides complexity is preventing liberal bloggers from writing about Israel. I would suggest that there is a part of the online left which is so viciously anti-Israel that moderates have been intimidated into silence. Let’s hope that this kind of viciousness never migrates off line, where it might threaten bipartisan support for Israel.”
Matthew Yglesias chimes in about why the rabid left has fallen silent on this issue. He reminds us that “a lot of the liberal blogosphere is primarily interested in partisanship rather than robust ideological conflict. Support for Israel isn’t a partisan issue in American politics, and liberals (like me) who criticize America’s Israel policy are ginning up trouble for the Democratic coalition.” Yglesias thinks there is some intimidation at work here. He wrties that “there’s nothing especially intimidating about a group of powerless and marginal email-senders and comment-writers” on the left, “whereas Israel’s hard-core supporters in the United States, by contrast, are extremely powerful and in the habit of mounting broad-brush smear campaigns against people they dislike.”
Daily Kos, for one, certainly seems intimidated. Or perhaps bored. His muted response might best be categorized as an apathy born of fatalism.

Is there really a silence though? Perhaps there is among the "big" liberal bloggers, but I've blogged about it several times, and many of the smaller blogs have blogged about it repeatedly (at least among the smaller blogs I lke to visit.) I really think that if there is something that's helping to suppress vigorous writing on the subject, it's only happening to big bloggers, and since they are the big shots it distorts the picture as regard liberal blogs overall. If the big bloggers are avoiding it for some reason...well, that's really a shame.
Posted by Xanthippas on Mon 24 Jul 2006 at 04:13 PM
"Matthew Yglesias chimes in about why the rabid left has fallen silent on this issue."
Talk about mendacious use of framing! Lawyers call it assuming facts not in evidence, lay people call it bullshit. Matthew Yglessias had absolutely nothing to say about any alleged "rabid left".
Some people read the phrase "rabid left" when they read "liberal" are you one of them? Did you feel the need to reinforce the memme that liberal bloggers are rabid even when the person you are attributing the comment to said no such thing?
Posted by Catch22 on Mon 24 Jul 2006 at 06:03 PM
Leon Wieseltier's statement at the end of the Forward piece is pretty absurd:
"Why would you expect complexity from bloggers, left, right, or Martian?" Wieseltier wrote in an email to the Forward. "They are not in the complexity business on any issue. Maybe the problem is not complexity but complication — the way in which sympathy with Israel's campaign against Hezbollah, and therefore with the use of force, might complicate their lives in progressiveland, where they live."
Yes, there are bloggers who write about issues in complex ways just as there are bloggers who write in simplistic ways.
Not to mention that Wieseltier has a pretty simplistic view of "progressiveland."
Posted by Steve Rhodes on Mon 24 Jul 2006 at 06:33 PM
Catch22 is on the money -- your framing there was revealing.
I, too, have blogged the issue ... reluctantly, as I have studiously avoided the topic because, as Kevin Drum notes, it's bloody complicated.
But it's not too complicated to note that the US gave Israel a green light to keep bombing (mostly civilians, one-third children) while at the same time the UN called for an immediate ceasefire. Or that Israel had spent years planning just such an invasion of Lebanon.
And Kos is RIGHT. The wars in the Middle East will not stop until LEADERS on both sides decide that all-out-war does not provide a win. Religion and FUD: just say no. Read Sam Harris.
The fact that the power to end the fighting lies in the Middle East doesn't mean that bloggers -- or columnists and op-ed boards -- should ignore the topic. Or should automatically assume Israel is "right" because they are our ally.
IMO, indiscrimnate bombing of civilan targets is never "right." Didn't we learn anything from WWII?
Posted by kathy gill on Tue 25 Jul 2006 at 04:03 AM
Matt Yglesias was responding to the OxBlog piece, which references the Forward article, which in turn describes four left-wing bloggers: Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of DailyKos.com, Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Matt Stollar of MyDD.com.
Was Ms. Beckerman describing those four bloggers and their blogs as "the rabid left"? If not, specifically who was she describing?
Posted by Aaron on Wed 26 Jul 2006 at 05:03 PM
“As near as I can tell, most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way,” Kevin Drum writes. “Simply” and “uncomplicated” repetitively describe a conclusion not based on observed fact. Does any conservative believe that, for example, Palestinian physicians and babies are terrorists? What writing or spoken words support his contention that conservatives believe that “Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way”? The words “simply,” “uncomplicated,” and “undemanding” present a common liberal prejudice about conservatives, not anything this writer has seen on any conservative blog, in any mgazine, or heard on the Limbaugh and Ingraham talk shows.
Having concluded that the “maximal” response hasn’t worked well in the past—a sad misreading of the history of Israel and of Israel’s response to the intifada—Mr. Drum goes on to claim that the liberals don’t have an “undemanding position” similar to the one he described. However, neither does any conservative of whom I am aware.
While the Holocaust was largely the result of anti-religious, secularist inheritors of the Enlightenment, pogroms, ghettos, persecutions, and expulsions in the name of religion and ethnicities, prepared the way for it. Well before the Holocaust, Zionists argued for a state; people related to their persecutors by religion or ethnicity bear a special burden to support their claim on a land of their own, a claim buttressed in 1947, when the State of Israel was created.
The Palestinians claim the same land and also have historic claims to it. Further, most are Islamic. Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel took Muhammad from a mosque in Mecca to one in Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, from where he ascended to see God. The people of Islam react badly to losing any land. I’d imagine that Osama bin Laden longs for Islam to regain control over Andalusia. And they want the land of Israel, the Holy Land, to be a land of peace, once again. Not generally expressed, but I think a reasonable surmise, peace requires Islamic rule of Israeli land, however that rule is restored.
This conservative knows something about the history and the underlying claims. I likely have company on the right in that. The left? Possibly.
Posted by Keys on Wed 26 Jul 2006 at 05:30 PM
Oh hooey. There are an enormous number of political blogs, of which I have one, that have been weighing in all over the lot. Plus there are a rash of new blogs springing up from Lebanon, giving a vivid play by play of the Israeli assault.
When a really new dimension is added to our environment, the blogosphere pushes up new buds -- the same old sites continue to work the issues they are good at and new shoots leaf out with new material.
Posted by janinsanfran on Wed 26 Jul 2006 at 11:22 PM
You are just not reading the right Leftist Blogs. I write about the action in Is and La often. Check it out...don't get more Left than Chicago!
Posted by dupagerenegade on Fri 28 Jul 2006 at 12:18 PM