INCOMPREHENSIONS: Deutsch and Wallace had spotted a bias!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2023

And our tribe seemed to have a new bomb: In our view, it isn't hard to understand the ardor—the depth of feeling—of Donny Deutsch's reactions.

On October 30, he appeared on Deadline: White House, where he discussed his reactions and views with Nicolle Wallace. It had been three weeks since the vicious events of October 7. 

As you can see by clicking this link, this is part of what he said:

DEUTSCH (10/30/23):  I want to draw the line back to why Israel is in the defensive posture after being attacked because it's about antisemitism, and it's about the hate toward Jews that's now surfacing in this country.

[...]

It's so heartbreaking. I have— 

Every Jew I know is calling me and is terrified for the first time in their life about being Jewish. They feel it. When you are a generation away from the Holocaust, from the annihilation of six million Jews, being Jews there's something that goes from generation to generation. And people are feeling something in their stomachs in this country that we've never felt before. And they're terrified...

The depth of Deutsch's feeling was evident all through the segment. In our view, it isn't hard to understand the depth of his feeling. 

As you can see if you watch the full conversation, Deutsch described ugly behaviors by some individuals in this country which reeked of antisemitism. He said that he and other American Jews "are feeling something in their stomachs in this country that we've never felt before."

The people who call him are "terrified," he said. That doesn't mean that he would necessarily exercise perfect judgment—that he would automatically be "right"—as he expressed his various views about the situation in Israel, or in Gaza, or even in the United States.

In our view, Deutsch didn't exercise perfect judgment during this conversation with Wallace. For her part, Wallace, who is very skilled, tends to maintain and advance the dominant view of the side she's on at any particular time.

In our view, Deutsch didn't exercise perfect judgment, but no one ever does. As far as we know, no one has ever had perfect judgment. That's especially true with respect to a situation like this—with respect to a terrible, deadly, simmering war which dates to (at least) 1948, depending on where you decide to start counting.

The depth of Deutsch's feeling isn't hard to understand. For whatever it may be worth, it's entirely possible that he grew up within the cultural framework Ruth Marcus described in the Washington Post—within this allegedly limited cultural framework:

MARCUS (11/23/23): I was born in 1958, just 10 years after the establishment of Israel. The nation’s existence was new and tenuous; it was embattled, encircled by enemies committed to its destruction. It needed our support—our dimes diligently tucked into the cards we collected to plant trees in its fledgling forests.

My childhood memories are of the Six-Day War and the accompanying joy over access to the Western Wall; of the shock of the Yom Kippur War. I was walking back to synagogue to join my father for evening services that day when a neighbor stopped to ask: Had I heard the terrible news?

And, I am obliged to confess, the narrative of Israel’s founding that Jewish children of my generation were offered in Hebrew school and on trips to Israel was deeply misleading at best, tinged with anti-Palestinian bias at worst. This account utterly failed to acknowledge the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 or consider Palestinians’ legitimate claims to a homeland. The tenor of our rabbi’s sermons, the discussions in my childhood home, were that Israel could do no wrong.

Needless to say, Israel—like every other nation; like every human institution—can in fact do wrong. At one point in his conversation with Wallace, Deutsch acknowledged that obvious fact:

WALLACE: There's such an anti-Israeli bias because their domestic politics under Netanyahu—

DEUTSCH: Netanyahu still needs to go, by the way.

WALLACE: Correct! And I think U.S. foreign policy experts think that he may not be there, but there is this real bias against the plight of Israel, even in the wake of 1400 primarily civilians being slaughtered over an eight and a half hour period—mutilated, slaughtered, raped in front of their children and husbands.

DEUTSCH: And what is Israel? Since then, been on the defensive, explaining every move they make...

Does Netanyahu need to go? Not everyone will agree. But some such disclaimer was frequently offered on blue tribe cable news programs like this one, with the conversation rapidly switching back to discussions which gave voice to a heavily "pro-Israel" point of view.

There's nothing "wrong" with adopting a "pro-Israel" point of view.  It also isn't hard to understand the depth of Deutsch's feelings. 

That said, it's as we noted yesterday. The claim of "anti-Israeli bias"—the claim to which Wallace referred—was, according to Deutsch, a bias on the part of "the media," with CNN and the New York Times being singled out by name. 

Had Deutsch been right in spotting such "bias" on the part of "the media?" Sweeping claims of bias are easy to make, especially at times of high feeling.

That said, no specific examples were cited—not by Wallace, not by Deutsch. The claim of anti-Israel bias on the part of "the media" was simply allowed to stand.

At the time of this conversation (and others), we ourselves were especially interested in the aggressive criticism directed at college students—at students who were giving voice to a "pro-Palestinian" point of view. 

Were these students expressing antisemitism? Or were they merely criticizing the Israeli government and its past actions, in much the way a person might do with respect to any government?

On Morning Joe and on Deadline: White House, the insinuations and claims of antisemitism tended to come thick and fast. Such insinuations were also directed at the presidents of some major universities—and as is typical on these blue tribe programs, there were no voices in the program's panels who spoke up to challenge or question the Standard Group Judgments which were being expressed. 

A certain type of incomprehension frequently seemed to dominate these blue tribe "cable news" discussions. Why in the world would these college kids be expressing "pro-Palestinian" views?

On these programs, blue pundits generally seemed to be thoroughly puzzled as to the source of such views. Nor were any such students being asked to come on the air and explain the content and source of their views.

Those college kids, with their slogans and signs, might not be perfectly wise. Especially given their age and their standing in life, some might be just a bit clueless.

Presumably, those college kids aren't perfectly wise! In our view, neither were Joe Scarborough or Wallace or even Deutsch as they sometimes became ranting-adjacent in the course of expressing their views.

All in all, blue pundits seemed to have a new bomb to drop on the heads of a new group of Others. If someone expressed a "pro-Palestinian" view, such persons were antisemitic!

Almost surely, some of them surely may be! But how all about all the others? And how about the political problem this new name-calling has caused?

Tomorrow: The New York Times almost seems to be puzzled by a certain choice of words