President Obama’s National Security Advisor, retired General James Jones, with an ice-breaker:
Is it offensive?
Why, yes. In our easily-offended society, you might say this joke wins the Triple Crown or the Insult Trifecta:
Some feel Jones has used a denigrating stereotype of Jewish people “greedy merchants” for a cheap laugh, and has therefore insulted the Jews.
Some free-market capitalists note that Jones describes the Taliban member as a “warrior” instead of a guerrilla, and seems to be saying that the capitalists are inhumane -too concerned with profit-making to give a thirsty man a glass of water. He therefore has insulted all free-market, entrepreneurial capitalists.
Somewhere, undoubtedly, there is a Taliban supporter who feels the “warrior” was portrayed as an unprepared and easily-duped hothead too stupid to know how much water he would need for the desert. Jones has therefore inflicted indignity upon the Taliban, and probably has a fatwa on his head, now.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Presumably, the Taliban member was of Arab descent (or not, it seems, see comments), which would make him a Semite, as well. If one takes any of the views listed above, then the joke portrays both Arab and Jew negatively, and it is anti-Semitic.
Otherwise, it is just the usual Jew-and-Capitalism hate we have seen before.
Yid with the Lid, who is offended, writes:
Was the Joke Anti-Semitic? Well, the White House must have thought so. The White House transcript sent to reporters after the event conveniently began a couple of minutes into the speech. The video of the event posted on the Washington Institute Web site started right after the Joke, you can even hear the end of the laughter.
Its interesting that the same President that sees racism in the legitimate actions of the Cambridge Police and the State of Arizona, hides the anti-Semitic prose of its National Security Adviser.
To which I say, for all anyone knows, the White House might have omitted the joke from its transcripts because it was too pro-Jew for their tastes!
Consider: The Jewish haberdasher is portrayed as clever; he is unmoved by the threats-and-curses-issuing Taliban member; he forgives him the outburst before sending him to the restaurant over the hill. The Jew ultimately defeats the Taliban, who must submit to him -and his brother- before he can get a glass of water. And he makes a little profit, in the meantime. What’s not to like?
As a joke, Jones’ little icebreaker works. It has identifiable “types” (angry Arab, clever Jew) and has an ironic twist at the end.
As anti-Semitism, it will have its supporters. It will make Jew-haters laugh at the “greedy Jews,” and Arab-haters laugh at the “duped” Taliban.
As ideology, it will make socialists sneer at the “inhumane capitalists,” while the capitalists will call this confirmation of their worst suspicions of this administration.
All-in-all, I’d call it a very unwise joke for a security advisor to The American President to make, especially if the president is trying to convince the nation -by his words more than his actions- that he supports capitalism and the free market, the existence of Israel and the defeat of the Taliban.
The truth is the joke would have been inappropriate under any president; the White House and its administrators should never be in the business of laughing at anyone but themselves, because other-directed humor signals insecurity; self-denigrating humor does the opposite.
A joke, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and -to some extent- so is a slur. How one receives a thing says much more about oneself than any joke or compliment or hateful remark.
The world is in the process of gearing up to hate the Jews some more, as it always has before. The world hates the chosen people because they are uniquely God’s own. It hates those grafted onto that vine, too, for the same reason. If the past few decades have taught us anything, it is that people cannot be forced to like other people; “niceness” cannot be legislated and unfathomable hate cannot be reasoned with, because reason has nothing to do with it.
We are told that we are living in a “transformative” time. But the transformation is an illusion, because it is only about the world, and thus will be forever caught up in the snares of the world. After the “transformation” has been achieved there will still be war, still always be injustice, still be imbalance and poverty. There will still be one group of people standing around cackling at and hating another group of people. T’was ever thus, and t’will continue, until the end of ages.
And perhaps the Jews are forever the target of the world’s hatred because they have known, from the very start, that there will be an “end” to this world.
For those who are only of this world, invested in this world, that message can only be most unwelcome.
This is why they hate the Christians, too.
The world and its princes are desperately insecure; they are afraid, because all they know is what is before their faces, what they imagine they “have.” When they laugh at you, laugh back. Teetering on their illusory foundations, they cannot handle being mocked.
Ed Morrissey: Polls whether the joke is anti-semitic
Bookworm says: Jones missed the real punchline
Powerline says: wrong venue
UPDATE: Jones has apologized:
I wish that I had not made this off the cuff joke at the top of my remarks, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by it. It also distracted from the larger message I carried that day: that the United States commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct.
Sometimes things happen for reasons. Jones’ clumsy joke may result in the administration going out of its way to emphasize that commitment, for a while.
Related:
Douthat: On Southpark
Riehl and Jacobson imagine other scenarios.
Roger Simon: Notes South Park irony
Hazony: Freedom needs defending and humor is freedom
Maggie’s Farm: Come to the Cabaret?
Jennifer Rubin: Off the cuff, her foot
I rather support this, but agree with Ann Althouse about this.
“Anti-Semitic” is misunderstood if it’s taken to mean “animus against speakers of Semitic languages.” It originally had something of that flavor, within the confines of nineteenth-century race theory.
In the 1870s, however it was coöpted by the odious Wilhelm Marr who used it as an upmarket, socially acceptable marketing term for what was hitherto simply Judenhaß, Jew-hatred. He used the term Semitism (“Semitismus”) to mean the perfidious Jewish program against the Germans, but also to mean “Jewry,” tout court—clearly just dressing up the German “Judentum” (“Jew-dom” in the sense of both culture and people) in high-faluting Latinate jargon.
Anti-Semitism, was therefore opposing the evil machinations of the Jews—and opposing them as a people.
In 1879, Marr founded the Anti-Semites’ League (Antisemiten-Liga), which advocated the expulsion of Jews from Germany. (He was silent on Arabs, Aramaic speakers, etc.)
In a modern context, “anti-Semitic” means “anti-Jewish.” To take it as “anti-Semitic-speaking-peoples” is to dodge that fact by claiming it continues to describe a phenomenon which has long gone by the wayside.
Arabs don’t generally identify themselves Semites unless, of course, it’s “but I can’t be an anti-Semite, I’m an Arab!”
Your comment about the appropriateness of joking for an administration is very astute. As we’ve seen, people will “read” this joke in a variety of ways–mine was that it belittles the vey high stakes of the Arab/Israeli conflict, and not in a way that realistically deflates them. Humor has its place, but I agree that the most important thing we can say about this remark is that it was deeply unwise.
I thought for a moment that this would be the first of your posts I didn’t like. I was happily wrong!
I just read this quote from Theodore Roosevelt over at the Corner. It’s OT, but it’s so good, I didn’t think you would mind.
I have no patience with those who attack, who would destroy, a man’s belief in religion—no patience with those who would convert the Jew en masse, or the Catholic. More likely than not, where they succeed at all they succeed only in destroying something—they take something real away and give nothing in return, leaving the victim bankrupt. I am always sorry for the faithless man, just as I am sorry for the woman without virtue.
(This passage may be found in Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States, a forthcoming book edited by Daniel Ruddy.)
News item from Charlotte, NC, that is troubling:
news item
(I submitted this as a comment since I could not find any place on the blog that gave an address where I could just e-mail it to you.)
[Did you look on the right-hand sidebar? -admin]
Oh for Pete’s sake, lighten up. It’s a funny joke.
If we treat *everything* as if it was worthy of righteous indignation, than nothing is worthy of it.
The term ‘anti-semitic’ means prejudice or hostility towards Jews or Judaism. It does not cover prejudice or hostility towards Arabs, even though Arabs are Semites. You can’t always break a word down into parts to determine what it means, otherwise, inflammable would mean “doesn’t burn.”
What’s the big deal? It isn’t like we don’t have great relations with Israel. Oh wait…
The Taliban would take offense at this joke because their “warrior” spoke to a Jew and did not immediately kill him.
I think the main point is how inappropriate it is to that setting – which leaves Jews wondering what the submerged part of the iceberg looks like.
One subtle point that makes Jews uncomfortable is the reversion to an old Jewish type in a speech to a political policy group – as opposed to a joke about the Israeli military or an Israeli leader. The legitimacy of Israel – and the peoplehood of the Jews – are currently under attack, and this kind of reference – again, in a mid-east forum – sounds like a step backwards to another view of the Jewish people.
What bothers me is how he prefaces the joke by saying, “I’d like to tell you a story that I think is true.” He then proceeds to tell a joke, an “untrue” story, for it’s based on nothing but stereotypes. The set-up makes it seem like he’s making some sort of report about the Taliban… only to have it become clear nearly two minutes later that this “true story” was merely a joke.
No one was there for yuks; they were there for an official government report. And while there’s nothing inherently wrong with telling a joke or two to warm up your audience, it seems, in this setting, anyway, to trivialize the coming factual report.
Also, had he said, “This reminds me of a story,” he would’ve clearly been setting up a joke, albeit one which was — at best — in poor taste.
For quite some time now, people have been saying this administration is anti-semitic and anti-capitalist. This “true story” certainly proves the point, doesn’t it?
That was actually kind of funny. I wasn’t aware that anyone in the Obama administration was capable of humor (apart from Slow-Joe’s unintended beauties). That wasn’t antisemitic. And for those fond of over-analyzing, antisemetism means nothing but Jew-hatred. Furthermore, the Taliban would likely be a Pashtun, not an Arab.
[Thanks for the info -admin]
The Anchoress wrote, “And perhaps the Jews are forever the target of the world’s hatred because they have known, from the very start, that there will be an ‘end’ to this world.”
OK, dear Anchoress, that explains the hostility from Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens and that git, Richard Dawkins. But what explains the Islamic nut? They, too, believe in an end and more than one of them is trying to hasten it.
No, this is much more. It is all about power, getting it and maintaining it. This is a deep-seated envy that is being stoked. The oil barons of the Middle East are rolling in wealth and yet the average Muslim lives in squalor. They perpetuate the hatred of the Jew and the Christian lest the anger of the poor be directed at them.
And we are not immune to it in America. I heard on the radio this morning that there is a new movement to declare homeless people a “protected class.” As long as those who have power, no matter what country, what party or what religion, seeks to retain power by all means necessary, they will seek to divide us, classify us and pit one against the other.
We are in for a long summer of discontent. It has suddenly dawned on the Democrats that “showing success” by passing ObamaCare is not going to quiet the anger directed at them. The President played the race card again this morning. The MSM pumps that message all day long. “Racist, Racist, Racist. Hate, Hate, Hate.” Pounding out like the drums of war.
It has been codified now that only whites may be guilty of racism. So when the politicians and the MSNBC crowd screams about race they are just as guilty of hatred as the Imam who channels his inner Hitler railing against the Jew.
Hitler’s “protected class” was the so-called Aryan race. For the Islamic extremist it is the “true believer of Allah” For the liberal elite in America it is anyone who can be herded into the pens of government dependency. They all claim to be defenders of some truth against the lies of the Jew, the moneyed interests, the haters or a combination of all three.
God have mercy on us all.
I’d like to add that, had this joke been stripped of references to particular groups (remove the Taliban and make him a hapless wanderer in the deset; remove the Jewish merchant and make him a mere shopkeeper, without reference to ethnic group), then this is a funny joke. It’s the addition of the racial/ethnic identifiers which make this odious. Of course, it’s the racial/ethnic identifiers which make it at all “pertinent” to the general’s later report…
Compare and contrast Gen. Jones’ joke with this one:
Q: How was copper wire invented?
A: Two Jews fighting over a penny.
I think it’s more about lack of judgment; my 15-year-old son understands this better than these people.
I bet this White House didn’t even consider that
the joke is anti-Semitic until somebody from the
outside mentioned it. If it was anti-Moslem they would have jumped all over it.
In a lifetime of surprises, I don’t think that any shift in attitudes has shocked me as much as the descent of many liberals into the swamps of anti-semitism.
I grew up when my liberal teachers taught us about the how the brave kibbutzim were building a wonderful new land in the desert. Israel was held up as a beacon of enlightenment–why, they even integrated girls into the Boy Scouts!
Where did these liberals go, and what caused the milk of human kindness to turn to venom? I have a terrible, existential fear for the future of Israel and, outside the US, the Jewish people.
The joke breaks a cardinal rule of public speaking: All jokes must be at the speaker’s expense, otherwise don’t tell it.
As a Jew, I’ve heard and enjoyed this joke before. Jones told it well, and I doubt that it was meant as anything but a funny icebreaker.
I would say we should deal with serious policy issues and not worry about a funny joke.
My vote is that the joke was (a) inappropriate for the venue and audience; (b) not very well told; and (c) kinda funny (although hardly new).
If it says anything about the administration it is that they have a tendency to be tone-deaf. I doubt that genuine Jew haters are very common.
Oh, come on people. That was funny. We, as a nation, spend WAY too much time worrying about things like this. One could argue that this administration’s policies are decidedly anti-Israel (on that topic, I’d love to heat the Obama tapes the LA Times is supressing), and one could even say that the President’s visible disrespect for the Israeli PM during his last visit was appalling.
But this is just a funny joke. Get a life, folks.
I’m neither Jewish nor do I consider myself as someone who either does or desires to offend easily, so I’m not the one to judge whether this is offensive or not.
That said, I see nothing wrong with the joke. It portrays the Jewish merchant as intelligent and the Taliban fighter both dimwitted and the butt of the merchant’s own joke.
Still, all in all, it does show a bit of tone-deafness on the part of the Administration to have Mr. Obama’s own National Security Advisor tell such a joke at a low point in US-Israeli relations. Offensive or not, it won’t play well on Tel Aviv’s 6 o’clock news.
Here I am a Jew living Tel Aviv, and I have to say, it’s just a joke….I really liked it and I don’t think it reflects on his personal preferences at all; i.e. I don’t know anything about the man other than he has a good sense of humor! Was the joke appropriate for the venue, well that’s another story. But frankly I like anyone that can take a chance. Kudos to General Jones.
WOW! I’ve heard that joke a dozen times in recent years. I think Moses originated it while wandering in the desert. As a seventy year old Jew, and Zionist, I can attest that it is NOT antisemitic. The joke about the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Chaplains, who enjoy gambling while on base, is also not Antisemitic. The worst thing about this incident is that General Jones is such a poor storyteller that he should never be permitted to tell jokes at all.
First, this joke is as old as the hills. Aside from the fact that it’s inappropriate, Jones needs new material. Cripes, Shecky Green probably wrote this when he played the Borscht Belt.
Second, ethnic jokes are funny if they’re told by someone of that ethnicity. This is why Dave Chappelle can make jokes about black people, but Jackie Mason can’t. If Joe Lieberman were the Security Advisor, this would be funny.
However, when it’s pretty clear that Obama and his adminstration are ambivalent at best towards Israel’s existence, and actively hostile to her current leadership, the joke crosses way over the line. It certainly doesn’t inspire confidence on my part that Jones a. understands the value of supporting a democratic republic in a rough part of the world b. is smart enough to avoid a gratuitous slap at the Jews.
And yes, I’m sure that some of his best friends are Jews.
It’s a very funny joke. Re Netanyahu – he’s been playing us – he deserves no respect. Take a chill pill, people.
Sadly, I’m not shocked by the liberals’ descent into anti-semetism; I’ve seen it coming for years.
While denouncing the Holocaust, and wallowing in grief for dead Jews who can no longer be helped (or require one to make real choices, and take real action), they always disliked the State of Israel, brushing any criticism aside with the usual, “I’m not anti Jew, I’m anti Israel!” (as if you could be against the Jewish homeland and not, sooner, or later, be against its people, too.)
I’m afraid I do NOT get the point of telling this joke in this venue.
First, the joke is not well thought out as there are no Jewish stores in areas where the Taliban is located in Afghanistan.
It’s really not appropriate here. I enjoy a good joke and this was kind of a funny play on the Jewish/Dopey Taliban Muslim. However…
Poorly thought out, I think.
The Obama Administration (OBAMA) is going to get hammered because of his continued beating up on Israel. All of those “good Democrat” Jews who voted for him are begining to realize that Obama has never been a friend of Israel.
Why are commenters attempting to “intellectualize” a stupid joke that is frankly meaningless… what the hell was the point? Beats me, and I enjoy politically incorrect jokes.
I’ve heard the joke before. I thought General Jones told it well and I didn’t regard it as anti-Semitic. For those who think it was inappropriate, I’d suggest that you lighten up. Oh yes, and I’m a very proud and fairly observant Jew who regularly keeps in touch with my Israeli cousins.
Can anyone recount the context of the joke–what happened afterwards? Why did he tell it?
It’s not amazing that this dinosaur jarhead told such a moronic, offensive joke. What is amazing is that his audience laughed at it instead of throwing things at him!
If a Bush cookie pusher had told this it would be on a continous loop on CNN. The bigots in the Obama White House deserve far more scrutiny than they are receiving.
Totally irrelevant to the main point of the joke, it’s also likely that the Taliban reference would not be anti-Semitic for another reason other than those described above, which is that most Taliban members would not be Arabs, and thus not Semitic at all. But that’s neither here nor there. I didn’t think the joke was actually very funny, but I don’t think it was offensive, either.
Isn’t this just one more example of the carelessness of Obama and his friends: bowling like the Special Olympics; grandmother acting like a typical white woman; the white cop acting stupidly? What else can you expect? They’re just college boys, after all. Boys will be boys. It’s just too bad that they are in positions of such power. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to grow up.
Add insensitivity and narcissism, which describes that whole gang.
And, just think—this guy’s head of national security!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Thank you Anchoress lady. I found a spot on the internet where i could take a minute to really read the content. Hearing the ‘joke’ from Jones and then your precis and the perspective of a Jewish reader i was impressed by the sheer gravitas of the quip. So i moved a bit from reaction to reflection. I’m not quite so ready to dump Joe Ratzinger and his curia in the dumpster. What’s that got to do with it? I’m a convert and have been experiencing a profound ‘crisis of faith’. I desperately need to learn to think for myself!
Two words: Shecky Greene
The point is Jones is a duffus. Not a serious person. That is the issue.
The joke is somewhat offensive to some but since it is not against a protected minority (blacks, gays, Mohammed, handicapped) it is not offensive. The standard of jokes, offensive or not offensive, has nothing to do with the joke, but the butt.
Jones used a
DUAL LOYALTY SLUR.
Buried in the “joke”. delivered in a soft aside during the Jew’s “forgiveness” moment, is a little slip within the big slip, that reveals a little part of Jones’ mind that he did not want to reveal.
What?
So, there are two Jews in Afghanistan, not called Israeli’s so they certainly LIVE in Afghanistan, but, when forgiving the talibum for the string of insults (one of which included an insult on Israel) the jew forgives the talibum for insulting “his country”, meaning the jew who lives in Afghanistan sees Israel as “his country”.
The joke is not anti-Semitic (well, if you take the jews out of it) but Jones is subtly, and maybe unconsciously, saying Jew’s first loyalties are to Israel.
Do you see this now?
The joke was hilarious. I look at it as the Jewish merchant and his brother getting one over on a Taliban terrorist. Let’s lighten up people and stop acting like the left.
That was humor! I laughed and enjoyed it. Of course I’m not “politically correct” just like 70% of the rest of America.
I have many Jewish friends and a few Muslem friends and they would laugh too. It was a classic joke.
What’s wrong with America is it’s too filled with “weenies” that have no sense of humor!
Uncle Waltee
“I apologize to anyone who was offended by it”
So, for those who were not offended by it, Jones apparently stands by what he said.
Come on, man up and make a real apology.
(Are there still people out there who do not instantly recognize these weasel “apologies” for what they are? Apparently so.)
Idiocity—in every direction . . .
And absolutely zero to worry about, unless you work for Mountains & Molehill, Inc.
Sheesh!
Thank you, Steve Rosenbach #22. Give the guy a break! The joke was funny.
“Is it anti-Semitic?
Maybe yes, maybe no.”
Yes. No maybe about it. Want to know why? Because Jews across the entire political spectrum are railing (justifiably) about this insult. And these people have impeccable antisemitism radar.
I have to tell you, only a Catholic would hear this joke and describe it as “maybe no”(t) antisemitic.
[Well, there are a number of Jew, including those here, who are not offended or calling it "anti-semitic." Apparently not "only a Catholic" could here this and actually think about it, rather than simply reacting. But thanks for showing up with your usual anti-Catholic stuff. We needed it. -admin]
First, I want to go right to the end where the National Security Advisor to the President makes an apology…
“I wish that I had not made this off the cuff joke at the top of my remarks, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by it. It also distracted from the larger message I carried that day: that the United States commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”
Now Anchoress, being of religious thought, I find the last sentence and the last word in that sentence interesting, “Sacrosanct”
Does this now mean that the USA commitment to Israel is “very sacred or holy; inviolable”? According to definition, the word comes from the Latin word “sacrōsanctus” meaning “made holy by sacred rite”. So this should send a message to the Muslims that the White House had a “sacred rite” and that their relationship with Israel is now “sacred and inviolable.” That should go over well with Muslims who look very hard at words with religious meaning.
Does this crew know how to do anything right?
“I think the main point is how inappropriate it is to that setting – which leaves Jews wondering what the submerged part of the iceberg looks like.” -Ben-David
Perfectly said. It’s one thing to for guys to say this kind of thing in a locker room, but when a high official from the administration, an administration that has built up a series of anti-Israeli policies and signals, does this, it is not just mildly anti-semitic, it becomes a glimpse into their mindset.
@Sashland – I hesitate to weigh in on this, but I have a few Jewish associates (variously friends, colleagues, acquaintances) who are not at all shy about proclaiming that their first loyalty is to Israel. Since I regard nationalism (including US nationalism) as just another form of tribalism, I’m not disposed to disparage that particular choice of allegiance over any other, or to endorse your notion that the imputation of such allegiance in a given instance is necessarily a slur.
You know why that stupid joke is HIGHLY offensive to me (a jew?) Because if a Tea Partier or Republican had said it, we’d be into hour 12 of massive hand-wringing and carping about how racist, anti-semitic etc etc we are.
Make them play by their rules – Alinsky.