I Am Beginning To Sense A Trend

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Quelle surprise:

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) has again come under fire from local Jewish organizations for remarking in a magazine interview that the "extraordinarily powerful" pro-Israel lobby played a strong role promoting the war in Iraq.

In an interview with Tikkun, a California-based Jewish magazine, Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is "the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power."

Moran's remarks were criticized by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and the National Jewish Democratic Council. Ronald Halber, executive director of the first group, said Moran's remarks are anti-Semitic and draw on ugly stereotypes about Jewish wealth, power and influence.

"He uses several age-old canards that have been used throughout history that have brought violence upon Jews," Halber said this week. "He uses clearly anti-Semitic images such as Jewish control of the media and wealthy Jews using their wealth to control policy."

Ira N. Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said in a published statement that there is nothing wrong with criticizing the pro-Israel lobby but that Moran's statements go beyond that to defamation by making a "phony" connection between AIPAC and the Iraq war.

"Rep. Moran's comments are not only incorrect and irresponsible," Forman said. "They are downright dangerous."

You know, if Jewish lobbying groups were as powerful as Moran thinks they are, there would have been a war in Iraq a long time before 2003. Heck, the Administration of George Bush the Elder would have pushed on to Baghdad after having liberated Kuwait. A basic review of the historical record will reveal that war was waged in 2003 because it was deemed in the American national security interest to do so.

But of course, we don't discuss that fact in circles where people like Jim Moran are popular. Instead, for decisions perceived to have gone wrong, the Jews get blamed. Plus ça change . . .


« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part OneComments (20) | The They Let Norman Hsu Out On Bail *AGAIN* Weekend Memorial Open Thread.Comments (19) »
I Am Beginning To Sense A Trend 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

He makes me feel safe. He's here to protect me from "the bankers."

FOr all the bragging NoVa does about how much smarter and better they are than the rest of the state, they then turn around and elect a disgrace like Moran.

Unfortunately, Moran is part of a trend. Jim Webb and his minions also resorted to some scurrilous attacks against both of his opponents (in the primary, and against George Allen) that were very suspicious. In 2006, Minnesota Democrats elected the nation's first Congressman from the Nation of Islam. Also that year, left wingers viciously went after Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacking him for his faith and implying that he was only backing the war because "Israel told him to." And attacking Jews has become a staple of the anti-war effort.

The sad thing is, for most of my families history in the US, they have voted proudly Democratic. (I am the exception.) My four grandparents were "ethnic Democrats" - i.e., moderately liberal, pro-American, and pro-FDR. Yet now, the Democratic Party routinely insults our heritage, and backs vicious candidates like Jim Moran and Keith Ellison.

It is a shame my religious/ethnic group refuses to learn from all this, and every election 75% of Jewish voters vote for a party that doesn't respect them.

You guys sure are doing a good job making Ron Paul look like a rambling nut. I sure wish *I* had complete control over the news media, but Al Gore says I only get free money to start businesses.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I just realized where Al Gore got that 'free money for "white" people' thing: Saturday Night Live, when Eddie Murphy puts on 'whiteface' to see how it is. He goes into the store, gets free food. Goes to the bank, gets a free loan. Goes into a bus, gets served free drinks as soon as the last non-'white' leaves the bus.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

defenses of him

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

the problem is I'm afraid that some of his supporters are going to decide the American leftist terrorist supporters are closer to what he is saying, than the Republican candidates are, and deliver their votes to the Democrats.

You don't seem to understand the power of the Jews in this country. Of course they are powerful enough to get a lot of their views pushed to the forefront of the public perview. How do you think G'dub'ya got a second term? The jews own a great deal of the Media in this country and, combined with Republican ownership, they managed to run the public discourse in this country for the last six or seven years.
Let me ask you a question; Why do you think it is that there were several Rabbis on all of the main networks calling for the American people to NOT WATCH MEL GIBSONS MOVIE? Do you think they would have allowed us to have Priests, preachers, pastors, etc...on their networks in Telaviv telling the Isrealies not to watch one of several Documentaries they have showing that Jesus is simply a false profit? Hell no!!!
Why do you think Sarah Silverman has a show? Do you really think it is because she is popular or talented? No way! She is a Jew and that is why she has a show, period. Wake up!!!!!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

In the interest of undoubtedly misplaced generosity, I'm gonna presume the foregoing is parody. Affirm for me that it is.

Now.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

While I agree her Jewish-ness has no connection with her success, I would say that attributing it to her physical appearance is a misfire as well:

Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle said that the show is "bursting with imagination, audacity, rude charm, and a relentlessly funny worldview" and called the show "an offbeat gem." Daniel Fierman of Entertainment Weekly called it "totally hilarious." Tad Friend of The New Yorker called the show "The meanest sitcom in years — and one of the funniest." Doug Elfman of The Chicago Sun-Times called the show "a live-action comedy as funny as Chappelle's Show."

The bottomline, of course, is financial:

The show's premiere drew impressive ratings, 1.8 million total viewers and 1.3 with the 18-49 demographic, making it "cable's biggest audience of the night" The show had the single best debut ratings [for a Comedy Central original] ...
[...]
... only eleven days after the show's premiere, it was announced that Comedy Central had "ordered 14 new episodes for air this fall and next spring." The network's reasoning for the early pickup was that, in its first two weeks, "it was the most-watched cable show in primetime among all key demos." Comedy Central called it "its most successful primetime launch in three years." [cite]

I've never seen the show. I presume it's hilarious. Speaking only for myself, I'd have given her a show on looks alone.

Geez. Our resident dissenting toids and libs have all taken one too many serious pills lately.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

No harm done, I should have made it clear it was as much a response to the guy above you as to you - I saw neither as offering a particularly accurate assessment of the basis for her current success. What's a "toid"?

AKA "Libertoid."

Just for this, I promise never to call another talented comedienne attractive, especially when I should note that, though I've never seen her perform, her success is due to her amazing talents, and not to the fact that she's hot.

Sarah, please forgive me.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

For the record, my objection to previous poster was that he cited her Jewish-ness as the reason for her success. Had he merely pointed out she was Jewish, period, I wouldn't have thought twice. Rest assured if you had merely pointed out she was attractive without drawing on that as the reason for her success ("it's because ..."), I'd also have not thought twice!

I've never seen her perform either, by the way, but I found that actually reading what those who have are saying about her show (and how her show is regarded by the network carrying it) was a good way to discern the real reasons she is enjoying current success in the entertainment industry.

Please don't post Wombat Sh*t all over the site!

Because there's no freaking way anyone in their right mind would smear that garbage here, we're operating under the temporary assumption that he's engaging in parody. Very shortly, he's going to affirm that, or he's going to go away.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And actually, given some of the diaries lately, I don't blame him.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Sorry, man. Didn't see in time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

that Moe is now faster on the trigger than is Thomas?

Odd stuff, there.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Red State is run by Zionist Neocons. Everyone knows that. That's why we bash Ron Paul so much.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Thomas, you must be in a particularly good mood today...


...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The trend that I would broadly describe as deliberately conflating "Jews" with the "Pro-Israel lobby". While the two populations can certainly overlap, the distinction is profound. Pejman, you are establishing a silly strawman to knock down (i.e. "the Jews" were behind the war in Iraq) in order to suggest that critics of the Pro-Israel lobby (and its influence on US Middle East policy) are silly or without merit in their claims. In so doing, you are implicitly saying that Jews=Pro-Israel lobby. While you don't necessarily believe this, you've projected this belief onto the general population and helping it grow. Unfortunately, this trend is widespread throughout the blogosphere and punditry, and only serves to lower and cheapen debate.

I am abstracting from Moran in my comments, because I didn't read through his statement. Nonetheless, my larger point is related to this comment attributed to him: "pro-Israel lobby played a strong role promoting the war in Iraq."

At the outset, I should state that for the purposes of this discussion, I use the term "Pro-Israel lobby" to denote the US partisans of the Israeli "center-right" governing coalition of roughly Kadima-Likud. While there are a diverse set of political views within Israel, this faction of the spectrum is most heavily represented within the US political conversation. AIPAC can serve as a useful reference point for said Lobby, as it is the most sophisticated and influential organization by most accounts. I would also note the Christian Pro-Israel forces, which primarily consist of many prominent leaders from the traditionalist anti-hierarchical Protestant branches, particularly the Pentecostal and Southern Baptist denominations. Christians United For Israel (CUFI) is one prominent manifestation. Certain members of this constituency have a separate parallel objective of inducing a second coming of the Messiah or otherwise completing a Biblical mandate. That said, these "Christian Zionists" nonetheless effectively operate as a very loud voice for ensuring the security of Israel. To round out the Pro-Israel lobby, we could include certain secondary actors with a business interest that stems from the US-Israel relationship, such as defense contractors, and companies that conduct R&D research in Israel. However, their motives may diverge and do not center around the safety of Israel or geopolitical positioning.

I would have to agree with you that the Pro-Israel lobby's influence in motivating the war in Iraq has probably been overstated..dramatically so by some people. However, I do think it's reasonable to suspect that considerations for Israel's well-being contributed to the decision to go to war in Iraq. This was perhaps best seen in the "fighting terrorists there so we don't fight them here" dimension, where Saddam's offerings of rewards for Palestinian suicide bombers was often cited. Some commentators also made the point that Saddam seriously considered invading Israel at one time. Overall, the context of the debate was often made in terms of Saddam's threat to "his neighbors" - while ambiguous, Israel was likely the single largest US-friendly nation on that list. Even if the WMD case was overstated far beyond expectations, it would still probably be desirable for Israel to have a fractured Iraq with a large US military presence and a US-friendly government. It's not clear that the war in Iraq has actually made Israel better off, but it is a fair point that supporters of Israel's Center-Right coalition thought it would as of early 2003. Still, it's clearly true that the debate on whether to go to war in Iraq incorporated many factors apart from Israel and was largely concerned with the risk Saddam posed to the US.

The related, and more interesting question, revolves around Iran. I don't have any special insight into the discussions within the Israeli political leadership, but it appears that the majority wasn't too excited about a US attack on Saddam. While they publicly supported the move and didn't really object, the general preference was likely for an assault on Iran. Of course, it could be said that the US simply didn't have a casus belli for Iran in 2002, but through the invasion of Iraq has made a conflict with Iran much more possible.

Fast forward to the US in the year 2007: in the case of Iran it seems hard to deny the prominence of the Pro-Israel constituency. While it's difficult to really quantify the impact of any one variable (lobby group) on a major political initiative, I would suggest to you that the constellation of Pro-Israel forces in arguing for a war against Iran is material. Olmert and potentially-PM-in-waiting Bibi Netanyahu have essentially explicitly made the case for pre-emptive US attacks. The bellicose statements from CUFI leader John Hagee are well publicized. The connection is reiterated when viewed through the prism of US presidential politics - candidates appearing at venues such as the Herzliya conference as well as AIPAC-sponsored events have tended to sound hawkish against Iran.

Now, having provided the background, I want to circle back to your thesis Pejman. Namely, that to identify the Pro-Israel lobby as a very important constituency in US Middle East policy (including the war in Iraq), is to indict Jewry as a whole.

This line of reasoning is flawed in fundamental ways:

1) Pro-Israel lobby is largely non-Jewish. Again, this is an entity that is imperfectly defined but we have established a working understanding.

2) Pro-Israel lobby is not representative of all Israelis. Thus, to strongly disagree with Natan Sharansky or Arik Sharon (previously) may be to strongly agree with many Israelis.

3) "Jew" does not = "Israeli". "Jewry" is a population that spans many nations, although the US and Israel are the single largest centers, and embodies individuals completely unrelated to political life. Even to the extent that an individual American Jew may agree with the Likud point of view if prompted on a multiple-choice question, it may not be on his/her radar screen. What % of American Jews are involved with AIPAC?

This fourth point is not "fundamental" - it ultimately doesn't affect my larger point, but further confirms the silliness of the linkage you're trying to create.

4)American Jews are significantly more opposed to the war in Iraq than American non-Jews. Similarly, Bush polled very poorly among Jews - and his Jewish support was disproportionately from the very orthodox (who have less of a role in the commentariat and in financial contributions). The Pro-Israel lobby, such as it is, is most influential among the Republican party precisely because there are so many more Fundamentalist protestants than there are Jews.

This is to say nothing of the wide diversity within the Jewish community - religiously, politically, culturally and otherwise.....

Pejman, I've read some of your columns and they are often quite insightful, but I didn't like this one at all.

...you'll find the link here. Fascinating reading, particularly the parts where he accuses American politicians of altering their policy positions on the orders of an international consortium of Jews. You'll have to scroll through the commentary of a man who was anti-Israel before 1967, and who equates AIPAC with both the NRA and David Duke - and oh, yes, we're all fascists - but that's par for the course when it comes to the antiwar movement. The psychic stink sticks to everything.

So why don't you go do some remedial reading, there? That's not really a suggestion.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

whether you are pro-Jew, but anti-Israeli, or anti-Evangelical Christian or what. I think the point you ended on was that us Fundamentalists are responsible for all of the problems, but we are lucky that it's all being blamed on the Jews. Maybe we are. That is, both responsible and lucky.

Fundamentalist Christian support for Israel is the on thing we can agree on. But us Fundies could just as easily blame the anti-semitic rhetoric of the Democrats to the large number of Catholics who are leaders among Democrats: Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc. Thankfully, that has not yet happened.

You are ignoring the fact that the 2006 election was the first time that the liberal wing of the Democrats became anti-semitic. Kos, HuffPo, and their sympathizers are anti-semitic, and not just anti-Israeli. George Allen was attacked for being tainted by Jewish blood, not because he supported Israel. And the rhetoric is not declining. It is growing. Attempting to separate "good" Jews from the pro-Israeli lobby doesn't really work

I have no idea whether the liberal Dems will eventually become brownshirts, nor do I have any specific fear of that happening, but their rhetoric is approaching the language of that time (again, note that I cleverly avoid calling them Nazis). This has been spurred among Democrats largely by black politicians such as Jackson and Sharpton. Jimmy Carter's anti-semitism receive much wider acceptance now than it was possible during his presidency. He hid it in 1977. He flaunts in in 2007.

This attitude has morphed into sympathy for the Palestinians and a willingness by the leaders of the Democrats to send positive messages to some of the worst Arab countries, Syria, for example. Not to mention a desire on their part to protect Iran from attack by GWB. After all, all Iran wants to do is build a nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel. And more Democrats now echo the refrain that Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East.

Your attempt to separate "good" Jews from the pro-Israeli lobby may be more applicable in 1960 than is is now. The number of liberal, even Marxist, Jews, emigres from German domination of Europe (again, I cleverly avoid the "N" word), was significant. They took up every liberal cause in America because of their experience in Europe, and much of that attitude still drives Jewish politics in America. But their options are becoming more limited. Today, Jews are being pushed by the liberal wing of the Democrats to either sever their ties with the land (Israel), to disavow their heritage, or risk isolation in the party.

It is barely possible today to talk about Jews vs. pro-Israeli, but that is changing. And it is being driven by Democrats.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

" think the point you ended on was that us Fundamentalists are responsible for all of the problems"

What are "all the problems"? Do you mean the difficulties in Iraq specifically? Whatever all "the problems" are, there are lots non-Fundamentalists who have contributed.

"but we are lucky that it's all being blamed on the Jews"

I don't really think it is being blamed on the Jews. However, if everyone does what Pejman is doing, then that could change. Note that blaming individual Jewish members of administration - Wolfwowitz, Feith, Perle - who played a large role in developing the conceptual framework for the war, is something different.

"But us Fundies could just as easily blame the anti-semitic rhetoric of the Democrats to the large number of Catholics who are leaders among Democrats: Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc."

You could but that wouldn't make any sense.

"You are ignoring the fact that the 2006 election was the first time that the liberal wing of the Democrats became anti-semitic. Kos, HuffPo, and their sympathizers are anti-semitic, and not just anti-Israeli."

Well, I disagree with you, but I don't want to go off into a separate tangent....well, maybe too late to stop...Regarding the blogs, I think you're referring the comments of a few certain posters and projecting them onto those websites as a whole. Go take a spin right now and show me how many anti-Jewish verbal attacks you see in the diaries.

My concern is that conservatives have internalized and accepted the reigning ecumenical theology of Political Correctness. Having been on the business end of many accusations of racial/cultural/ethnic insensitivity over the years, the right side of the spectrum now wants to join the arms race and retaliate against its adversaries. It's partly a function of the proliferation of blogs and such rapid dissemination of information and commentary. Instead of engaging an opponent in depth, simply glue an anti-[ ] label on to them and they will have to spend their time denying it. The sad thing is, Kos' credibility in the marketplace might be most hurt by such a bogus attack, instead of a substance-based attak on all of that website's intellectual weak links and childish trivialities that moonlight as "arguments". Sad commentary indeed. Ok, end of mini-rant.

"Attempting to separate "good" Jews from the pro-Israeli lobby doesn't really work".

I'm not thinking of some as being "good" or some as being "bad". There are many who are very sympathetic to the Pro-Israeli lobby that can make great contributions to the debate.

"more Democrats now echo the refrain that Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East"

Can you list the Democrats who have said this? Note that this our secondary debate about your assertion that the Democratic party is actively anti-Israel, separate from our primary debate.

"Today, Jews are being pushed by the liberal wing of the Democrats to either sever their ties with the land (Israel), to disavow their heritage, or risk isolation in the party"

No they're not. I assume that you're making Joe Lieberman the centerpiece of your argument. But keep in mind that he lost his Democratic primary and won re-election as an "Independent Democrat". He was so vociferously opposed because he was the most hawkish, outspoken Democrat who supported Bush's middle east policy (and to boot, he came from a blue state). Contrast that with the treatment that Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold receives on the blogs that you have indentified earlier.

"It is barely possible today to talk about Jews vs. pro-Israeli, but that is changing. And it is being driven by Democrats"

and it is being driven by Pejman and yourself and the many others who keep using "Jew" interchangably with (tightly defined) "Pro-Israeli". Again, the problem is making criticism of one equal to criticism of the other, which is exactly what you're trying to achieve.

I don't think this can be overlooked or downplayed. We should ultimately decide on prospective policies based on their merits, not reduce them to a silly game of "who is for or against this?" That said, I think that "who is for or against this?" does play a role in shaping public debate. The goal is to make it unacceptable in polite society to explore the possible connection between Israel and Iran/Iraq. To draw a parallel, could we discuss the pro-amnesty Bush immigration plan without mentioning the efforts of the Mexican (and other smaller) government(s) and their partisans in the US? Would mentioning such efforts be tantamount to an attack on anyone with a Spanish surname (plus Bill Richardson)? I think you can see my point, CroakerNorge.

Oh, and anyone can be a member of the Pro-Israel lobby (including a substantial number of Jews). I don't care about their internal demographic breakdown, what is relevant in our discourse is the activity of this lobby. I merely cited Fundamentalists given their very large presence. Liberal/mainline protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Quakers and other faiths do not incorporate such a visceral, living connection to Israel in their respective eschatologies, but individuals could still be very Pro-Israel by our definition(s). Fundamentalist protestant is itself a broad cornucopia of sub-beliefs, so I am not type-casting that constituency...however, it's clear that Israel has a very special place in the hearts of many Fundamentalists and this has motivated political activism on her behalf.

Thanks for your reply.

The anti-Semitism comes into play when the world holds Jews to a different standard than non-Jews. This can be seen in their singleminded fulminations over the "evil" influence of the Jewish lobby. Does anyone single out Irish Americans for their influence over US Irish policy? No. How about the Arab Americans, who work to promote our alliances with various Arab nations? No. What about the Armenian Americans who push to sanction Turkey for that nation's genocide against the Armenians? No. And what about Mexican Americans who push for open borders with Mexico? No. It is only the Jews they go after.

BTW, as a Jew, I have to say, that if we actually do control the world, someone is keeping my share from me.

your broader point your examples could use some some work. The Irish? They're held back by whiskey... just ask jsettle. And the Arabic population is held back by the Jews.

Other than that...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

AWF:

"More Democrats now echo the refrain that Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East. Can you list the Democrats who have said this? Note that this our secondary debate about your assertion that the Democratic party is actively anti-Israel, separate from our primary debate."

Sure. Here are some Dems and liberals who echo said refrain. Former President Jimmy Carter - I am guessing you have heard of him. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Michael Moore. Rep. Jim Moran. Rep. Keith Ellison. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Zbigniew Brezinski. Former Rep. Jim Trafficant. Former Rep. Cynthia Mckinney. Former Presidential Candidate Wes Clark.

Since I don't read the Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post, I can't comment on your assertion that these people are pure as the driven snow. But I sincerely doubt it.

BTW, you mention "that blaming individual Jewish members of administration - Wolfwowitz, Feith, Perle - who played a large role in developing the conceptual framework for the war, is something different." Actually, you are wrong. What is fascinating about the new anti-Semites is that they tend to focus on these guys just as much as the people that the normal, logical anti-war person would focus on. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John McCain are actually far more important regarding this war - as they were actually the ones that decided what happened, and how it happened. Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz are minor funcitionaries, and idea men. Does anyone even know, or care, who were the idea men for John Kerry during 2004? And did anyone single them out for criticism regarding the ideas that Kerry was putting forth? No and no. We focused, rightly, on Kerry. But you can't go to an anti-war rally without hearing about Feith, Perle, or Wolfowitz. Hmmmm... I wonder why?

"Sure. Here are some Dems and liberals who echo said refrain. Former President Jimmy Carter - I am guessing you have heard of him. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Michael Moore. Rep. Jim Moran. Rep. Keith Ellison. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Zbigniew Brezinski. Former Rep. Jim Trafficant. Former Rep. Cynthia Mckinney. Former Presidential Candidate Wes Clark. "

I don't know that all of those people have attributed "all the problems in the Middle East" to Israel - it's a pretty aggressive paraphrase to say that. In their presidential runs did Jackson, Sharpton or Clark propose cutting off aid to Israel or treating them diplomatically as we would Iran or Syria? Has Brezinski? I don't know the answer to that, but I would be surprised. Still, I would have to review their remarks at length to opine more fully on the people you cited. Moreover, some names in that cast of characters are b-rate clowns not within the leadership or mainstream of the party. Wasn't trafficant the "beam me up" guy with the terrible haircut? Ok, I'm getting a bit off topic, and this wasn't the main point of my posting.

"Since I don't read the Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post, I can't comment on your assertion that these people are pure as the driven snow. But I sincerely doubt it"

You've defined "pure as the driven snow" as not making anti-semitic comments..on that basis, they are pretty pure. You can go look for a few minutes if you like. There are a lot of other things to criticize with the postings, so I wouldn't consider them "pure as the driven snow".

"What is fascinating about the new anti-Semites is that they tend to focus on these guys just as much as the people that the normal, logical anti-war person would focus on. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John McCain are actually far more important regarding this war - as they were actually the ones that decided what happened, and how it happened. Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz are minor funcitionaries, and idea men."

The "new anti-semites" is a vague term, so I don't know who you mean. That said, it would be bizarre to condemn the war in Iraq without including Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. I haven't been to anti-war rallies, but I assume that Bush must be prominent. But again, that doesn't speak to the alleged role of the Pro-Israel lobby, which has been generally friendly with the most senior members of the administration. I would quibble with you and point out that Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz were not minor (especially Wolfowitz, who basically tutored Bush on national security policy on the 2000 campaign trail and had been Cheney's #2 previously). Still, the proverbial "neo-conservatives" are a group of policy intellectuals who have helped craft foreign affairs since the Reagan Administration throughout the globe. While generally very supportive of the Center-Right coalition in Israel, they should not be confused with the Pro-Israel lobby. We don't know Kerry's idea men, but we might have known certain ones if he got elected, it's just hard to generate a hypothetical like that.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Best,

Yet you claim they aren't blaming Israel for all problems?

How could you?!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

If it was a sarcastic (dry humor) means of supporting me or a genuine disagreement. I see that you expressed support earlier for a rebuttal to my first posting, so I will assume it was a good faith question. I don't know you and your style of reply, so I hope you don't take this as condescending or pedantic.

The proposition: a US political party - i.e. one that accounts for roughly half of the voters and elected representatives in this country - attributes all or most geopolitical problems in the Middle East (which has a lot of such problems) to Israel. My provisional presumption is that this is false. As evidence, the US grants significant annual aid and maintains friendly relations with Israel, often expressed in Congressional resolutions related to that country. In all cases (aid and other votes), the Democratic vote is typically overwhelming positive (in favor).

If the Democratic party felt that Israel was more guilty of crimes - misbehaved more than Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. - one might expect this attitude to manifest itself in the form of speeches by its most prominent members highlighting. Have Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Biden (foreign relations leadership role), Edwards, etc. ever publicly said Israel is problematic or the worst actor in the Middle East? Have they suggested we should discontinue aid to Israel? Are you saying no elected Democrats in congress speak to AIPAC or receive campaign contributions? Is Cynthia McKinney the exception or the rule?

In a nutshell, that's my starting point assumption that made me skeptical of this proposition, made by CroakerNorge and then supported by Dingo.

Jackson's work.

yes, Gobi-dry humor.
I'm going to re-read mein Kampf later to make sure I haven't misjudged Hitler as an anti-semite.

haha

You may be right though. Jesse may actually be a double agent for the Mossad.

The moral equivalence the dems grant to the death cult palestinians is criminal.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"I don't know that all of those people have attributed all the problems in the Middle East to Israel - it's a pretty aggressive paraphrase to say that. In their presidential runs did Jackson, Sharpton or Clark propose cutting off aid to Israel or treating them diplomatically as we would Iran or Syria? Has Brezinski? I don't know the answer to that, but I would be surprised."

Obviously, you have not read President Carter's latest book, my friend. And why would you expect Jackson and Sharpton and Clark to propose cutting off aid to Israel? They were running for President, and already in trouble with the Jewish community; why antagonize (primarily Democratic) voters more? That doesn't meant that they were friendly to the Jewish community, or Israel, however. They have all called for "evenhanded" Middle East policies; I believe that strategy does require treating Israel pretty much the same as the Arab nations and Iran. (Perhaps you have no problem treating an ally in the same manner as Iran; I do.) I believe Brezinski has called for reducing aid, however, and he now has a advisory role with Obama.

"That said, it would be bizarre to condemn the war in Iraq without including Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. I haven't been to anti-war rallies, but I assume that Bush must be prominent."
Of course he is prominent. That was not my point. My point was that why are Perle or Feith or Wolfowitz all so often mentioned also, when these three were relatively minor officials, and not the actual "decisionmakers." That is simply not normal procedure for American politics, and I am quite sure they are consistently brought up because they are all Jewish.

AWF, the point I, and several other commentators have been making is that the Democratic Party/liberal groups today seem to be more an more indifferent to, or even in the thrall of, anti-Semites within their midst, such as Jim Moran. It is not that the Democratic Party has no Jewish support, or that every Democratic politician is anti-Semitic and trying to destroy Israel. And your arguments to the contrary, which seem to try to obscure the issue, are not particularly convincing.

But feel free to keep trying, if you like.

Well, I think we have said all we have say on this...I will agree to somewhat disagree with you. Dingo, thank you for your constructive response.

My points are, in order of importance:

1) Jewish community does not equal Pro-Israel lobby (as initially defined) for several reasons

2) Democratic party, taken as a whole, mostly supports Israel's position and sustaining its special friendship with the US. While this support may not be as consistent and intense as that of the Republican party, the Dems' stance toward Israel would have to broadly be characterized as positive.

These are descriptive statements. They are designed to be valid regardless of what one thinks about the war in Iraq, Bush vs. Kerry, Carter's book (which I didn't read, you're correct), the neo-conservative thesis on engaging China, Yankees vs. Red Sox, etc. They are meant to result in a more elevated debate where the focus is on individual actors and the political process, not on misguided name-calling (not picking on you, Dingo).

You may be right about excessive attention to Perle or Feith or Wolfowitz..I just haven't seen it especially in things I read.

Gamecock,

Speaking of smooches, would Hillary's kiss of Arafat's wife indicate her intrinsic animus to Israel (presumably on an existential level)? That would be news to a lot of people. Is that one data point definitive, or is it often helpful to review subjects in greater length?..not just Jackson, who makes it easy to get picked on, but in general. There was a big assertion made about a list of names, I didn't want to provide a quick up and down yes-no about all of them. I won't really address your implication that they are as obvious in their malice as Hitler, if less ambitious in their goal.

In any event, we have a different point of view and I respect that. Perhaps we can have a richer interaction and find more in common in future threads.

Cordially,

sincere.

Two, I was actually a Jackson delegate to the national convention in 2004 from SC. (I converted to the GOP in 2000)

three, hope Hillary got an Aids test. (Yassir, Bill, ...)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service