pageok
pageok
pageok
Anti-Semitism in The Philippines' "Leading Business Magazine":

One Bernardo V. Lopez writes in Business World:

Both Republicans and Democrats in the US support Israel in their Gaza invasion because the rich and powerful American Jewish community, which controls media, Hollywood, hedge funds, investment banks, among other things, gives funds to their campaigns and their cause. It is a "power quid pro quo."

Their political power is dependent on this small rich community. That is why they are but glorified puppets of the power behind their power. They, in their myopia and failure to see the global perspective — they who turn inward to see only the face in the mirror on the wall — are under the mercy of this elite group which holds the destiny of the planet in its hands. This Jewish elite virtually controls not only America but also the world. ... The US-Israeli partnership actually antedates both Obama and the Palestinian conflict. The Jewish tycoons became rapidly and intensely wealthy by funding both sides of World War I. They came to America and started taking over the economy. Today, they control media, filmdom, banking, large corporations and have people in Washington, the State Department, the National Security Agency, etc.

Meanwhile, the prime minister of Turkey has denied that his criticisms of Israel's actions in Gaza reflect anti-Semitism, but added that the situation is Gaza is being distorted by the "Jewish-backed media."

Guesty McGuesterston (mail):
Actually, Business World is a Jew-owed publication that those crafty Jews use to publish over-the-top articles like this to make their detractors look bad. This is all part of their Jew schemes. There. I out-crazied him. It took some thought, but it is possible.
1.14.2009 4:04pm
R Gould-Saltman (mail):
Much though I don't want to admit it, D.B., you've undersold this one, by leaving out, e.g.


" Nobody can disrupt this powerful partnership. Getting a non-pro-Israel American president on the throne is virtually impossible. The American Jewish community will simply pour massive election funds on his rival. They have the capability to choose the president. Even if a non-pro-Israel president wins, he will be roasted at the stake by the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

It is a repeat of history. The Christian Crusaders and Muslim Saracens were the giants who hemmed in the tiny Jews. They massacred Jews throughout history. But the Jews had a secret formula — participation in the ruling class of their enemies. The Jews participated in almost all powerful monarchies of the Middle Ages, Christian or Muslim. They participated in the Arab rennaissance and the Western industrial revolution. It was like Moses being in the inner circle of the Pharaohs. The key to this success was participating without being absorbed. Throughout history, the Jews were conquered but their culture and religion remained intact. It is something they learned from the days of the Pharaohs. Whereas other conquered races are absorbed by the conquerors, whereas Filipinos became Christians, the Jews always maintained their culture and religion within other powerful cultures.
1.14.2009 4:10pm
Specast:
Thus ends the latest installment of "David Bernstein, Jewish Bias Detective." Congrats, David. You've found some, once again.

When can we expect an installment of "David Bernstein, Infrequent Commenter on Legal Issues in This, A Blog About The Law"?
1.14.2009 4:10pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Feel free to either continue to waste your time posting complaints about what I write, or to further waste your time by complaining to blog czar Eugene about what I write. Or, feel free to just shut up, and save everyone time.
1.14.2009 4:12pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Damn that Rupert Murdoch, anyway.
1.14.2009 4:21pm
BGates:
I'm amazed at the number of commenters on DB's posts who are more bothered by the mention of anti-Semitism than they are by the existence of anti-Semitism.
1.14.2009 4:25pm
Ari (mail) (www):
"Feel free to either continue to waste your time posting complaints about what I write, or to further waste your time by complaining to blog czar Eugene about what I write. Or, feel free to just shut up, and save everyone time."

Ouch.

In other news, "czar" seems to be on the up-and-up these days...
1.14.2009 4:29pm
Specast:
Too defensive, David. Is it somehow wrong of me to wonder whether you, as a law professor, have any thoughts about the law? Other posters do, and that is the primary thrust of this blog.

Nor did I suggest you stop posting about Israel, anti-Semitism, etc. Knock yourself out, and if you feel like informing us that the online version of a Filipino business journal printed an ugly article, go for it. But in between seeing those posts, I do wonder: do you have interesting things to say about the law? And: if so, why don't you post them very often?
1.14.2009 4:30pm
buckeye (mail):
Ahh, the commenters who feel the need to dictate what is posted on a blog....that never gets old. There are hundreds of blogging law professors Specast, perhaps you could read something they write, instead of of obsessing that one particular professor is writing about something that happens to be one of the most prominent news stories over the last few weeks.

I think the co conspirators are perfectly aware of what is being written on the blog and don't seem to have a problem. This is also where I point out that law professors don't have a monopoly on blogging, and that the barrier of entry for you to do so yourself isn't exactly high.
1.14.2009 4:35pm
Wheat Free Terrier (mail):
Specast,

You forgot to demand a refund. Oh and by the way, if you are interested in DB's views on the law (though I am sure your interest is disingenuous), I suggest you search SSRN for his papers on use of scientific evidence and the Daubert rule - interesting stuff.
1.14.2009 4:36pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
I, too, am terribly upset when bloggers on blogs that I do not operate or pay for decide to blog about subjects other than the subjects that I want to read about at any particular moment. It's deucedly inconsiderate of my personal needs. At the moment I would like to read blog entries about ponies, or Warhammer Online, or possibly ponies playing Warhammer Online, possibly as dwarves, because ponies and dwarves are both hairy. Yet David Bernstein ignores my personal preferences. Does he mean to imply that ponies are anti-Semitic? Or dwarves? It makes me want to take my medication and go lie down.

Plus, I was given to understand that the first rule of the International Zionist Conspiracy was don't talk about the International Zionist Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, this post led me to Google and hence to learn something about anti-Semitism and the Philippines that I did not know before. That's a good thing. Even if it was not about ponies.
1.14.2009 4:39pm
Awesome-O:
Up next:

"Dammit Glenn, stop trying to get your readers to buy discounted watches on Amazon and get back to blogging about the law!"

"For crying out loud, Andrew, I don't want to read another edition of Sully's Adventures in Bearland. Get back to writing about how circumcision is as horrible as Obama is awesome."

"Oh for eff's sake, Mickey, no one cares what you think about cars. Get back to dumping on members of your own political party."
1.14.2009 4:41pm
Frater Plotter:
It isn't antisemitism to say that the majority of big Hollywood executives, the people ultimately responsible for the business decisions of the mass media, are Jewish. That is simply a fact.

It is antisemitism to say that "the Jews control Hollywood", because that suggests that the guy who runs the kosher deli down the block bears some sort of responsibility for Steven Spielberg's decisions.

Get the difference, folks?
1.14.2009 4:44pm
buckeye (mail):
I learn new things every day...big hollywood jews control the mass media. Is there a list of these facts somewhere so I can get up to speed?
1.14.2009 4:47pm
Anon252 (mail):
Specast's post bears an uncanny resemblance to old comments from banned holocaust-denier Farfaman.
1.14.2009 4:50pm
Garth:
here's another view on the topic...


'Europe has ceded dealing with the Israelis to the United States. The people of the United States have ceded dealing with the Israelis to the US Congress. The US Congress generally abdicates its responsibilities when faced with large powerful single-issue lobbies such as . . . the Israel lobbies. So Congress has ceded Israel, and indeed, most Middle East, policy to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its myriad organizational supporters, from the Southern Baptist churches to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. The Israel lobbies take their cue on what is good policy from the Israeli government and the Likud Party. So, US Israel policy is driven by . . . the Israeli rightwing. That is why Congress voted 309 to five to support Israel's war on the people of Gaza, with 22 abstaining. '


maybe anti-semitism in the phillipines did produce this author's misapprehension of who is running our israeli foreign policy.
1.14.2009 4:51pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Specast, I think they have a button on the side that let's you delete the specific Conspirator that offends you from the version you read. Maybe you should use it?
1.14.2009 4:52pm
Bonze Saunders (mail):

By arming Israel to the teeth and using it as a wedge to pry oil from the Arabs...


Another quotation from the article that is teh funny... I've seen the claim that Israel was set up to serve as a proxy to control Arab oil before, and am once again struck by the astonishing incompetence of the scheming Zionist-Colonialist powers who failed to note the complete and utter absence of oil fields in Judea...
1.14.2009 4:55pm
flyerhawk:
The quoted material doesn't strike me as anti-semitic as much as loony bin conspiracy theory crap.

Garth's quoted material seems a more sober take on it, although I think it goes a bit too far.

Who exactly are the American politicians critical of Israel? Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and........?
1.14.2009 5:01pm
PersonFromPorlock:
It's interesting that the objection is to who's allegedly buying the government and not to the accusation that it's for sale, though. I take it that 'pay to play' is by now so thoroughly established that, if asked, the Court would rule it was an occasion for deference to the legislative branch.
1.14.2009 5:02pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Garth, your quote is from Juan Cole. Good old Juan dabbles in anti-Semitic rhetoric with some regularity, so I'm not exactly sure what the point of quoting him is, unless to show that he is barely on this side of rationality from Bernardo Lopez.

BTW, Cole's entire premise is laughable, given that the right-wing (including the Likud Party) is excluded from the current Israeli government, and the war in Gaza has broad support across the entire Israeli political spectrum. Not to mention that public opinion surveys show Americans favoring Israel over the Palestinians something like 8 to 1, which would be even higher if it was limited to Israel v. Hamas. The fact that Glenn Greenwald chooses to repeat such nonsense is informative.
1.14.2009 5:05pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Garth, don't you like Herr Cole's point that the Southern Baptists and the Jews together control US foreign policy in the Middle East?

Very ecumenical!
1.14.2009 5:05pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Is anyone aware of any work which has been done to explain how anti-semitism jumped across the world? It was nurtuerd in Europe and the Mideast for hundreds of years, but I'm amazed to see it migrating to the Philippines.

Asians have their own prejudices, but they haven't managed to infiltrate the west. For example, Americans haven't taken the Japanese prejudice against Koreans as their own.
1.14.2009 5:11pm
Garth:
juan cole is not an anti-semite.
1.14.2009 5:15pm
Garth:
blah, blah, blah.

recall not long ago when the concern trolls wondered whether obama could get the jewish vote and how it depended on how hard he came out for israel.

maybe we should ignore the fact that most americans condemn the israeli actions in gaza.

forget about the fact that our politicians are paid money by aipac to do things contrary to the wishes of their constituency.

ignore the fact that the tail is wagging the dog.
1.14.2009 5:18pm
Michael B (mail):
There's bad news, and there's good.
1.14.2009 5:18pm
Sarcastro (www):
Little fillipino Eichmans.
1.14.2009 5:18pm
flyerhawk:
David,

Ad hominem attacks on Juan Cole aside, can you explain why American politicians are so OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of Israel? What other issue has over 95% support in Congress?

You know it is possible to believe that the Israeli lobby in the United States has inordinate power and NOT be an anti-semite.
1.14.2009 5:19pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Bonze Saunders: It's rumored that the early Zionists, when choosing where to settle, had Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province (where the bulk of the world's oil is found) among their choices. If so, they really did demonstrate a lack of foresight.

On the other hand, this piece suggests that Zionists are running Saudi Arabia, so maybe Jews are playing a really, really deep game! The article suggests that the founder of the Al-Saud was actually one Mordakhai who was even more awesome in the use of his 'fleshly sword'. He bred with every Arab tribe imaginable, thus begetting both the Al-Saud and their sexy ways.

Antisemitism? I think 'loony' is the more apt description.
1.14.2009 5:20pm
Mike 'Ralph' Smith:
You misspelled Philippines in the title--one "l" and 2 "p"s (OK, actually 3 "p"s counting the first one).
1.14.2009 5:22pm
Michael B (mail):
"maybe we should ignore the fact that most americans condemn the israeli actions in gaza"

I doubt this. Link, citation?
1.14.2009 5:22pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Asians have their own prejudices, but they haven't managed to infiltrate the west.

Depends what you mean by "infiltrate the west." The prejudices are here, but non-Asians are unlikely to adopt them: Asians I know think that Caucasians are lazy and unfilial, quick to divorce their wives and neglect their children. Loudmouth drunks, the lot of them.
1.14.2009 5:22pm
DavidBernstein (mail):

juan cole is not an anti-semite.
I agree. But not being an anti-Semite doesn't mean that you don't dabble in anti-Semitic rhetoric, especially when you are someone whose "hatred of Israel in general, and more hawkish elements in Israel in particular, have driven him close to the edge of Lyndon Larouche territory."
1.14.2009 5:23pm
Dave N (mail):
Elliot,

I am guessing that Philippino anti-semitism probably derives from its status as a Spanish colony for over 400 years and, unlike the rest of Asia, of Roman Catholicism as the dominant religion.

I do not want to imply that all or even most Catholics are anti-semitic. Rather, Spain, during much of this period, was intolerant of all other religions.
1.14.2009 5:24pm
UnintelligibleLiberal (mail):
"Garth, your quote is from Juan Cole. Good old Juan dabbles in anti-Semitic rhetoric with some regularity, so I'm not exactly sure what the point of quoting him is, unless to show that he is barely on this side of rationality from Bernardo Lopez."

I am an avid reader of both Volokh and Informed Comment. I haven't come across any "anti-semitic" comments (on a semi-related note I am Jewish). I think saying he "dabbles" in anti-semitism is kinda just name-calling without specific examples. I would be interested if you had any though.
1.14.2009 5:25pm
SSFC (www):
Elliot123: The Philippines has substantial populations of Catholics and Muslims. Neither of those churches, until recently, has demonstrated too much interest in an ecumenical understanding with the Jewish faith.

The Philippines is also, culturally, among the most westernized of Asian nations, at least among the elite who provide writers for business dailies. It's not too surprising that the virus of anti-semitism would migrate there among other cultural imports.
1.14.2009 5:26pm
Shelby (mail):
juan cole is not an anti-semite.

He just plays one on the Internet.

I kid, though. I don't think Cole is an anti-semite; I just think he's a loudmouth and a fool who knows far less than he pretends about the subjects on which he blathers. But he's less annoying than all the other people who tout his nonsense.
1.14.2009 5:29pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
No need for conspiracy theories. The Israel Lobby has influence only because it's building on a bedrock of popular support for Israel:
Support for Israel is not restricted to the Jewish community. Americans of all ages, races and religions sympathize with Israel. This support is also nonpartisan, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans consistently favoring Israel by large margins over the Arabs.

The best indication of Americans' attitude toward Israel is found in the response to the most consistently asked question about the Middle East: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?" The organization that has conducted the most surveys is Gallup. Support for Israel in Gallup Polls has remained consistently around the 50% mark since 1967. Some people have the misperception that sympathy for Israel was once much higher, but the truth is that before the Gulf War the peak had been 56%, reached just after the Six-Day War. In January 1991, sympathy for Israel reached a record high of 64%, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, support for the Arabs dropped to 8% and the margin was a record 56 points.

In 78 Gallup polls, going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 46% of the American people compared to 12% for the Arab states/Palestinians. The results are similar (46%-11%) when all 181 polls asking similar questions are included. Americans have slightly more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Arab states, but the results of polls asking respondents to choose between Israel and the Palestinians have not differed significantly from the other surveys.

The most recent poll, reported by Gallup in February 2007, found that sympathy for Israel was 58% compared to 20% for the Palestinians (the highest figure since 1989). Despite the violence of the preceding years, and a steady stream of negative media coverage, this exceeds the level of support Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular. Gallup also reported in March 2007 "as Americans have moved out of the 'no preference' columns, they have moved disproportionately into the pro-Israeli column."

Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 42%, in the 1980s, it was 46%, and, in the 1990s, 50%, including a record high of 64% at the time of the Gulf War in January 1991. So far in the new millennium, support for Israel is averaging 50%.

Meanwhile, support for the Arabs/Palestinians has actually declined in the last two decades from an anemic average just below 15% in the 1980s to less than 14% since 2000. On average, Israel is favored by nearly 4 to 1.

Gallup also takes regular polls on world affairs. Overall favorable ratings of Israel in February 2008 were 71%, the highest since the record 79% favorable rating in February 1991 during the first Gulf War. By contrast, just 14% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Palestinian Authority, while 75% have an unfavorable view, only marginally better than the 2006 figure of 78%, the most negative Gallup recorded since it began asking about the Palestinian Authority in 2000. The PA is rated just above North Korea (12%) and Iran (8%) as the least popular countries.

Since 1998, roughly three-fourths of respondents have said the United States should take neither side in the conflict, but those who do pick a side overwhelmingly choose Israel (27% vs. 1% for the Palestinian's side in 2001). More than three-fourths of Americans also believe Palestinian-Israeli peace is somewhat or very important to the United States.

Polls also indicate the public views Israel as a reliable U.S. ally, a feeling that grew stronger during the Gulf crisis. A January 1991 Harris Poll, for example, found that 86% of Americans consider Israel a "close ally" or "friendly." This was the highest level ever recorded in a Harris Poll. The figure in 2006 was 75%. In a December 2008 Rasmussen poll, the figure was 63%.
1.14.2009 5:30pm
Fub:
R Gould-Saltman quoted more from the Lopez article at 1.14.2009 4:10pm:
Nobody can disrupt this powerful partnership. Getting a non-pro-Israel American president on the throne is virtually impossible.
So not only is America run secretly by a Jewish conspiracy, but America is also a monarchy. I would never have known any of that if Mr. Lopez hadn't informed me, and I've lived here in the USA all my life.

Those Jews are incredibly clever to keep all that covered up for so long.
1.14.2009 5:30pm
Garth:

Forty-four percent of Americans support Israel's use of force, while only 18 percent considered Hamas' use of force appropriate.



alright, 56% of american don't support israel's use of force... NOT condemn it. this is from mcclatchy yesterday.

furthermore, this obscures the fact that this skews down party lines.
1.14.2009 5:31pm
JoeSixpack (mail):
The irony is that the Hollywood Jews are not particularly supportive of Israel. Only someone like Spielberg could make a movie about Munich and make Israel the bad guy and the Arabs sympathetic.

Let's not forget that the Holocaust was only about 65 years ago, and the only thing actually stopping another one is the power and will of the United States.
1.14.2009 5:37pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
And I thought Borat was an exaggeration.
1.14.2009 5:37pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
SSFC: You can check my link above, or this one, or this one. And I rarely look at Cole, so there might well be more examples. I suppose you could argue with my premise that claiming without evidence that high level Jewish officials in the Bush Administration were intentionally acting on behalf of Israel and against the interests of the U.S., and that various Republican Jews were behind the Iraq war to serve Israel's interest, is anti-Semitic rhetoric, but I'll stand by it.
1.14.2009 5:39pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
The above was meant as a response to Unintelligle Liberal. I should note, in fairness, that Cole often disclaims and denounces anti-Semitism, even when his rhetoric smacks of it. I think he's sincere, and simply doesn't realize the prejudiced basis for what he's saying.
1.14.2009 5:42pm
buckeye (mail):
The overwhelming support for israel in the american conscious HAS to derive from jew mind control. It couldn't have anything to do with rational actors evaluating the relative motives and actions of the main actors in the conflict.

Also, is it just me or is it really really easy to know where someone is going with their commentary and political leanings as soon as they type the words "Concern troll". It's the new special word of the day for a certain type of internet warrior.
1.14.2009 5:42pm
R Nebblesworth:
Even if all of that is absolutely true, it just makes me like the Jews more. Those rascally ol' semites have some gumption, you gotta give 'em that!
1.14.2009 5:44pm
TerrencePhilip:
[DB wrote] No need for conspiracy theories. The Israel Lobby has influence only because it's building on a bedrock of popular support for Israel:

A point entirely lost on the "dual loyalty"/"foreign control" crowd. Or, at least, a point they never acknowledge. For them, it's not enough to simply disagree with public opinion; they must claim black magic and mind control.
1.14.2009 5:45pm
flyerhawk:
"I agree. But not being an anti-Semite doesn't mean that you don't dabble in anti-Semitic rhetoric, especially when you are someone whose "hatred of Israel in general, and more hawkish elements in Israel in particular, have driven him close to the edge of Lyndon Larouche territory."

So is this like not being a racist but dabbling in racist rhetoric? Cause Republicans have been telling me for years that either you are a racist or you aren't.

I get so confused when it comes to teh outrage.
1.14.2009 5:48pm
Shelby (mail):
Has anyone advanced an explanation of why, given the Jews' secret mastery of the US, they've failed so miserably to manipulate most other governments? They had a full millenium's start in Europe but governments there are not notably friendly to Israel. And of course, in the Middle East they aren't very successful in controlling, e.g., Syria and Iran.

I guess Americans are just particularly gullible.
1.14.2009 5:49pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
There's a joke the gist of which is that Jews ought to read things like Business World, because it's a much more pleasant thought that the Jews do in fact control everything.
1.14.2009 5:49pm
Michael B (mail):
No, Garth, here's the McClatchy link you're referring to:

Poll: American Public Backs Israel Firmly in War with Hamas, excerpt,

"Forty-four percent of Americans support Israel's use of force, while only 18 percent considered Hamas' use of force appropriate. Fifty-seven percent think that Hamas is using excessive force, while only 36 percent said Israel was."

And that, despite an often skewed set of reports fed out of Israel by western and other news services. To hi-light one example only, it's telling that this is depicted as a recent war - or battle within the larger existential conflict - when in fact this more recent conflict began in 2001/2002 when Hamas began firing rockets, mortars, sniper fire and other munitions into Israel. It subsequently escalated greatly in late 2005 when Israel rendered Gaza Judenfrei, when Israel forced all Jews out of Gaza.

Hence, if the public at large were better informed, it is likely the poll would favor Israel's actions and disfavor Hamas's actions, since 2001/2002, all the more.
1.14.2009 5:55pm
flyerhawk:
Could someone point me to the politicians speaking for the 36% of Americans who oppose Israel's military actions?

I keep looking for them but I can't seem to find them.
1.14.2009 5:59pm
Garth:
if 44% support it, then there's 56% who don't for whatever reason. that's not a majority of americans.

if people knew that the total number of people killed by rockets from Hamas totaled something like 20 in the past several years, and that in response, thousands have been killed and wounded, in a futile attempt to once again put off the necessity of coming to a peacable solution, i doubt all the money in the world will prevent american politicians from coming around to a less friendly view of current and future israeli action.
1.14.2009 6:04pm
Shelby (mail):
Flyerhawk: Could someone point me to the politicians speaking for the 36% of Americans who oppose Israel's military actions?

Knowing that Maxine Waters is on pretty much the opposite end of every political spectrum from me, this was easy to find: Link.
1.14.2009 6:10pm
Shelby (mail):
Garth,

Sometimes people may disagree with you for reasons other than ignorance or evil.
1.14.2009 6:16pm
LM (mail):

This Jewish elite virtually controls not only America but also the world.

Bwaahahahaaa...!!!!!

And we run the whole operation from...??? (Hint: "Volokh" is Russian for "Worldwide Jewish")
1.14.2009 6:17pm
James Eaves-Johnson (mail) (www):
1.) I came here because I liked the libertarian approach of EVs writings in law school, but also find myself just as interested in DBs posts.
2.) These issues are relevant to the law and public policy because scapegoating Jews has been a worldwide pastime in the formation of law and public policy.
3.) Americans are overwhelmingly on one side of most issues. We just don't often have to hear much from the tiny minority on the other side of issues because most people are ashamed of their more ridiculous views. Apparently being anti-Zionist and shamelessness correlate at much higher rates than shamelessness and, say, opposing vaccination, supporting segregation, supporting pedophilia, ...
1.14.2009 6:18pm
James Eaves-Johnson (mail) (www):
Garth, if 25% support the right to sell property "fee simple absolute," then there's 75% who don't for whatever reason. That's not a majority of Americans. Of course, most Americans either have no clue what that even means and probably don't care. Consider the implications.
1.14.2009 6:22pm
hawkins:
I guess conspiracy theories about catholics are no less anti-catholic than about jews are anti-semitic, its just that anti-catholic isnt such a loaded term.
1.14.2009 6:31pm
LN (mail):
Listen, it's obvious. As has been argued again and again on this blog, American politicians are a superior breed of moral human being. While the common folk are basically rabble, Nazis, little Eichmanns, and otherwise completely morally depraved, the enlightened elite in Congress are decent people with decent hearts. That's why a particular Israeli military action might get 95% support in Congress and only about 50% support in the general population.

I mean, how else can we explain what we see? Jewish mind-control rays? I rest my case.
1.14.2009 6:38pm
Michael B (mail):
Again, no, Garth, you're inferring and positing what the remainder, the 56%, are thinking in a more definitive sense - and you're doing so without recourse to the specific polling questions, which are often revealing. You're likewise ignoring the fact that only 18% of Americans consider Hamas's use of force appropriate. That's 18% vs. 44%, an appreciable difference.

(And in general, a poll such as this is a very rough-hewn device at best. It is that, but it is no more than that, not least of all because of the media related caveat I've already raised.)

As to what Hamas has perpetrated since 2001/2002, as you should know they have been targeting Israeli civilian populations. Here's one view that few Americans ever see during the typical nightly or 24/7 news cycle. And of course we discussed aspects of this at some length in the recent Bar Kochba thread - the link being to a particularly apt analogy - apt, that is, for citizens of the U.S.

On a decidedly brighter note, here's a link to more historical information, concerning the Philippines during WWII, specifically the Freider family and Philippine President Manuel Quezon - the latter was a staunch Roman Catholic, btw.
1.14.2009 6:50pm
Brian K (mail):
It's amazing how the same people who believe that "liberals" control the "MSM" or that a very powerful "homosexual lobby" exists or that "muslims" are evil can get so outraged when someone says something bad about the "jews".

David, you don't have to look at the philippines for examples of irrational beliefs to complain about, you can look at the posters on this very site.
1.14.2009 6:51pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

it's a much more pleasant thought that the Jews do in fact control everything.

In a sense, ethnic pride is the flip side of ethnic hatred. Who was the market for Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood Anti-semites, movie buffs, or Jews? Despite the absurdity of claiming Jews control the media when people like Rupert Murdoch is in charge, it's true, for example, that most of the businessmen in the movie industry were Jewish. Much like it's true most of America's industrial beer brewers were German, but there was no sinister reason behind that -- German immigrants were the ones with experience producing thirst-quenching lager beers, which supplanted the heavy native ales.
1.14.2009 7:02pm
Yankev (mail):

The quoted material doesn't strike me as anti-semitic as much as loony bin conspiracy theory crap.
You're saying it can't be both? So which category does Mein Kampf fall into? The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? The Hamas Charter? If it falls into the first category, doesn't it mean that The loony bin conspiracy theory crap can inspire plenty of people to kill? If the second category, are you saying those sources are not loony? Or not conspiracy theories? Or not crap?
1.14.2009 7:04pm
Yankev (mail):

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and
Cynthia McKinney. Former presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton. Newly elected congresswoman (and former Franklin County Commissioner) Mary Jo Kilroy. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (at least as concerns the security fence, although he later admitted he was wrong.) James Abourzek. Chuck Percy. Illinois Congressman (I forget his name) who succeeded Rumsfeld. Jimmie Carter. James Baker. Former Congressman Trafficant. Sonunu. Former Louisiana politician David Duke. Various others whose names I forget at the moment.
1.14.2009 7:09pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'You know it is possible to believe that the Israeli lobby in the United States has inordinate power and NOT be an anti-semite.'

Hmmm. Just tried. Couldn't do that.
1.14.2009 7:18pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"What other issue has over 95% support in Congress?"

Opposition to Kyoto and prohibiting regulation of credit default swaps.
1.14.2009 7:18pm
Yankev (mail):

I guess conspiracy theories about catholics are no less anti-catholic than about jews are anti-semitic, its just that anti-catholic isnt such a loaded term.
If you point me to any, I'll be quick to condemn them. Although not a conspiracy theory, for instance, I got pretty furious over the episode of "The Practice" where Dylan MacDermott's wife told him she did not want to raise their baby Catholic because of all the pedophile priests, because I thought it was an unfair characterization of the church.

But to point out nearly two millennia of anti-Jewish teaching, legislation, doctrine, slander, and organized persecution (including at time torture and murder) on the part of the Roman Catholic church is hardly "conspiracy theories about catholics." Unless Paul IV, John Paul II and other popes are among the conspiracy theorists.
1.14.2009 7:21pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Yankev:
I hope you mean Pope Paul VI, not Paul IV (1555-59), who created the Roman Ghetto (and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum).
1.14.2009 8:11pm
TerrencePhilip:
I think the linked article is an example of how in many Third World countries, batty ideas are mainstream.
1.14.2009 8:58pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Anyone who seriously uses the term "Israeli lobby" or "inordinate" influence is per se an anti-semite. Like those who spit out "gun lobby" are always anti-Second Amendment. So, I agree with Harry Eager.

Herr Cole wanted to name his group "America First" just like that pro-Nazi isolationist group of an earlier age. The more things change...
1.14.2009 8:59pm
BGates:
Could someone point me to the politicians speaking for the 36% of Americans who oppose Israel's military actions?
One of them is being sworn in on Tuesday as President of the 47% of the country that voted for McCain.
1.14.2009 9:17pm
TokyoTom (mail):
David, thanks so much for drawing our attention to the important fact that there-be-anti-Semites-and-conspiracy-theorists in the Philippines!

But fortunately, thanks to the internets, we don't have to go as far as the Philippines to find Jew-haters; we can just read Ha'aretz (which is full of criticism of government policy and actions - and we know that anyone who ever questions the Israeli government hates Jooz).
1.14.2009 9:51pm
neurodoc:
flyerhawk: David, Ad hominem attacks on Juan Cole aside, can you explain why American politicians are so OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of Israel?
"Good old Juan dabbles in anti-Semitic rhetoric with some regularity," that's unabashed ad hominem in your book? Can it not be seen as an assertion for which Professor Bernstein has adduced supporting evidence in the past and did so again in subsequent posts here?

Now, rather than ask Professor Bernstein for that explanation, why don't you go back and read his blogging in response to Walt and Mearsheimer, which made very clear his thinking on this.
1.14.2009 10:01pm
Garth:
what conclusion are we supposed to deduce from one isolated incident of ignorance?

so what.

some guy publishes a critique of american israeli policy and gets it wrong. we don't know if the writer is merely ignorant or truly anti-semitic.

what do you mean to suggest by blogging about one piece of from the philipines.

just pointing things out?
1.14.2009 10:15pm
TokyoTom (mail):
I waiting for some righteous smackdown of Condi Rice for her faux outrage at Olmert's public strutting over his ability to call the shots with George Bush.

After all, the type of influence claimed by Olmert - and his crowing over Rice - isn't outsized to Israel's importance to the US and to the sympathy Americans feel for the poor Israelis who are forever forced to kill Palestinians.
1.14.2009 10:17pm
neurodoc:
flyerhawk: Could someone point me to the politicians speaking for the 36% of Americans who oppose Israel's military actions?
In addition to that pillar of rectitude Maxine Waters (yeah, ad hominem), you have Dennis Kucinich, Gwen Moore, Ron Paul, and Nick Rahall. If none of them will do for you, then perhaps Cynthia McKinney is your girl. (OK, looking back I now see that Yankev supplied a more extensive list, but I wouldn't want the Green Party's 2008 presidential nominee to get lost in the crowd.)

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/12/cynthia- mckinneys-gaza-peace-boat-rammed-
by-israeli-navy.html

Garth: if 44% support it, then there's 56% who don't for whatever reason. that's not a majority of americans.
Clearly, logic is not your forte. (And you said this even after Michael B supplied you with the McClatchy link?!)
1.14.2009 10:24pm
TerrencePhilip:
neurodoc, maybe Cynthia McKinney would change her tune if she knew about the "Black Israelites."

/but would Israel want that?
1.14.2009 10:35pm
flyerhawk:
Well there are so many ridiculous comments to respond to it would take me all night to respond to them all. So I will just respond to two.

Yankev,

So you can list 10 politicians, most of them discredited, over the last 20 years that were critical of Israel? Wow, clearly we have a diverse field of opinions on that nation.

Bob in Ohio,

"Anyone who seriously uses the term "Israeli lobby" or "inordinate" influence is per se an anti-semite. Like those who spit out "gun lobby" are always anti-Second Amendment. So, I agree with Harry Eager."

You don't believe there is an Israeli lobby? I don't much care if you call me an anti-semite, it's the right's equivalent of calling someone a racist. But I do hope you aren't ignorant enough to believe that Israel does not have a very strong lobbying force in the United States. Its entire existence is predicated on American support. Israel would be beyond foolish NOT to have a strong lobby in this country. I have to say that this is the first time I have ever been accused of being an anti-semite for using the word inordinate. Just so I can find the appropriate demarcation line, if I called Israel a nation of big meanies, would I still be an anti-semite or would that be acceptable? What about poopie heads? I just want to get an idea of what level of criticism is acceptable because clearly tepid criticism is not.
1.15.2009 12:34am
flyerhawk:
Apparently Ehud Olmert believes that Israel has a wee bit of influence on American foreign policy....

""In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said."

Maybe Olmert is an anti-semite? Hey if the New York Times can be anti-semitic, why not the Prime Minister of Israel?

H/T to Tokyo Tom for the link.
1.15.2009 12:39am
LN (mail):
Thomas Friedman in the New York Times today expressed his sincere hope that Israel's objective is to "educate" Hamas.

Referring to the 2006 retaliation against Hezbollah, Friedman writes:


Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Israel's military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That's when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: "What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?"


He hopes Israel is pursuing a similar outcome again. Isn't it rather anti-Semetic to accuse the Israelis of intentionally inflicting damage on civilians? Looks like he's calling them terrorists. I'm outraged.
1.15.2009 1:22am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
So, why is Turkey, despite Erdogan's comments, a great friend of Israel and the ICRC a great enemy of that same country? Is it just an arms-trade thing?

I also find it interesting that the support for Hamas by critical political and religious leaders in Iraq has gotten no coverage on this blog.
1.15.2009 2:06am
Ricardo (mail):
I think the linked article is an example of how in many Third World countries, batty ideas are mainstream.

The most recent opinion poll (2004 by Foxnews) I could find shows about 75% of Americans believe there was a cover-up in the aftermath of the JFK assassination.

The Philippines does appear to promote those who engage in virulent smear campaigns into the upper echelons of journalism, though. For instance, there was an op-ed published several months in one of the premier newspapers in the country comparing current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Hitler. The kind of nonsense that would be relegated to fringe blogs in the U.S. gets featured prominently in "news" publications in the Philippines.

Maybe somewhat related, journalists in the Philippines have a higher murder victim rate than journalists in nearly every other country in the world.
1.15.2009 2:18am
LM (mail):
Bob from Ohio:

Anyone who seriously uses the term "Israeli lobby" or "inordinate" influence is per se an anti-semite.

Nonsense.
1.15.2009 3:34am
ttm (mail):
Apparently Ehud Olmert believes that Israel has a wee bit of influence on American foreign policy....

""In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.
Or maybe Olmert was just emphasizing to Bush that Israel didn't want the resolution, and urged him to override it, and Bush agreed with Olmert. Is there something especially unusual about a foreign leader of a close ally making a personal plea to the president on a foreign policy issue, and the president agreeing? The only thing unusual is Olmert's utter tacklessness and lack of diplomacy in bragging about it.
1.15.2009 4:36am
TokyoTom (mail):
Well, as for Olmert, first, his own bragging words clearly belie those who argue that Israel does not have an "outweight" influence with US policymakers.

Second, as I suggested above, a reaction consistent with the argument that Israel deserves this pull - and Americans are A OK with it - would be to criticize Condi Rice, for not immediately agreeing with his demands on the UN vote and making him pull rank with the President.

Third, as I noted in response to David Bernstein on another thread, why worry about keeping the foreign press - you know, those propaganda agents for Hamas - out of Gaza when you've got the head of Israel himself giving Hamas and other Jew-haters his actions would appear to be a tremendous PR coup? With this much chutzpah and hubris in Israel, why would Hamas ever need propaganda agents?

Former Barak staffer and Jew-hating Israeli peacenik Daniel Levy, has this to say about the consequences of Olmert's bragging:


The repercussions - especially when heaped on top of everything that has happened in Gaza now (and I agree that is much more important than what Olmert said) - will be ugly. ...

1. This episode will play out for a very long time in the Arab world and its media, and it will be used to confirm every conspiracy and stereotype about the tail wagging the dog when it comes to Israel and US foreign policy in the Middle East. You can imagine it. The American president takes his instructions via phone from Israel. Oy! This is all we need.

2. This is not a way to publicly treat your friends. What example does this set for Israel with its other friends when the prime minister embarrasses an outgoing president and secretary of state in this way? Message to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: whatever you do for Israel over the next four to eight years, don't be surprised if this is the gratitude you get. Not a clever message.

3. How is this likely to affect the hand-over of power in the US? Here's a speculative thought for you: when Clinton handed over the reigns of power to Dubya and Colin Powell, legend has it that his parting message on the Middle East was, "Don't trust Arafat." What one imagines might be Secretary Rice's parting message to Hillary Clinton on who should be trusted?

4. When world leaders take phone calls from their Israeli counterparts and are convinced to take on-board an Israeli position and act on it, should they now always expect to be similarly publicly humiliated?

Anyway, like I say, this was an act of stupidity but a revealing one. If only it could spur the ongoing administration to get a ceasefire and the incoming administration to encourage a more two-way friendship with Israel, most importantly, one that ends an occupation that is the source of so much that has gone wrong for Israel, not least the kind of hubris on display again today.


Aaah those Israeli peaceniks, forever looking for a silver lining, and hoping that someday the dog will again wag the tail!
1.15.2009 6:25am
flyerhawk:
BTW, Toyko Tom's article doesn't even give the juiciest quotes from Olmert, which are in the original AP article.....

""I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

So Olmert has no problem saying that the most powerful nation in the world does what he wants them to.
1.15.2009 8:27am
Lighten up Kansas:
Can't we move them both to Montana or Alberta and be done with it? More than enough of that land stuff to go around...
1.15.2009 9:53am
Yankev (mail):

Illinois Congressman (I forget his name) who succeeded Rumsfeld.
The name came to me last night; Paul Findlay.

But what I find laughable on this thread (and others) is that because there are Jews who criticize Israel or Israel's actions, no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic. Anti-Semites are fond of saying that Jews, in order to deter criticism of Israel, falsely brand all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. In fact, the reverse is true: anti-Semites often level that accusation in order to pre-emptivley deter people from pointing out anti-Semitic aspects of their critiscism.

A more useful test is Natan Sharanksy's 3-D test -- see http://www.forward.com/articles/4184/ -- criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic if it uses Demonization (attributing evil deeds and motives to Israel and only Israel, or exaggerating or fabricating mistakes or misdeeds on Israel's part, or dragging in the idea of inordinate Jewish control or conspiracies), Delegitimization (Israel has no right to exist and therefore no right to defend itself, or Israel because of actual or perceived misdeeds has forefeited any further right to exist), Double Standard (e.g. Israel and only Israel must forego acting in self-defense, or must wage war while causing zero civilian casualties regardelss of what efforts Israel takes to avoid or minimize them and what efforts its enemies take to maximize them).

For flyerhawk and others who can't distinguish among legitimate (though at times inaccurate) critics such as Haartez or the incredibly stupid and dishonest Tom Friedman on one hand and true anti-Semites on the other, let me give you a hint: criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic if it relies on accusations that Jews manipulate others into waging wars for the Jews'own economic benefit (Business World stops just short of this accusation, but Pat Buchanon and Hamas have both embraced it), or secretly manipulate history and all major world events, or control the world's economy, press, entertainment mediat (sure, that's why it's so easy to get a pro-Israel movie made today), or world leaders, or if it includes ridicule or distortion of the Jewish religion, or attributes Israeli "aggression" to the "Old Testament" or Talmud (given that Israel is overwhelmingly a secular society and that the religious parties tend to be more focussed on religious accommodation than on foreign or military policy) or incorporates medieval stereotypes of Jews.

Got it now?
1.15.2009 9:59am
Lighten up Kansas:
And DB has some great law-related blog postings. I found the forensic-related posting to be really useful.
1.15.2009 9:59am
Yankev (mail):
flyerhawk,


So Olmert has no problem saying that the most powerful nation in the world does what he wants them to.
Olmert has no problem saying a lot of things. That doesn't make them true. How long was his investigation for corruption going on? Does the story sound credible to you?

As for Levy, I don't understand your point. He said that even if Olmert's story was true, making the story public was incredibly stupid for a number of reasons. I may think Levy is naive for thinking that Hamas wants or will settle for anything less than Israel's destruction, but I agree with all 4 of the reasons Levy gave as to why Olmert was stupid to tell this story. That said, I still don't believe the story is true.
1.15.2009 10:05am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Yankev:

But what I find laughable on this thread (and others) is that because there are Jews who criticize Israel or Israel's actions, no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic.


I think that the tone of the criticism may make or break the question of whether it is anti-Semitic.

For example, if one says "I think that the idea of a state based on the identity of one ethnic group or religion is a bad idea," or "The idea of a Jewish state has to go so that Druze, Muslim, and Christian citizens of Israel will be first-class citizens as well" I don't see antisemitism there.

On the other hand, if one says "The Jews are causing all the problems in Israel" I think that is anti-Semitic.

I don't think, however, that criticism of the state of Israel by itself and absent other factors (for example "Jewish-controlled media" comments) can ever rise to the level of antisemitism. Do you disagree?

I personally think that the Balfour Declaration was a horrible mistake, and I think the world would be better off if the British hadn't decided to play God with the Middle East (it wasnt the only mistake in British policy regarding the Middle East either), but the state is there now, so the question is despite the mistakes of the past how do we ensure fairness and justice (i.e. ensuring that all Israeli citizens are equal in the country)? Certainly not by banning Arab parties from elections, and certainly not by treating them as the demographic time bomb!
1.15.2009 12:04pm
Hoosier:
[I just cancelled my subscription!]
1.15.2009 12:09pm
Yankev (mail):

I don't think, however, that criticism of the state of Israel by itself and absent other factors (for example "Jewish-controlled media" comments) can ever rise to the level of antisemitism. Do you disagree?
I agree for the most part, but I would include Sharansky's "3-D" test as other factors. If you are not familiar with that test, you may want to look it up.


I personally think that the Balfour Declaration was a horrible mistake,
A legitimate view, though one with which I disagree. Why among all the world's ethnic groups are only the Jews unworthy of a self-governing nation state? Remember, Israel (unlike various countries that legally define themselves as Christian or Muslim) is based on Jewish ethnicity, not the Jewish religion.


Certainly not by banning Arab parties from elections
You keep coming back to this issue. There is no legal impediment to Arab parties running in the election. There is an impediment against parties that are opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, or that commit treason by aiding those who are commiting war or terrorism against it.

Query whether Japan would permit a party that advocated that Japan no longer be a Japanese state.
1.15.2009 5:56pm
Brian K (mail):
Query whether Japan would permit a party that advocated that Japan no longer be a Japanese state.

there's a group like that up in canada. IIRC, based in montreal. the party is definitely permited to exist.
1.15.2009 8:28pm
TokyoTom (mail):
But what I find laughable on this thread (and others) is that because there are Jews who criticize Israel or Israel's actions, no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic.


Are you trying to give us a lesson in how to set up strawmen, Yankel, or do really believe that anyone on these threads thinks, much less suggests here, that no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic?

Anti-Semites are fond of saying that Jews, in order to deter criticism of Israel, falsely brand all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic.


Thanks for trotting out another nice slur/strawman: it's very easy to document that critics of Israel are frequently branded as anti-Semitic - or as "haters of Israel" or even "self-haters" (!!), and you suggest that anyone who tries to make this case is "anti-Semitic"? Would I, by any chance, be "anti-Semitic" if I linked to a number of Jews and Israelis who make precisely that point, and who object to this type of bullying and false victimization?

Cries of anti-Semitism are a distraction from a consideration of the actions and consequences of Israeli government actions on their own merits and are a victimization act that just doesn't ring true in America, where there is great sympathy for Israel and great respect for Jews (who have great political pull) - and where amny of those targeted by the claim are themselves Jews!
1.16.2009 7:10am
Yankev (mail):
TokyoTroll, when you post something worth responding to, perhaps I'll respond.
1.16.2009 9:14am
TokyoTom (mail):
Yankel, you can keep on proving my point that you and others who keep on harping on supposed "anti-semitism" and making ad hominem attacks on the bona fides of your interlocutors are crybabies, or you can start focussing on Israel`s future and the interests of America in the Middle East.

Surely that is not entirely an internecine discussion among Jews, to which goyim are not invited.
1.16.2009 10:30am
Yankev (mail):
TokyoTroll, learn what internecine means. While you are at it, read a few of your own posts, then look up ad hominem. When you post something substantive, perhaps I'll respond.
1.16.2009 11:23am
Yankev (mail):

there's a group like that up in canada. IIRC, based in montreal. the party is definitely permited to exist.
Does it regularly offer aid to groups that are violently trying to overthrow the Canadian government?
1.16.2009 11:27am
Brian K (mail):
Does it regularly offer aid to groups that are violently trying to overthrow the Canadian government?

in a world were merely criticizing the government is seen as giving aid to the enemy, yes.
1.16.2009 11:57am
LM (mail):
TT,

Cries of anti-Semitism are a distraction from a consideration of the actions and consequences of Israeli government actions on their own merits and are a victimization act that just doesn't ring true in America, where there is great sympathy for Israel and great respect for Jews (who have great political pull) - and where amny of those targeted by the claim are themselves Jews!

True, when the cries are indiscriminate and incorrect. That happens, and when it does it's obnoxious. But so are the too-frequent knee-jerk claims that anyone who criticizes Israel is accused of anti-Semitism. There are probably more of the former here, reflecting the general inclination of the commenters on this site. But for the other flavor in the extreme check out any Alan Dershowitz thread on Huffington Post.

Just yesterday or the day before I pointed out to one commenter who complained that Dershowitz was accusing Israel critics of anti-Semitism that neither "anti-Semite" nor "anti-Semitism" appeared anywhere in Dershowitz' post. I continued scanning the comments and found so many others had made the same false accusation it was way too big a job to correct them all. And probably pointless anyway.

This is just one of the more irritating aspects of human nature. Neither the left nor the right, and neither pro nor anti-Zionists have anything closer to a monopoly on it than their opposites do.
1.16.2009 12:23pm
Yankev (mail):

in a world were merely criticizing the government is seen as giving aid to the enemy, yes.
The parties in question criticized the Israeli government for decades (and for 5 years after the new law was passed) without getting themselves banned. How about in a world where you meet with their leaders while active hostilities are being conducted, wish them victory during that time, and give them information that will help them achieve it?
1.16.2009 2:01pm
TokyoTom (mail):
Yankel, the conflict between Jews such as Finkelstein and Dershowitz, Kahane supporter and Jewish Jew-haters on the SHIT and DIRT lists, diasporan Jews like David Bernstein and Israeli-born and raised Jews like Israel-hater and former Knesset speaker Avrum Burg is a clearly an internecine conflict, as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with you are somehow no longer Jews.

This is just one of the more irritating aspects of human nature. Neither the left nor the right, and neither pro nor anti-Zionists have anything closer to a monopoly on it than their opposites do

LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite? After all, what balance is possible? The Jews have had their Shoah, so they are the only true victims, and whatever they do to Palestinians short of butchering most of them just doesn't warrant anyone's crocodile tears for them, much less concern for how US support for Israel affects how others view us. Such concern is proof of anti-Semitism!

BTW, Dershowitz doesn't always and everywhere trot out charges of anti-Semitism, but sometimes he very clearly does so and often that is very clearly what he intends to imply.
1.18.2009 9:40pm
Yankev (mail):
TTom, look up internecine some time. It means a conflict that leads to the destruction of both parties. Is that what you meant to say?


as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with you are somehow no longer Jews.
I'm not sure who you mean besides me under the heading of "you and yours" (and I'm not sure I want to know), but I have never said anything remotely resembling that as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with me are somehow no longer Jews. I do remember saying that some leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish were leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish. I do remember discussions of whether Burg and Lapidus were unhinged (Lapidus certainly is, and has in the past urged violence against religious Jews simply for their not sharing his secularist extremist outlook). I have no idea who you mean by Kahane supporter and frankly don't care.
LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite?
After all, what balance is possible? The Jews have had their Shoah, so they are the only true victims, and whatever they do to Palestinians short of butchering most of them just doesn't warrant anyone's crocodile tears for them, much less concern for how US support for Israel affects how others view us. Such concern is proof of anti-Semitism!
No, but such caricatures are often evidence of of it.
1.19.2009 2:22pm
Yankev (mail):
Okay, time to stop (or proofread better) again.
This time with the typos crossed out:

TTom, look up internecine some time. It means a conflict that leads to the destruction of both parties. Is that what you meant to say?


as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with you are somehow no longer Jews.


I'm not sure who you mean besides me under the heading of "you and yours" (and I'm not sure I want to know), but I have never said anything remotely resembling that as much as you and yours try to convince the rest of us that Jews who disagree with me are somehow no longer Jews. I do remember saying that some leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish were leftist flakes who happened only coincidentally to be Jewish. I do remember discussions of whether Burg and Lapidus were unhinged (Lapidus certainly is, and has in the past urged violence against religious Jews simply for their not sharing his secularist extremist outlook). I have no idea who you mean by Kahane supporter and frankly don't care.
LL, I agree, but don't you realize that in your attempt at a balanced you have just declared yourself an anti-Semite?

After all, what balance is possible? The Jews have had their Shoah, so they are the only true victims, and whatever they do to Palestinians short of butchering most of them just doesn't warrant anyone's crocodile tears for them, much less concern for how US support for Israel affects how others view us. Such concern is proof of anti-Semitism!


No, but such caricatures are often evidence of of it
1.19.2009 2:34pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.