Jew-Haters Everywhere

It always surprises me that Jews have been able to get ahead in the United States. This is, after all, a country that's almost unique in the western world in that even in the 21st century it seems to include so many anti-semites in prominent places. Indeed, a frightening large proportion of prominent American Jews have their political views motivated by a racist loathing of their co-religionists and co-ethnics. Joe Klein, for example and again here is a big-time Jew-hater as you can see in not-at-all hysterical remarks from Commentary and the Anti-Defamation League that are in no way cynical political interventions masquerading as deeply implausible accusations of anti-semitism.

On the larger subject of so-called "dual loyalties" I think the psychological model of someone sitting at home scheming, twirling his moustache and saying "this idiotic military venture will be a disaster for the United States, but a brilliant victory for Israel!" is a little implausible. But the whole broader neoconservative ideological framework is obviously fraught with implications for Israel -- one reason to prefer wild thrashing about at a miscellaneous and ever-shifting cast of Arab-and-or-Muslim "bad guys" rather than a focused and disciplined campaign against al-Qaeda would be that the former implies that Israel's enemies and America's enemies are fundamentally one and the same.

Comments

Joe Klein, for example and again here is a big-time Jew-hater as you can see in not-at-all hysterical remarks from Commentary and the Anti-Defamation League that are in no way cynical political interventions masquerading as deeply implausible accusations of anti-semitism.

Poor bastard. I used to like Klein for a long time, then gave up on him over Iraq. I guess he's back in the "good guy" column. I can't believe he nutted up like that.

And if you want to limit Commentary-led hysteria--and gawd knows there's always more coming--you might stop treating it like a respectable magazine just because it publishes friends' work from time to time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 10:12 AM

Here's my question: if asking whether the lobbying interests of a particular country are too powerful or over-represented makes you guilty of ethnic hatred against the people who live in said country, doesn't that mean everyone who said the Chinese lobby was too powerful in the Clinton White House an anti-Chinese racist?

Posted by Freddie | June 27, 2008 10:15 AM

I think the psychological model of someone sitting at home scheming, twirling his moustache and saying "this idiotic military venture will be a disaster for the United States, but a brilliant victory for Israel!" is a little implausible.

Other than the mustache (such people are usually clean-shaven, goateed or fully bearded), no it isn't.

Back in the build-up to the Iraq war, I knew many a neo-con wanna-be at the campus Hillel, for example, that got wind of my general opposition to the war and pretty much tried to convince me to support the war along those lines.

Of course, those same people would be the first to call you an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew if you dared say anything less than glowing about the "Israel lobby".

Personally, I think that "the war will help Israel" was just a means to sell the war: not only to get young, neo-con wannabes (and more importantly their parents with more money than sense) on board -- who weren't too critical 'cause they would never enlist anyway (although their parents would make campaign donations) -- but also to make sure that opposition to the war would be tangled with anti-Zionism itself tangled with anti-Semitism. The archects of the war didn't want mainstream, liberal Jews like me out there protesting it, so they tried to provoke nutty anti-Semites into being against the war to make people like me uncomfortable with the protests.

The neo-con wannabes (and the so-called Israel lobby in general) love to think that the Goyim are a bunch of tools. But in reality the best stool pidgeons are those who think they are the ones pulling a con.

The neo-cons do think of themselves as Snidely Whiplash (for a number of reasons relating to the memetic heritage of prolonged past discrimination and a desire to finally have a sort of revenge against the Goyim) -- just don't point that out to their face unless you want to be compared to Hitler.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 10:16 AM

Klein, for example and again here is a big-time Jew-hater

Good post.

Posted by Al | June 27, 2008 10:18 AM

doesn't that mean everyone who said the Chinese lobby was too powerful in the Clinton White House an anti-Chinese racist? - Freddie

Actually, a number of them were. Although in same cases the issues were religious, rather than racial prejudices.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 10:22 AM

DAS,

Are you actually saying that these people agreed with your claim that the Iraq war would be bad for the US, but tried to get you to support it anyway because it would be good for Israel?

Yglesias' point is not that there was noone for the war because it was good for Israel. But rather that most of the neo-cons (and I kind of think that the ADL has a point that not much is gained by calling them the jewish neo-cons) believe that Israel and US interests are so closely linked that good for Israel means good for the US.

It is the idea of people tricking Americans into supporting a war for Israel against the interests of the US that seems so bizarre. So I am curious whether that was really what you experiences.

Posted by Lon | June 27, 2008 10:30 AM

The entanglement of Israeli-Palestinian issues with the Iraq and Iran wars is inevitable, but in American politics it has made the Iraq issue much more of a mess. The fact that nobody can have an honest debate about the US-Israel relationship without being shouted down for being an "anti-semite" has made it hard to debate the implications of our policies in the middle east in general. This was not as much of a problem until we started a huge war next door, and strengthened Iran in the process. Now we have an international crisis in Iraq, and a US political climate that makes honestly discussing our broader role in the middle east very difficult.

Posted by wahoomatt | June 27, 2008 10:30 AM

Actually, a number of them were. Although in same cases the issues were religious, rather than racial prejudices.

Oh, I'm sure some were, just as I'm sure that there are some critics of Israel who are anti-Semitic. But that doesn't mean criticism of the Israeli lobby, or the Chinese lobby, is driven primarily or even often by ethnic hatred, and it doesn't change whether or not those criticisms were valid and fair.

My point is a basic one: no one even thought to wonder whether asking if the Chinese lobby was too powerful was in itself an example of anti-Chinese racism, or if it was necessarily indicative of the same. No one wrote books about "the new anti-Sino racism" and used this criticism as the primary evidence. There weren't hysterical accusations thrown around and long, hectoring essays about the dangers of encroaching hatred of the Chinese in major magazines. In short, though there was a lot of stupid things said, a lot of wrong-headed and bad faith things written, and yes, maybe a little anti-Chinese racism, we had in general an actual policy debate, one that focused on the best interest of America and its people, and stuck closely to the actual geopolitical issues rather than identity politics. We had the kind of conversation, as annoying as it was at times, that we are utterly incapable of having about Israel.

Posted by Freddie | June 27, 2008 10:35 AM

From Foxman's response to Klein's letter in your second link:

None of the issues you raise has anything to do with a person's religion or religious beliefs. None of the neo-conservatives, whether Jewish or of another faith (or no faith), has expressed his or her views about foreign policy in terms of religion. It is inappropriate to identify a group that clearly has Jews and non-Jews within its ranks by singling out the Jews or, worse, identifying all of them as "Jewish." Again, if you consider the history that has seen Jews vilified as a group that keeps to itself, is conspiratorial and has dual loyalties, you will better understand our concern.

I'd still say that's wrong, but it's a good enough argument that it's worth addressing instead of laughing at. Yeah, Foxman may be arguing in good faith when he criticizes prefixing "neoconservative" with "Jewish." But the thing is, an influential subset of the neocons are motivated by their belief in the importance of the war for Israel. Either Foxman is saying it's illegitimate to point out any connection to Israel, no matter how well-documented and carefully-phrased, or he's hanging his entire criticism on sometimes using the word "Jewish" in ways that might look like an epithet.

Posted by Cyrus | June 27, 2008 10:38 AM

Was the bombing of Serbs to save Muslims in Bosnia also for Israel because it was the so called neo-cons who pushed for intervention long before anyone else?

It is really sad to see the dual loyalties canard here. There can be no reason for espousing such a view other than pure hatred, but what can one excepct from someone who subsitutes ideas for name calling-- "onservatives are fundamentally malign".

This will be my last day reading this blog. Thanks for the sometimes interesting discussions, but frankly Matt,you crossed the line from.

I hope your hatred soothes you.

Posted by Dave | June 27, 2008 10:39 AM

I think the psychological model of someone sitting at home scheming, twirling his moustache and saying "this idiotic military venture will be a disaster for the United States, but a brilliant victory for Israel!" is a little implausible.

Perhaps not, but I think indirectly a lot of neocons aren't so concerned with catastrophically breaking up the status quo in the Middle East:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast/4

Feith, whose (inevitable) book on the invasion and its aftermath will be published in March, told me that the neoconservatives—at least those inside the administration—did not hope to create new borders, but did see a value in “instability,” especially since, in his view, the Middle East was already destabilized by the presence of Saddam Hussein. “There is something I once heard attributed to Goethe,” he said, “that ‘Disorder is worse than injustice.’ We have an interest in stability, of course, but we should not overemphasize the value of stability when there is an opportunity to make the world a better or safer place for us.

While that's not necessarily an Israel-specific line of reasoning, I think there is an underlying sentiment behind this Iraq exhibition that mucking things up in the muslim-y parts of the world will enable change that's beneficial to "us."

Yes, people really do believe this shit.

Posted by Brent | June 27, 2008 10:41 AM

Daniel Larison had it right-- it's not necessarily about "divided allegiances," it's about misjudging interests. Israel's interests aren't well-served by maximalist policies; nor are the US's by backing/forcing such policies on the Israelis.

Most Israelis know this. American neoconservatives have staked out a version of "pro-" and "anti-Israel" policies that has little to do with public opinion, much less facts on the ground, in Israel.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 27, 2008 10:47 AM

Are you actually saying that these people agreed with your claim that the Iraq war would be bad for the US, but tried to get you to support it anyway because it would be good for Israel? - Lon

To be fair, they did feel that the war might be good for the US and certainly they didn't think the war would be bad for the US (or at least for nobody that they knew personally). It was really more along the lines of "isn't it wonderful that we have all those Goyim to fight for us", more along the lines of "the war might not be good for the US -- although I think it will be -- but it will certainly be good for Israel, so you as a Jew should support it for that reason alone".

If you were in certain Jewish communities, there was a lot of "subborning of dual loyalties". Indeed, you saw this raise it's ugly head during the Dem. primary -- on the listserv of my wife's shul there were a lot of "we need to think only of who'll be best for Israel when we vote in the primaries" sorts of arguments.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 10:48 AM

That Matt, always crossing the line from.

There can be no reason for espousing such a view other than pure hatred

Some people root for both the US and other countries. For example, I have a friend from Colombia. She's a proud US citizen, but she has major problems with US Colombian policy and the drug war. She's loyal to both countries-- you might even say (wait for it) that she has dual loyalties. Now, does my acknowledgment of both her affinity for the United States and Colombia, or my recognition that many of Colombian origin feel the same way, constitute anti-Colombian animus? Do you think I'm seething with ethnic hatred for Colombians?

No. She is an adult and a member of a democracy and she has a right to take whatever factors into account that she wants when she is forming policy positions. But when she forms a position in whole or in part because she believes it to be in the best interest of her native country, not her current country, I feel able (and in fact obligated) to make the argument that her affinity for Colombia is causing her to support policies that I feel are detrimental to the United States. There's nothing wrong in her making her decisions that way, and nothing wrong in my calling her out for that.

Posted by Freddie | June 27, 2008 10:50 AM

Pissy. And too-cutely written. Iraq was a disaster. Let people say what they want about that as long as they recognize that fact. Plenty of liars would have us think otherwise, after all.

Posted by Mike | June 27, 2008 10:52 AM

Dave, why do you mis-read everything that you come across? Are you just looking to get mad at something you don't understand or are you a recovering illiterate? If you don't recognize that so-called pro-Israel advocacy has a special place in the pages of Commentary and the Weekly Standard that issues like that Balkans don't, then you're blind.

Posted by Reality Man | June 27, 2008 10:56 AM

Foxman makes a valid point that is frequently overlooked; namely, that the people who actually MADE THE DECISION to invade Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) are NOT JEWISH.

Therefore, in order to believe that the Iraq War was launched on behalf of Israel and in conscious disregard of US interests, one has to believe one of two things: (1) the non-Jewish leaders of the United States chose to start a war because their personal passion for the Jewish state over-rode their loyalty to their own country: or (2) the non-Jewish leaders of the United States were tricked or coerced by devious, traitorous American Jews into harming the United States for the benefit of Israel. The first belief seems facially irrational, and the second (which is seldom stated outright but is often hinted at) is, well, troubling from a Jewish historical perspective.

Posted by Gator90 | June 27, 2008 11:04 AM

Foxman makes a valid point that is frequently overlooked; namely, that the people who actually MADE THE DECISION to invade Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) are NOT JEWISH.

Might be a better point if either Cheney or Rumsfeld were formal decision-makers. Either allow for the recognition of informal influence in your argument or don't. But pick.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 11:12 AM

"This is, after all, a country that's almost unique in the western world in that even in the 21st century it seems to include so many anti-semites in prominent places."

Dude, this is not at all true. Please read some European history to disabuse yourself of this POV. I think liberals rightly get a bad rap for this -- blowing these prejudices -- which indeed exist(ed) and are pernicious -- out of proportion and claiming that America is/was "the worst" in respect to this. It's our own version of American exceptionalism, and unfortunately it occasionally vindicates the words of Rush Limbaugh. Folks ought to be more careful about this.

Posted by Matty | June 27, 2008 11:14 AM

Divided loyalties doesn't mean twirling a mustache to me. Divided loyalties is caring about American doing what's good for Israel, and ignoring any consequences that what they do is actually bad for America, but even when they DO realize that, they don't care because for them doing what's good for Israel does MORE good for America than harm.

Like Joe Lieberman seems like a good example.

Posted by MNPundit | June 27, 2008 11:20 AM

Dude, this is not at all true. Please read some European history to disabuse yourself of this POV.

You're either kidding or tired and waiting for the caffeine to kick in. I'm pretty sure you missed Yglesias's tone and meaning.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 11:22 AM

Matty, that was sarcasm.

Read on - "Joe Klein, for example and again here is a big-time Jew-hater as you can see in not-at-all hysterical remarks from Commentary and the Anti-Defamation League that are in no way cynical political interventions masquerading as deeply implausible accusations of anti-semitism."

Phrases like "not-at-all hysterical" and "in no way cynical political interventions" are sarcastic in intent. MY does not believe that the US is really riddled with anti-semites.

Posted by ajay | June 27, 2008 11:22 AM

Holy balls, you're right. I didn't even read on. Pwned. I'll plead migraine -- still in bed. Later point on liberal American exceptionalism still stands, but this is not an example. Sorry to pollute the blog.

Posted by Matty | June 27, 2008 11:29 AM

It's a daily habit of Matt's to snidely mischaracterize his opponent's position. That Matt cannot understand why Foxman is upset that Klein permanently appends "Jewish" to "neocon" is beyond me. Such phraseology obscures rather than illuminates and serves only to render illegitimate an arguable point of view. I wonder what Matt's opinion -- or any of his lockstep moronic commentators who have a blog crush on him -- would be if someone on the right appended the word "black" to "rapist" in the same fashion as Klein? I can only imagine the howls of outrage!!

Posted by Big A | June 27, 2008 11:31 AM

Holy balls, you're right. I didn't even read on. Pwned. I'll plead migraine -- still in bed. Later point on liberal American exceptionalism still stands, but this is not an example. Sorry to pollute the blog.

Posted by Matty | June 27, 2008 11:34 AM

"Joe Klein, for example and again here is a big-time Jew-hater as you can see in not-at-all hysterical remarks from Commentary and the Anti-Defamation League that are in no way cynical political interventions masquerading as deeply implausible accusations of anti-semitism."

I don't always agree with everything that Joe Klein writes. But to call him a jew-hater because he points out the role of neo-cons in precipitating a war that clearly wasn't in the US's best interests seems a bit much.

Posted by Independent | June 27, 2008 11:35 AM

The closing of the Jewish mind is evident in Chicago where the Jewish Federation leadership and some heavy duty donors closed down an exhibit at the Spertus Institute which raised questions about maps and physical space as they relate to Israel. So here is a spanking new edifice on Michigan Avenue trying to be a major cultural player, albeit with a Jeiwsh perspective, and it is shut down for not toeing to a narrow AIPAC line about the sanctity of Israel and the non-peopleness and essential inhumanity of the Palestinians. What happens when jewish self-haters outnumber jewish jew-lovers? An insight into this craziness is a recent New Yorker profile on Sheldon Adelson, the self-proclaimed richest jew in the world, who is using his money to undermine the current Israeli govenrment in favor of a narrow and bleak view of Israel. The point is the neocons and their friends at AIPAC have nothing to show for their efforts except two Palestinian rebellions, two failed invasions of Lebanon, a disasterous withdrawal from Gaza, and the empowerment in the Middle East of a powerful Iran and unrepetent set of Guld oil states. The jeiwsh community in the United States, if it is to help Israel, needs some intellectual ferment and a diversity of outlets to influence US policy. And this is beginning to happen but not soon enough. It was apparent the neo-con, AIPAC establishment was fundamentally unprincipled when Abraham Foxman graced the murdered Meir Kahane's funeral - at the end of the day despite his murderous tactics Kahane was recognized as a pro-Israel mensch.

Posted by Jake | June 27, 2008 11:36 AM

The closing of the Jewish mind is evident in Chicago where the Jewish Federation leadership and some heavy duty donors closed down an exhibit at the Spertus Institute which raised questions about maps and physical space as they relate to Israel. So here is a spanking new edifice on Michigan Avenue trying to be a major cultural player, albeit with a Jeiwsh perspective, and it is shut down for not toeing to a narrow AIPAC line about the sanctity of Israel and the non-peopleness and essential inhumanity of the Palestinians. What happens when jewish self-haters outnumber jewish jew-lovers? An insight into this craziness is a recent New Yorker profile on Sheldon Adelson, the self-proclaimed richest jew in the world, who is using his money to undermine the current Israeli govenrment in favor of a narrow and bleak view of Israel. The point is the neocons and their friends at AIPAC have nothing to show for their efforts except two Palestinian rebellions, two failed invasions of Lebanon, a disasterous withdrawal from Gaza, and the empowerment in the Middle East of a powerful Iran and unrepetent set of Guld oil states. The jeiwsh community in the United States, if it is to help Israel, needs some intellectual ferment and a diversity of outlets to influence US policy. And this is beginning to happen but not soon enough. It was apparent the neo-con, AIPAC establishment was fundamentally unprincipled when Abraham Foxman graced the murdered Meir Kahane's funeral - at the end of the day despite his murderous tactics Kahane was recognized as a pro-Israel mensch.

Posted by Jake | June 27, 2008 11:37 AM

The closing of the Jewish mind is evident in Chicago where the Jewish Federation leadership and some heavy duty donors closed down an exhibit at the Spertus Institute which raised questions about maps and physical space as they relate to Israel. So here is a spanking new edifice on Michigan Avenue trying to be a major cultural player, albeit with a Jewish perspective, and it is shut down for not toeing to a narrow AIPAC line about the sanctity of Israel and the non-peopleness and essential inhumanity of the Palestinians. What happens when jewish self-haters outnumber jewish jew-lovers? An insight into this craziness is a recent New Yorker profile on Sheldon Adelson, the self-proclaimed richest jew in the world, who is using his money to undermine the current Israeli govenrment in favor of a narrow and bleak view of Israel. The point is the neocons and their friends at AIPAC have nothing to show for their efforts except two Palestinian rebellions, two failed invasions of Lebanon, a disastrous withdrawal from Gaza, and the empowerment in the Middle East of a powerful Iran and unrepetent set of Gulf oil states. The Jewish community in the United States, if it is to help Israel, needs some intellectual ferment and a diversity of outlets to influence US policy. And this is beginning to happen but not soon enough. It was apparent the neo-con, AIPAC establishment was fundamentally unprincipled when Abraham Foxman graced the murdered Meir Kahane's funeral - at the end of the day despite his murderous tactics Kahane was recognized as a pro-Israel mensch.

Posted by Jake | June 27, 2008 11:39 AM

It is really sad to see the dual loyalties canard here.

1. Everybody had divided loyalties. Welcome to the human condition. If you have only two, you're remarkably pure.

2. People who use "the Arabists in the State Department" as a smear are not well situated to bitch about "dual loyalty canards."

3. People who accuse Democrats, or some subset of Democrats, of "hating America" are not well situated to bitch about "dual loyalty canards."

Daniel Larison had it right-- it's not necessarily about "divided allegiances," it's about misjudging interests.

I thought that was an unexpected dodge by Larison. I believe that one of the people--a scientist at Los Alamos?--who passed nuclear secrets to the Sovs claimed that he thought it was best for America that they have the information. I think we can still reasonably characterize him of, at a minimum, having divided loyalties.

That Matt cannot understand why Foxman is upset that Klein permanently appends "Jewish" to "neocon" is beyond me.

I don't quite understand the point here. He's not, after all, confusing "neocon" with "Jewish"; he's making every effort to avoid that.

It looks like Klein is clarifying that of the set of neocons, the Jewish neocons might reasonably be expected to have a greater feeling about Israel's interests than the non-Jewish ones. This would seem about as innocuous as a claim that Jewish Americans are probably more interested in Israel than non-Jewish ones (and the Irish-Americans more interested in Ireland, Cuban-Americans in Cuban, Chinese-Americans in China, and on and on and on). How could this possibly be controversial?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 11:53 AM

Utterly unnoticed by Matt: the fact that American anti-semitism, which was once mostly a right wing phenomenon (think John Birch Society), has now moved to the left. You need only look at any anti-war protest to see it in action.

Sure, there are morons like Buchanan around - but the right does a pretty good job of disavowing them. The left? Not so much. For instance, they seem to be all over Kos and the "My Obama" blog site (which is an official campaign site, I might add.

Before you decide to discuss this issue again, I suggest you take notice of the steaming pile of it on your own side of the aisle.

Posted by James Robertson | June 27, 2008 12:25 PM

Let's face it. We spend about 20 billion a year to defend a small country half way around the world, and we even went to war for them and lost thousands of troops. But that country isn't Israel, it's South Korea. Israel's been at war at least three times, and we've never lent them a single batallion.

So how come we don't hear a lot of hysterical nonsense about Korean Lobbyists or dual loyalty to Korea? Or South Viet Nam? Or Kuwait? Or any of the other countries we actually have gone to war for? Why the double standard only where Israel is concerned?

Well, its because of that elephant in the room, the one we're not allowed to mention - anti-semitic bias. We know its there, its staring us in the face, but we're supposed to politely turn our heads and pretend it doesn't exist.

Sure, its foolish to assume that every critic of Israel is some kind of Nazi. And its equally foolish to deny how anti-semitic bias distorts the way people view the Jewish state and its supporters. But that's how social or political biases operate.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 12:29 PM

There is a problem with this discussion in that here is an implication that, because certain Jews in the US thought that the invasion of Iraq was in the interest of Israel, therefore the Government of Israel must have been giving them their marching orders. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We now have the testimony of Lawrence Wilkerson, Douglas Feith, and Daniel Kurtzer the the Government of Israel did not, repeat did not think that the proposed invasion of Iraq was in its interest and advised against it. They only went along with it and sent Bibi Netanyahu to lobby Congress after it became obvious to them that their advice was not going to be followed.

The bottom line here is that the Richard Pearls of the world were not taking their marching orders from the Government of Israel but were acting on their own. In fact, the invasion was sold to the Bush administration in the basis of getting control of Iraqs' oil reserves, the 2nd largest proved such reserves in the world.

The fact of the matter is that the US and Israel do not always agree on policies to be followed relative to the Middle East. The prime example is the question of the regime in Syria where the Bush administration (along with Saudi Arabia and Egypt) favors regime change and the Government of Israel does not.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2008 12:32 PM

So how come we don't hear a lot of hysterical nonsense about Korean Lobbyists or dual loyalty to Korea?

Opportunity. Name a well-known South Korean American, let alone one who speaks broadly to the American public about foreign policy. I'm not sure Yoo's had a chance to weigh in on bombing NoKo, so it could still happen.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 12:35 PM

James Robertson - You mean all those philosemites who love Israel now on the basis of some end of days scenario whereby the repopulation of Israel by jews is a precursor to the second coming of the messiah followed by the desturction of those jews who don't convert to Christianity. These are genuine anti-semites because they contend that Jews will be punished at the end for rejecting Christ. The actions you see on the left may have some quotient of anti-semiticism (in the sense that Jews punch above their weight becuase of money, influence, superior child rearing skills, etc.) but mainly they involve criticms of foreign policy. But if that criticim touches on Israel all of a sudden its not a policy difference but flaming anti-semiticism. The point is that the potent accusation of anti-semitism is being cheapened by neo-cons to further their policies with respect to Israel, policies which have not been very successful.

Posted by Jake | June 27, 2008 12:37 PM

APS - we fought a war in Korea at the start of the Cold War because North Korean, with Soviet and Chinese support, invaded South Korea. We didn't do it for the Koreans but because we were putting in place a policy of containment. Korea is the dagger pointing at thear of Japan and we had "lost China."

Posted by jake | June 27, 2008 12:43 PM

Matt, I think you hit the nail on the head. The conflation of disparate Middle Eastern interests into a single "Islamo-fascist" or "militant Islam" threat is very much like the early cold-warrior conflation of all communists into an undifferentiated threat.

That childish thinking led to some of our worst efforts, and our worst alliances. There's no reason to assume that simplistic thinking about the Middle East will serve the US any better than it served us during the cold war.

Posted by west coast | June 27, 2008 12:44 PM

You need only look at any anti-war protest to see it in action.

I'm not saying there isn't someone deep in the Dailykos comments saying something irresponsible. I'm sure you can nutpick and find something.

But calling the Neoconservatives out is not the same thing as antisemitism--although it may be convenient for some to make it appear that it is.

No doubt, you have to be vigilant about antisemitism, but needless to say you also have to be vigilant about who is doing what in our government, especially if it's leading to war.

Posted by JJ | June 27, 2008 12:46 PM

Jake,

Calling a bunch of people who loudly back Israel anti-semitic is something of a stretch. All I know is, the hatred of Jews is obvious and open on Kos and "My Obama". There's new stuff in both places all the time - as much as people here dislike "Little Green Footballs", Charles does a good job of taking note of that kind of thing. You can pretend all you want - but the mainstream of anti-semitism has moved left.

Posted by James Robertson | June 27, 2008 12:47 PM

James--

What kind of statements do you consider antisemitic?

Posted by JJ | June 27, 2008 12:50 PM

There is a problem with this discussion in that here is an implication that, because certain Jews in the US thought that the invasion of Iraq was in the interest of Israel, therefore the Government of Israel must have been giving them their marching orders

I don't think even the people who put that species of charge most strongly argue that. The neocons are usually understood to be American Likudniks rather than agents of Israel, aren't they? Further, I think the neocons are understood to be allies, rather than agents, of any subgroup in Israel. Haven't there been a lot of complaints from left-center Israeli-Americans that the neocons keep fucking up things for Israel because they are an independent, external, and crazily rightest force on Israeli policy?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 12:52 PM

"Opportunity. Name a well-known South Korean American, let alone one who speaks broadly to the American public about foreign policy."

I wouldn't even try to guess who's Korean since it doesn't make any difference, which is exactly my point. When Eisenhower supported Germany with a Mutual defense pact (NATO treaty) was he a dual loyalist? How 'bout all of our WASP politicians who support our special relationship with the UK. Are they accused of putting their English heritage above America? Are they accused of being under the sway of European Lobbyists? Of course not.

But you prove my point exactly. Rather than analyzing the policy, you would make assumptions based on the background of the person saying it. In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England, an Eisenhower supporting Germany or a Lieberman supporting Israel. And yet the double standard exists. That's where that elephant in the room - anti-semitic bias -comes into the picture.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 1:31 PM

Matt,

You intellectually lazy little thought bastard. An intellectually honest anti-Zionist has nothing to do with Judaism, pro or con. We are against discrimination.

I understand that "blogging" leads to much verbal dairrhea, but, come on. Zionists are anti-Semites. They are racists. Do Zionists want to remove and destroy the native Palestinians, Semitic and non-Semitic? Yes, most Zionists do. Zionists are anti-Semitic racists.

I hate Zionists. I hate racists. I support the local native population. Not the ones imported from Milwuakee, New York or Ukraine. Does that make me an anti-Semite? No. Does that make me anti-carpetbagging/land-stealing/pogrom-leading/Judeo-fascist. Yes. Yes, it does.

Or, maybe, you were just being funny and I did not get it. That happens sometimes, because you can be witty. Sometimes.

Zionism has done nothing for our country (USA) but give a promissary note for a highly subsidized vacation home in Palestine to every person who can claim to be Jewish. And all that violence stuff. Can the over 95% of Americans who are not claiming Jewish heritage claim this monetary subsidy? Does even a majority of American Jews put in their claim? This theft of land and identity? We all pay for it. We all are labeled "thief". Only one sub-section of the Semitic "race" gets to claim the product of this thievery, though.

"They, and you, should know that the tendency to "cry wolf" about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community" - J. Klein. I would like to add - Does real harm to the World Community.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 1:31 PM

"Opportunity. Name a well-known South Korean American, let alone one who speaks broadly to the American public about foreign policy."

I wouldn't even try to guess who's Korean since it doesn't make any difference, which is exactly my point. When Eisenhower supported Germany with a Mutual defense pact (NATO treaty) was he a dual loyalist? How 'bout all of our WASP politicians who support our special relationship with the UK. Are they accused of putting their English heritage above America? Are they accused of being under the sway of European Lobbyists? Of course not.

But you prove my point exactly. Rather than analyzing the policy, you would make assumptions based on the background of the person saying it. In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England, an Eisenhower supporting Germany or a Lieberman supporting Israel. And yet the double standard exists. That's where that elephant in the room - anti-semitic bias -comes into the picture.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 1:32 PM

"Opportunity. Name a well-known South Korean American, let alone one who speaks broadly to the American public about foreign policy."

I wouldn't even try to guess who's Korean since it doesn't make any difference, which is exactly my point. When Eisenhower supported Germany with a Mutual defense pact (NATO treaty) was he a dual loyalist? How 'bout all of our WASP politicians who support our special relationship with the UK. Are they accused of putting their English heritage above America? Are they accused of being under the sway of European Lobbyists? Of course not.

But you prove my point exactly. Rather than analyzing the policy, you would make assumptions based on the background of the person saying it. In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England, an Eisenhower supporting Germany or a Lieberman supporting Israel. And yet the double standard exists. That's where that elephant in the room - anti-semitic bias -comes into the picture.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 1:32 PM

"Opportunity. Name a well-known South Korean American, let alone one who speaks broadly to the American public about foreign policy."

I wouldn't even try to guess who's Korean since it doesn't make any difference, which is exactly my point. When Eisenhower supported Germany with a Mutual defense pact (NATO treaty) was he a dual loyalist? How 'bout all of our WASP politicians who support our special relationship with the UK. Are they accused of putting their English heritage above America? Are they accused of being under the sway of European Lobbyists? Of course not.

But you prove my point exactly. Rather than analyzing the policy, you would make assumptions based on the background of the person saying it. In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England, an Eisenhower supporting Germany or a Lieberman supporting Israel. And yet the double standard exists. That's where that elephant in the room - anti-semitic bias -comes into the picture.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Again, we have a terminological confusion here, in the conflation of 'Israel' the country and what I prefer, for ease of distinction, as 'Schmisrael', the US foreign policy plank.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 27, 2008 1:36 PM

Matt,

You intellectually lazy little thought bastard. An intellectually honest anti-Zionist has nothing to do with Judaism, pro or con. We are against discrimination.

I understand that "blogging" leads to much verbal dairrhea, but, come on. Zionists are anti-Semites. They are racists. Do Zionists want to remove and destroy the native Palestinians, Semitic and non-Semitic? Yes, most Zionists do. Zionists are anti-Semitic racists.

I hate Zionists. I hate racists. I support the local native population. Not the ones imported from Milwuakee, New York or Ukraine. Does that make me an anti-Semite? No. Does that make me anti-carpetbagging/land-stealing/pogrom-leading/Judeo-fascist. Yes. Yes, it does.

Or, maybe, you were just being funny and I did not get it. That happens sometimes, because you can be witty. Sometimes.

Zionism has done nothing for our country (USA) but give a promissary note for a highly subsidized vacation home in Palestine to every person who can claim to be Jewish. And all that violence stuff. Can the over 95% of Americans who are not claiming Jewish heritage claim this monetary subsidy? Does even a majority of American Jews put in their claim? This theft of land and identity? We all pay for it. We all are labeled "thief". Only one sub-section of the Semitic "race" gets to claim the product of this thievery, though.

"They, and you, should know that the tendency to "cry wolf" about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community" - J. Klein.

I would like to add - Does real harm to the World Community.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 1:37 PM

How 'bout all of our WASP politicians who support our special relationship with the UK. Are they accused of putting their English heritage above America? Are they accused of being under the sway of European Lobbyists? Of course not.

When Tony Blair lined up with Bush against Iraq, he was rightly accused of being Bush's poodle. The "special relationship" was stretched to a ridiculous extent. Similarly, I would say that the US has a special relationship with Israel--there are historical reasons for it (dating back to Truman, I believe?), but it can be stretched to a ridiculous extent--which I think happened in recent years with Doug Feith and company.

Posted by JJ | June 27, 2008 1:48 PM

SomeCallMeTim,

I am interested by your defense of Klein's use of "jewish neocons" (although otherwise I think Klein is right and Yglesias right to defend him).

Can the neo-cons be divided reasonably neatly such that some are jewish and some not, and the ones who are jewish were putting forth a defense of the invasion of Iraq based on the interests of Israel while the other was not? That would certainly justify Klein's usage. But I don't think there is any reason to think it is true.

You seem to suggest another explanation, namely that the use of "jewish" as a modifier explains why they are making those arguments. But then the modifier does seem intended to diminish their arguments on the basis of their jewishness.

I do think Foxman has a point here that that baring some circumstances that don't seem to exist, that modifier is objectionable. Although it is hard to see it as anti-semitism from Klein.

Posted by Lon | June 27, 2008 1:52 PM

APS - we fought a war in Korea at the start of the Cold War because North Korean, with Soviet and Chinese support, invaded South Korea. We didn't do it for the Koreans but because we were putting in place a policy of containment. Korea is the dagger pointing at thear of Japan and we had "lost China."

Exactly, Jake. Geopolitics. We weren't going to war for Koreans or Japanese per se. We were flexing our muscles to keep influence in an important, but dangerous, part of the world. Same with both Iraqi wars (and in fact all of our "wars of choice"). But try telling that to some of these loons who try to convince us that we were pushed into war for the sake of Israel. Sheesh! What a bunch of morons....Or it could simply be the effect of anti-semitic bias distorting their views from hard nosed geopolitics to bigotry? Well yes, but we can't mention it you see. As we all know anti-semitic bias is the elephant in the room; to be seen but not spoken about.

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 1:53 PM

Seedee Vee,

Where do you live? Where are your ancestors from? Do you support the ideology on which your country of citizenship is founded? Unless you are descended from native stock, that ideology is, at its root by your implicit standards, racist.

The reason why many of us Jews equate anti-Zionism with anti-Jewish prejudice is that anti-Zionists, e.g., get all steamed up about the displacement of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish settlers when such displacements were the norm (and it was generally understood that the mistake following WWI was not moving inhabitants of ethnic enclaves into nations with their co-ethnics ... and that population transfers would prevent WWIII). Somehow nobody cares about the Karelians, the Sudetens, the Mizrachi Jews, etc. But when it comes to the (admittedly very real) plight of the Palestinian Arabs, everyone is suddenly so concerned?

It's that double standard that just reeks of anti-Jewish sentiment. Jews are condemned when they do that which is condoned when everyone else does it.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 1:54 PM

In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England

Among other reasons, probably because the charge runs the other way: Blair is Bush's poodle, etc.

an Eisenhower supporting Germany

Among other reasons, probably because he made his name kicking the shit out of Germany not ten years prior to his election.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 1:58 PM

When Bill Kristol uses his megaphone to announce that war with Iran will happen before Jan 1 if Obama is elected...

he is inciting oil and currency markets - and he knows it.

Every news broadcast about Israel's formerly hidden nuclear capability, and her commitment to war with Iran - is not just a news story but a use of the public airwaves to advance the interests of Israel over American.

Those interests are NOT the same. And every effort by Israel/first Americans to stir the pot is treason.

Posted by Carole Ward | June 27, 2008 2:45 PM

DAS,

I was born and raised in California. I am Native Stock of California.

I "support the ideology on which your (my) country of citizenship is founded" as much as I am legally required to do, or as little as I can get away with.

My country was founded on stolen land, plain and simple. I was not there. I did not participate. The evicted peoples are all dead. The perps are all dead.

"displacements were the norm " - Israel was founded on stolen land. Many of the evicted peoples are still in the neighborhood or are actively pursuing a return to their homes. The perps are still there. The perps are still stealing land. It is an active criminal enterprise. Should you be saying "displacements ARE the norm"?

That is the difference. One is active, one is not. Zionists hope that time runs in their favor. That the "Indians" will all die out, etc. That their illegal gains will be forgotten. The Crusaders also thought they could claim this land as their own, by divine right. The many empty and crumbling Crusader castles show that, even after a multi-generational occupation, the native population will emerge to take back control. But we still have those members of the Israeli Government that advocate the mass slaughter of Palestinians. Maybe their (your?) Zionist dream can finally be fulfilled.

Zionism is the one official racially discriminatory poitical movement that my government subsidizes and supports unconditionally. Oh yeah, now we have Kosovo. I do not like that policy either.

Do I pass the "double standard" test.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 2:46 PM

When Bill Kristol uses his megaphone to announce that war with Iran will happen before Jan 1 if Obama is elected...

he is inciting oil and currency markets - and he knows it.

Every news broadcast about Israel's formerly hidden nuclear capability, and her commitment to war with Iran - is not just a news story but a use of the public airwaves to advance the interests of Israel over American.

Those interests are NOT the same. And every effort by Israel/first Americans to stir the pot is treason.

Posted by Carole Ward | June 27, 2008 2:47 PM

DAS,

I was born and raised in California. I am Native Stock of California.

I "support the ideology on which your (my) country of citizenship is founded" as much as I am legally required to do, or as little as I can get away with.

My country was founded on stolen land, plain and simple. I was not there. I did not participate. The evicted peoples are all dead. The perps are all dead.

"displacements were the norm " - Israel was founded on stolen land. Many of the evicted peoples are still in the neighborhood or are actively pursuing a return to their homes. The perps are still there. The perps are still stealing land. It is an active criminal enterprise. Should you be saying "displacements ARE the norm"?

That is the difference. One is active, one is not. Zionists hope that time runs in their favor. That the "Indians" will all die out, etc. That their illegal gains will be forgotten. The Crusaders also thought they could claim this land as their own, by divine right. The many empty and crumbling Crusader castles show that, even after a multi-generational occupation, the native population will emerge to take back control. But we still have those members of the Israeli Government that advocate the mass slaughter of Palestinians. Maybe their (your?) Zionist dream can finally be fulfilled.

Zionism is the one official racially discriminatory poitical movement that my government subsidizes and supports unconditionally. Oh yeah, now we have Kosovo. I do not like that policy either.

Do I pass the "double standard" test.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 2:50 PM

Re Seedee Vee

Would Mr. Seedee Vee care to enlighten us as to which members of the Israeli Government favor an Eichmann solution for the Palestinians. The only group in Israel that advocates this is the Kach faction, founded by the late and unlamented Meir Kahane, which has been banned from the Knesset.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2008 3:08 PM

My country was founded on stolen land, plain and simple. I was not there. I did not participate. The evicted peoples are all dead. The perps are all dead. - Seedee Vee

Yes. Exactly. If you are claiming Zionism is wrong and that the Zionist state should cease to exist, where should the Israeli Jews go? And why don't you make an example for yourself and move back to where your ancestors came from if living on stolen land is so wrong?

Pretty much every nation is founded on stolen land in one way shape or form. And isn't it convenient that after the Jewish state, shown historically to be necessary because no-one would accept Jews (of course, one could now make a similar claim as to the necessity of a Palestinian state ... but it wasn't Israel preventing a Palestinian state from being established in the late 1940s), is established people suddenly decide to change their standards of what is acceptable and not acceptable.

BTW -- the Palestinians are not the only late 1940s era refugee group with members who are still alive. There are still Sudeten Germans, Karelians, Mizrachi Jews, etc., still very much alive. And you know what -- those peoples were absorbed by their near kin. Other Arabs would not (and perhaps could not) absorb the Palestinians. As predicted by Isaiah in his song of the suffering servant, Israel is dispised and rejected due to the sins of others.

Of course, the Zionists themselves were not clever enough to look into the Bible and actually understand that all that's happened to Israel was inevitable (and that it would take a leader of the quality of the king Messiah him/herself to be able to navagate the ship of state for any nation of Israel) ... but that's another debate.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 3:29 PM

But then the modifier does seem intended to diminish their arguments on the basis of their jewishness.

That's wrong. The arguments always sucked on their faces, which is why many people, found especially in the blogosphere, were against the invasion. Bad arguments diminish themselves. Instead, Klein's use of the modifier suggests why a set of neocons found those bad arguments compelling or worthy of continual repetition. Similarly, you see arguments that depend on the close connection between various members of the Bush Administration and the oil industry. Which, again, go to motivations for the way in which those oil-industry allies evaluated bad arguments for invasion and the way in which they repeated (or, memorably, "rolled out") bad arguments for the invasion.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 27, 2008 3:29 PM

"In truth, there's no difference between a Bush supporting England

Among other reasons, probably because the charge runs the other way: Blair is Bush's poodle, etc.

an Eisenhower supporting Germany

Among other reasons, probably because he made his name kicking the shit out of Germany not ten years prior to his election."

Oh I see, you need to make someone your poodle or go to war to avoid the smear of "dual loyalty".

So how bout Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter all supporting our special relationship with England like German Americans Chuck Hagel and Tom Daschle signing on to support of Germany with its Nato defense treaty. Dual loyalists? Or is that particular smear reserved for supporting Israel?

Posted by APS | June 27, 2008 4:26 PM

SLC - Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Sometimes I do not have enough.

"The State of Israel will relocate the Arab refugees of Judea, Samaria and Gaza under an international agreement and/or in accordance with their wishes, to other Arab countries and toany other country that will accept them. " -

from the web page of the Moledet party - http://www.moledet.org.il/english/

As of 2007, it has two Knesset Members, Binyamin "Benny" Elon and Professor Aryeh Eldad.

"Israeli expulsion idea gains steam
The Moledet party's media blitz for the mass expulsion of Palestinians is gaining momentum" - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p05s01-wome.html - Please read.

Do some research, please. I did this quickly.

DAS - BTW - Thanks for trying to make your point by changing the subject. I am speaking of Israel/Palestine. I am sure the Sudeten German Problem will start another war in Europe some day, but lets stick to the Zionism problem.

Your whole BTW is such a load of crap. The fact that the neighbors of Palestine are unwilling to "officially" accept Palestinians as immigrants, in effect, rewarding the Zionist thieves, show that they are being responsible. They will not reward illegal and immoral actions (By, Zionists, at least)by their neighbors. I can tell you do not like to admit to yourself that there are millions of Palestinian Refugees not living in the Occupied Territories.

One land, one people, one nation. Did not Arafat say he was a Semite? Everyone stays, everyone gets their stuff back, everyone wins. Except for the religious nuts who will never be happy.

In case you missed it, Zionism/Israel is an active criminal enterprise. Active. Are they still evicting Germans from Poland, Czech Republic & Slovak Republic?

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 4:37 PM

So how bout Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter...

If they sent us into an unjustified elective war costing many thousands of lives, we'd be pissed at them too.

Posted by JJ | June 27, 2008 4:37 PM

Just to reiterate, I do think the US has a special relationship with Israel since Truman. But that doesn't let Doug Feith and the rest of the crew off the hook.

Posted by JJ | June 27, 2008 4:45 PM

I have to say I'm surprised to see SLC so thoughtful and moderate in his comments. Pleasantly surprised.

Posted by Freddie | June 27, 2008 5:02 PM

Possibly it was a different SLC who advocated killing every man, woman, and child in Israel just the other day.

Posted by roac | June 27, 2008 5:07 PM

Ah, not exactly. Make that "advocated killing every man, woman, and child in IRAN just the other day." sorry.

Posted by roac | June 27, 2008 5:10 PM

Not to get weighed down here, but this comment by DAS struck me:

The reason why many of us Jews equate anti-Zionism with anti-Jewish prejudice is that anti-Zionists, e.g., get all steamed up about the displacement of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish settlers when such displacements were the norm

Emphasis mine. One of the reasons such displacements are no longer the norm is the establishment of the United Nations--which, of course, gave the mandate for this present displacement. It's this irony, I think, that drives some of the resentment and also makes the Palestinian displacement a unique situation.

In addition, what about anti-Zionist Jews? They certainly exist, as I would count myself a member. Personally, I would object to Zionism even on religious grounds (for reasons DAS alludes to above), but in terms of politics I think it's a dreadful idea, and has contributed significantly to anti-Semitism over the last 60 years, particularly in groups (such as the left wing) which would not otherwise be predisposed (and yes, I'm aware of the history of anti-Semitism w/in Marxism, but I'm speaking more broadly here).

And from a moral standpoint, I think the injustices inflicted on us in the past should make us more sensitive to Palestinian grievances, not more self-righteous.

Yes. Exactly. If you are claiming Zionism is wrong and that the Zionist state should cease to exist, where should the Israeli Jews go?

Well, I think realistically what's done is done, but there should be a move towards peaceful coexistence, either in terms of the establishment of better infrastructure and significant I-P trade links within a two-state system, or in the establishment of a single, secular I-P state.

And yes, I think Israel should pay for most of rebuilding of Palestine in the former solution, with the Arab petrostates contributing as well.

And why don't you make an example for yourself and move back to where your ancestors came from if living on stolen land is so wrong?

Were there a significant (say, 100 million) Native American population remaining, I would strongly consider returning to Europe.

Posted by scythia | June 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Seedee Vee,

Thank you for getting my dander up ... I am having, shall we say, wakefulness issues due to overindulgence in food to which I am somewhat allergic.

FWIW, the reason why Sudeten Germans, et al., are not going to cause wars is that they were integrated into a nation-state with other German people! The Palestinian people were not. Nu? Whose fault was that?

As to the issue of Zionism being "active" ... this is because while the world let other nations engage in mass population transfers to establish secure nation states post-WWII, the Jewish state did not have such an opportunity (hmm ...), so the very borders of the state are still in flux, etc.

Anyway, what would you propose then Seedee Vee? A so-called one-state solution? Do you really think that'll work? Do you really think Israeli Jews will be secure in their homes with such an outcome? Otherwise, where do you propose Israeli Jews go?

I know ... you think we Jews are doomed to wander the Earth while you happily live on your stolen land which is ok because the stealing happened a long time ago and everyone is dead and besides you aren't Jewish?

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 5:30 PM

In addition, what about anti-Zionist Jews? They certainly exist, as I would count myself a member. Personally, I would object to Zionism even on religious grounds (for reasons DAS alludes to above), but in terms of politics I think it's a dreadful idea, and has contributed significantly to anti-Semitism over the last 60 years - scythia

Actually, I always wonder when Zionism became "kosher". Historically, those whose orientation to Judaism was primarily "religious" (especially in the Reform and the Traditional Orthodox communities) opposed Zionism, for a lot of good reasons (IMHO, even though neither the Reform nor the Haredi opponents of Zionism thought of their opposition in such political terms, it's hard to separate the religious argument from the political argument -- my allusion to the religious argument was also essentially your political argument, don't you agree?). Fundamentally, Zionism -- the idea that the Jews are any other "Goy" (nation) opposed to the religious conception of Jews as an "Am HaKodesh" (Holy People).

As to your argument about the contribution of Zionism, etc., to anti-Semitism, I agree with your point, which is often neglected within the Jewish community. The general attitude amongst many Jews is that "they will always hate us, and there isn't anything we can do about it". The idea that anti-Semitism gets passed on somehow and that we can do something constructive in terms of our behavior to stop that transmission is too close to "blaming the victim" for comfort. If we Jews are somehow responsible for anti-Semitic attitudes, doesn't that justify anti-Semitism and mean the anti-Semites are right?

Of course, IMHO, the real justification of anti-Semitic attitudes occurs when those same Jews act exactly according to anti-Semitic memes concerning Jewish behavior.

Posted by DAS | June 27, 2008 5:53 PM

90% of the doctors in Vienna were Jews.
They're all dead.

The ability of Jews to "get ahead" only exacerbates antisemitism.

Posted by David | June 27, 2008 5:58 PM

Gotta run out, but lemme do this quick:

my allusion to the religious argument was also essentially your political argument, don't you agree?

Yes. Also, while I'm no theologian, it seems to be that a significant theme in Jewish history is the nation acting irresponsibly (or whatever the adverbial form of "unholy" would be) and getting smacked the fuck down by the big Yod (or El, again, my theology is fuzzy so I'm not sure what name to use for vengence).

Sans Messiah, I think the likelihood of impious action by the nation as state would be incredibly likely, and I'd argue the last 20 years especially prove that point.

The general attitude amongst many Jews is that "they will always hate us, and there isn't anything we can do about it".

Yeah, but I think the general attitude of most people tends towards circular ontology. Personally, I think material conditions determine political attitudes, and if the Palestinians had a booming economy and civil liberties, the % calling for Israel's destruction would be about on par with the white supremacists here in the States.

Plus, look at Northern Ireland.

The idea that...we can do something constructive in terms of our behavior to stop that transmission is too close to "blaming the victim" for comfort. If we Jews are somehow responsible for anti-Semitic attitudes, doesn't that justify anti-Semitism and mean the anti-Semites are right?

Well personally, I ALWAYS blame myself first. Whenever something goes wrong in my life, even if I'm not the proximate cause, I always ask how my behavior could have fixed the problem before it arose. That's just the way I think, and the level of personal responsibility I aspire to.

I take that attitude to the political sphere as well. It's the reason I'm pro-Palestinian, why I "blame America first," why I criticize the Democrats far more than Republicans, and why Marxists think I'm a major revisionist and won't let me in their club (not that I'd want to join, but still).

Ultimately, as I see it, all we can control is our own behavior, so even if it requires shouldn't we be acting in such a way to maximize justice in the world, and bring about the good, rather than criticize others for not doing their part? I have no control over Hamas or Iran, but I do have a voice in my own gov't, and hopefully in influencing Jewish thought as well, so that's where I focus my energies.

Posted by scythia | June 27, 2008 6:14 PM

scythia - I agree with most of what you said (except the being Jewish part). Peaceful coexistence is the key, isn't it?

DAS - Thanks for giving me the opportunity to get your dander up.

I think you are forgetting that the Palestinians are not claiming to have come from anywhere else. There is no other "Homeland" for them.

I suppose that I could claim some share of the 4 or more nation states that my forefathers came from or for the additional nation states that my wife's ancestors came from, but that would not be too practical, would it? How about my sons? Which one can they claim? I suppose they could marry a nice Jewish girl and get in on the middle east land grab, but that would make me sad.

It is a little pathetic that one person can make a claim over another based on a supposed 5000 year old promise . . . . .

Not all of the Sudeten Germans were removed, just most of them. Not all of the Palestinians were removed either. Same for the non-Albanian population of Serbian Kosovo.

As for what would "work?" Nothing ever has, nothing ever will. We never have had Nations that survived more than a few hundred years. But, you will have to admit, the "Wandering" part sure did help in the survival of the Jewish religion. They all could have gone the way of Masada or just changed their team in order to stay in the neighborhood. Practicality under duress can be a good thing. I think our modern Roma (Gypsy) population exists in the same manner. Surviving. As are the Palestinians. Surviving.

So, to answer your main question: Israeli Jews should

1) Stay in the neighborhood (But not in a stolen home), or,
2) Go back to the country they emigrated from, or,
3) Come here

You also must admit that it is much much more easier for an Israeli to emigrate here than it is for a Palestinian.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 6:21 PM

Fundamentally, Zionism -- the idea that the Jews are any other "Goy" (nation) opposed to the religious conception of Jews as an "Am HaKodesh" (Holy People).

If I had to define fundamentalism, it would be the ability to 1984 style doublethink around the contradictions in the given religion and glom onto all of it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 27, 2008 6:30 PM

Dave: "This will be my last day reading this blog."

Great, Dave! Hey, go on over to TPM. Josh Marshall just loves people like you - and hates people who criticize Israel.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:31 PM

SLC: "We now have the testimony of Lawrence Wilkerson, Douglas Feith, and Daniel Kurtzer the the Government of Israel did not, repeat did not think that the proposed invasion of Iraq was in its interest and advised against it. They only went along with it and sent Bibi Netanyahu to lobby Congress after it became obvious to them that their advice was not going to be followed."

Repeating his lies by omission once again.

Once again he fails to tell people that Israel wanted the US to attack IRAN, not Iraq. And the reason they sent Netanyahu to lobby for it was because they were assured by the neocons that Iran would be number two after Iraq.

SLC is a lying POS.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:36 PM

Re Seedee Vee

1. Mr. Seedee Vee obviously has a reading comprehension problem. Neither member of the Moledat party have advocated an Eichmann solution for the Palestinians (i.e. extermination) so my comment stands. By the way, I am also a native Californian.

2. None of the three options that Mr. Seedee Vee offers are going to occur. Palestinians in refugee camps are not going to be resetled in Israel, current residents of Israel are not going to return to their countries of origin as about 1/2 of them are Sabras or refugees themselves from Arab countries and they are not coming to
the US. If Mr. Seedee Vee doesn't like it, he can go fuck himself.

Re DAS

Mr. DAS, it is a waste of time being polite to fucktards like Mr. Seedee Vee. He's just another clone of Mr. Trevor and Mr. Hack and should be treated as such.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2008 6:39 PM

DAS: "Somehow nobody cares about the Karelians, the Sudetens, the Mizrachi Jews, etc. But when it comes to the (admittedly very real) plight of the Palestinian Arabs, everyone is suddenly so concerned?"

How about because NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF THE FUCKING KARELIANS?

Not to mention that there hasn't been several major conflicts over the fucking Karelians, and the US hasn't offered whoever the hell messed with the fucking Karelians THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS TO KEEP DOING IT.

Moron.

"It's that double standard that just reeks of anti-Jewish sentiment. Jews are condemned when they do that which is condoned when everyone else does it."

No - what reeks of Jewish exceptionalism is the notion that when somebody criticizes the Jews for doing what other fascist, statist, racist, imperialist pigs have done, somehow it's immediately "anti-Semitic."

Your dis-ingenuousness is breathtaking. Now shove it up your ass.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:43 PM

It's a waste of time being polite to Zionist freaks, and they should be treated as such.

I can't recall a more craven, venal, corrupt, lying, intellectually dishonest bunch. They make Jesuits and pedophile Catholic priests look good. They make Nazis look good.

There's a reason half the Israeli government is either under indictment for rape or under investigation for corruption. This is who Zionists are.

As an honest bank robber/terrorist wannabe, I am proud to say I'm not a fucking Zionist.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:53 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

"As an honest bank robber/terrorist wannabe, I am proud to say I'm not a fucking Zionist."

Mr. Hack couldn't terrorize a nursery. The readers might want to interview the bank teller who had Mr. Hacks' gun stuck in his face to see what that individual thinks about Mr. Hacks' honesty.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2008 7:09 PM

SLC,

The Zionist State of Israel will end. Now or later. Your whining will not change it.

On behalf of our fellow Californians, I ask you to please stop supporting Zionist Terrorism and all of it's accompanying bullshit. Reading comprehension or no.

(and I hope you live in the south)

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 27, 2008 8:37 PM

Re Seedee Vee

1. Judging from Mr. Seedee Vees' comment, he lives in Northern California and has the usual disdain for his fellow Californians from Los Angeles. For his information, I am a native of LA and a graduate of UC Berkeley so I have a foot in both ponds.

2. The Zionist State of Israel will end when Mr. Seedee Vee sees the back of his own ear (old Arab saying). It will be here long after Mr. Seedee Vee shuffles off this mortal coil.

3. For his information, I currently reside in Northern Virginia.

Posted by SLC | June 28, 2008 9:21 AM

SLC,

Wishful thinking gets you wishes, but not much thinking.

The Zionist State will go the way of Apartheid South Africa and the USSR soon enough. As soon as all the Original Zionist Gangsters die off (cancer of the soul, accepted) and when the Zionist American Money Tree sheds it's last leaves, the Zionist State will cease to exist. These cheap Zionist imitators that we have today are nothing more than polished and opportunistic piles of crap. Who wants to support polished and opportunistic piles of crap?

As for your typical LA obliviousness, I am glad it moved East. It should fit well in the Virgina suburbs. Please stay there and prove your worth.

Posted by Seedee Vee | June 28, 2008 2:57 PM

(tap, tap) Is this thread still on?

RSH: Of course, "nobody has heard of the Karelians", because their refugee crisis was solved by Finland taking them in! The reason why people have heard about the Palestinians is not because Israel is teh evil Ziii-on-ist state but because nobody took in the Palestinians. Israel here is the suffering servant of which Isaiah speaks. That this was predictable is merely evidence of the stupidity of the Zionist vision (and many Zionists are, at some level, happy to be seen as teh evil, 'cause they can't bring themselves to admit that they were stupid and would rather be seen as evil than stupid).

Also, to Seedee Vee: just a question -- aren't the Palestinians living on stolen land as well? According to the Bible, the Israelites stole the land from the Canaanites and then the land was stolen from the Israelis -- so we're just stealing it back (until the Canaanites come back along). Of course, modern scholarship indicates that what happened was not Israelites stealing the land from the Canaanites, but rather a peasants' rebellion coupled with an infiltration of "Habiru" ... in which case the land was never stolen by us Jews ... we are purely taking it back.

Posted by DAS | June 30, 2008 10:28 AM