Is it possible to keep the charge of anti-Semitism off the table

[BurtWorm]

when discussing Israel's latest adventures unless naked, unambiguous anti-Semitism rears its ugly head? Can we make a pledge not to insinuate that critics of Israel are operating under ulterior motives or subject to motives not known even to themselves? Can we please agree to take at face value that critics of the government of Israel's current actions are critical of the government's actions and not harboring secret ethnic hatred?

If defenders of Israel's latest actions feel that a criticism is anti-Semitic, would they please explain why the specific criticism is specifically anti-Semitic?

Thank you.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. That would be nice

but I'm not sure it's possible with any discussion of Israel. I'd vote for giving it a try though. :)

[atreides1]

2. It would be different

You've got my vote.

[Cerridwen]

3. But name calling is such an effective tool

for shutting down debate; in this and all other issues.

:sarcasm:

[ProfessorGAC]

4. I Doubt It, Burt

That would seem to be the napalm of defenses. Can't really counter anti-Israeli gov't statements, then drop the napalm (anti-semitism) and scorch the earth.

I concur with your sentiment, but i doubt we can manage it.
The Professor

[treestar]

34. I agree with that. It's a good idea, but there will always be those

who want to resort to it. So you feel like you have to defend yourself from it. Then they've succeeded in shutting down the conversation about the original issue.

[liberal N proud]

5. Thank you making that call

Just because we don't agree with Israels actions does not mean we are anti-Semitic.

[Poll_Blind]

6. In my experience, they will not. It is their most powerful tool to...

...shutting down discussion. It is perhaps their only tool to shutting down discussion. More importantly, they genuinely in their hearts believe it: That any criticism of the government of Israel, whether under a conservative or liberal government is anti-Semitism.

  Moreso, there are many in the conservative Jewish community, like Abe Foxman of the JDL, who promote the idea.

PB

[Scriptor Ignotus]

63. if I may

offer another perspective. As a Jew, I would just like to say that over 3000 years of torture, persecution and ethnic cleansing have left modern Jews somewhat sensitive to any type of direct criticism with regards to Israel. Israel is after all, a nation which hundreds of thousands of people, armed people at that, have sworn to eradicate, eliminate, and destroy.

My point is, which really goes without saying, that this is a sensitive topic for Jews and always will be. The OP has a great point that I fully support, but I hope DU keeps in mind the history of the Jews when debating current I/P events. Thanks.

[DWilliamsamh]

71. The History of presecution doesn't excuse wild charges of ...

Anti-Semitism. It is unreasonable to "use" the history you cite as justification for unjustified, out-of-left-field charges of anti-semitism every time someone disagrees with the actions of the government of Isreal.

It is on its FACE not anti-semetic to level a logical reasoned criticism of a Government policy.

Lets put it this way: Just becaue I think Tony Blair is a poodle for GWB, and I disagree with the actions of the British Governement in spying on innocent muslim citizens (screw the terrorist Muslims in GB) of GB, doesn't make me "anti-anglosaxon."

See what I'm saying?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

115. my point was

that some posters on DU use no forethought or sensitivity when approaching the I/P debate. That's all.

I'm not arguing for the things you seem to think I'm arguing for. I think you misread my post. Thanks.

[SaveElmer]

7. Agreed...if

Those critical of Israel can refrain from accusing supporters of Israel's right to defend themselves of being war-mongers who support the genocide of innocent civilians...

Both charges are out of bounds as far as I am concerned

[ulysses]

8. a general step back in tone

would be helpful, perhaps, yes.

[lostnfound]

70. Oh, yes, you can say that again...

Your avatar is the cutest baby who ever lived, clearly.

[ulysses]

72. thanks!

:D

[jsamuel]

very true

[BurtWorm]

15. The knee-jerk charge that supporters of Israel are neo-cons should

also be off the table. That's only fair. Both labels are absolute conversation stoppers.

[Finder]

21. Not the same...neoconservativism is not a form of bigotry.

Accusing someone of being a bigot is a lot different than accusing someone of following a legitimate philosophy you disagree with.

[BurtWorm]

25. Not at DU. At DU, "neo-con" is as good as a brick.

It's often used extremely imprecisely to mean anything from "conservative" to "Republican" to "freeper" to "zionist." Some probably even do use it to mean "Jew."

It's a very unhelpful word, in this context especially. It's intended to shut down the dialogue, as surely as the charge of anti-Semite is from the other side.

[Finder]

28. The same can be said about the term liberal but ignorance should never...

be encouraged.

[BurtWorm]

32. Calling someone a liberal at DU is the same as calling someone neocon?

I don't see that at all.

[Finder]

36. Here it is a compliment.lol I mean the term liberal in general...

which has been redefined to mean something that it is not. It is people like Hannity and Coulter that are able to spread these memes so effectively that even liberals become ashamed to use the term...

All I'm saying is the term anti-semetic is a type of xenophobia/bigotry not a philosophy. Neocon, liberal, neoliberal, conservative are philosophies.

[BurtWorm]

39. You mean the charge of anti-Semitism is a charge of bigotry.

It has more of a sting than the charge of "neo-conservatism" for that reason. Yet in the context of this debate, it seems to me both terms are tossed around to shut the other side up. They have exactly the same intended effect, and a very similar effect in fact: they mean to shut down the dialogue, but they only intensify the disagreement.

[Finder]

43. If only the dialogue could be shut down.lol

Like the immigration issue, charges of racism vs enabling the right wing will go on until the rovian machine has successfully divided the left on the issue into impotence.

This too shall pass.

[readmoreoften]

75. Oh? Neocon is a legitimate philosophy?

I think most people on DU would disagree.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. I'm parking with my agreement right here. nt

[msongs]

9. semites = hebrews, arabs, palestinians etc. anti-semitic has no meaning

in this situation. perhaps the more correct reference is anti-israeli or anti-jewish, or anti-arab, or anti-islamic, or anti-palestinian, or anti-hezbollah, though israeli and jewish are NOT one and the same necessarily.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[katinmn]

13. That is an important clarification people should be aware of it.

[liberal N proud]

17. I am going to have to remember that next time I am called antisemitic

for not supporting violence by the Israelis

[cali]

24. Wrong.

Antisemitism is more or less a term of art. It was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1879 to describe his philosophy of hatred toward Jews. It has never been used in any other way. In academic circles this is a settled issue. In journalism, its usage conforms to the term's original intent.

Philologists will tell you that many words conflict with their roots.
(How accurate is the word ladybug?) That doesn't make them invalid words or terms. Philologists will also tell you that the meanings of words can shift. I rather doubt the meaning of antisemite will, simply because usage of the word to connote more than one group, would lead to obvious confusion.

Frankly, I think the fuss i've seen over it here on DU is silly. You want to try and change the usage? Go for it, but try and gain some knowledge about language.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. He's right.

Antisemitism literally means hatred against Jews, arabs, etc.

A common usage is as a synonym for "Anti-Jew" but msongs is technically correct.

Marr coined the phrase in the context of German gentiles hating Jewish semites. If he meant it to describe one type of semite expressing hatred towards another type of semite, he probably would have been more specific.

It's a semantic argument, sure. But a rather valid point is that the hatred of one type of semite is just as immoral as the hatred of the other type of semite. They are, after all, the same people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. I'm inclined to disagree.

That may have been the original meaning, but I think the usage "anti-jewish" is predominant enough over the use "anti all semitic peoples" that the former is now correct and the latter wrong, whatever the case was initially.

Words change meanings - adventure, humour, rape, and many others initially meant things subtly or completely different top what they mean now, I believe (although I'm not a linguist).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. I disagree with your semantics.

Anti-semitic means "prejudiced against jews", not "prejudiced against all semitic people".

It's a word whose meaning is not exactly be supposed given its derivation, like religion, piety, decimate and adventure.

[Chulanowa]

87. You must be anti-semantic, then.

;)

I couldn't resist.

[cali]

89. yawn.

you mean it has no meaning to you, a few bigoted storm front types, and a few folks on the left.

[Richard Steele]

10. No, it's not gonna happen.

Because the accusation of "antisemitism" is the biggest, baddest
weapon in the Pro-Israel crowd's arsenal.

It has been so useful, gotten them so far...
they ain't never gonna give it up, because
they really can't get by without it anymore.

[Hoosier Dem]

11. Agreed...

One should be able to freely criticise the actions of any state without being called a bigot or anti-semite.

The charge of anti-semitism against anyone who criticises Israel's actions is simply a cop-out. It would be like those who lambasted the Catholic Church dutring the sex abuse scandal being branded as "Anti-Christian".

[katinmn]

12. Excellent suggestion. K&N

[Deep13]

14. Only a Jew-hater would suggest that. (No, not really.)

x(

[petgoat]

16. What helps is to keep the terminology precise and the

issues distinct.

I had some friends recently tell me they were going to go picket "the Jewish
consulate". Well there is no Jewish consulate. It's the Israeli consulate.

Also, I think that anybody who wants to use the furor over Israeli war crimes
as an excuse to present their analysis of the Jewish-banking-cabal-that-really-
runs-the-world can be invited to present their information on these issues at
some less explosive time in a more objective ethnic-blind way.

[BurtWorm]

20. Obviously, there will be anti-Semites who will take any advantage

to spew, especially when Israel's behavior is unpopular or controversial. But unless you believe anti-Semitism is the default attitude of people (including Jews) who aren't on pins and needles ready to defend the Israeli government's actions, you should give people the benefit of the doubt.

[villager]

30. yes

n/t

[mom cat]

18. I do not think that will happen. So every time someone makes such

a statement, be prepared to point out the fallicies of the charge. Furthermore, point out the perjorative remarks made about the other sides in this conflict. Calling every Arab a terrorist is racist and anti-semetic.

[abluelady]

19. Perhaps the Thinking is as Follows:

Israel does what she does, whether you agree or not, to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. Therefore, if you are against what she does, you must be against the Jewish people.

Not my personal opinion, just trying to be helpful. :>)

[oldcoot]

23. The problem with that logic

The problem with that logic is that rabid Bush supporters have used that argument against many of us whenever we have criticized his policies including those that violate the United States Constitution.

[abluelady]

26. I Don't Understand What You Are Trying to Say

Nobody has tried to do away, literally, with me because I hate Bush and what he stands for. Jews have been persecuted literally forever, and they want to preserve their heritage.

[arikara]

66. So have Native Americans

been decimated and persecuted ever since the white eyes landed. And certainly they want to preserve their heritage... but they don't go around bombing civilians and destroying infrastructure to make that happen. And they have had as much injustice perpetrated against them as anyone ever had.

Call me "anti-semitic" if you will. Its overuse has made it a nothing term when people are called anti-semitic for disagreeing with a government's brutality or anti-semitic for being a white supremicist then the term no longer has a meaning. To be sure, I wouldn't recognize a Jewish person or Israeli or whatever they want to be called if I fell over one. I don't have a bigoted thought in my head against anyone except for the old white men who are the warmongers.

[abluelady]

73. Weren't there Wars Between Indians and White Folks?

I seem to recall reading about that. It also seems to me that the white folks have tried to "make up" for those past wars.

My guess is those who can't understand can't understand. And that is where the name calling comes in. Both sides seem not to be able to understand the other.

And most people do have a bigoted bone in their body, as hard as they try not to. It's just the way it is. My bigoted bone is stupid republicans! :blush:

[arikara]

83. Extremely one sided wars

using early weapons of mass destruction such as blankets laced with smallpox, residential schools, fire water. Butchering the population by wiping out their food source, or simply shooting them and stealing their land. It was never made up for. Living in poverty on a reserve? The reserve of course being the land that the white eyes didn't value.

Hmmm... sounds rather like what's going on in the middle east these days.

You have a point though, warmongers are my bigoted bone. Doesn't matter the political affiliation or shade of their skin though.

;-)

[abluelady]

90. You're Right

We can never make up for the damage that we cause in wars. But having the attitude to try, imho, makes a difference. Maybe I'm naive but it seems to me that reparations are generally attempted after war.

[Ms. Clio]

92. actually, the Indians generally focused on "civilian" settlers

rather than fighting pitched battles against the U.S. military. In today's parlance, they would certainly be called "terrorists."

[petgoat]

103. Some did, some didn't. Wars were very lucrative for military

supplies contractors and volunteer soldiers, and all it took was a
few bare footprints around a scene of atrocity at a farm or a looted
freight wagon to justify a war of murder and rape.

Doubtless some of those settlers deserved what they got. In California
there were times when a bounty was paid for Indian scalps.

[Ms. Clio]

106. No, in general, that was the case

This in generally not disputed by historians. You will find very few examples of pitched battles by the Indians against the military. And the Comanches, for example, were relentless killers of Texas settlers; in fact, they succeeded in pushing the frontier back 100 miles in the 1870s before they were finally overwhelmed by the U.S. Army in the Red River War.

Even the Declaration of Independence complained that the Americans were under constant attack by the Indians who made no distinctions as to age and sex. It was quite disingenuous, of course, as the white settlers did not make those distinctions, either, especially in the backcountry.

[Chulanowa]

88. "Make Up"?

Ever been to Rosebud? Have tou noticed the wonderful place called Nunavut? The Dineh reservation is one of the richest in the country, if not the richest, and it makes east LA look like Beverly Hills.

Compare this to 150 years ago when these people had the run of very notable chunks of country, the freedom to move as they pleased without being told they weren't Natives anymore...

American Apartheid may not be as violent as Israeli or South African Apartheid... But the undesirables are still packed away onto undesirable land. If that land suddenly becomes desirable (minerals, usually) then suddenly they have no rights to THAT land, either. They're told, "We were nice enough to give you this stretch of rock and sand instead of just exterminating you. Surely you can reciprocate your gratitude by letting us exploit what resources we mistakenly left you with!"

Ahem. There's still a long way to go to "make up".

[Ms. Clio]

94. As much as 90% of the native population of the "New World"

perished after European contact and invasion.

[FredStembottom]

22. I've never seen the anti-Semite bomb go unused.

Not in 35 years of my trying to discuss the Mid-East in a reasonable way.

I finally gave up a few years ago.

Note: this will be my one and only post that is even tangentially related to Isreal. It is sooooooo not worth it to even broach the subject!

:argh:

[Stinky The Clown]

27. This works both ways .......

People who criticize the actions of the Israelis are most likley not anti-semitic. Similarly, people who support Israeli actions are most likely neither pro-war nor anti-Arab.

Unfortunately, such charges and countercharges get flung all too freely and drown out all honest discussion.

It is almost as if DU has become possessed by the devil. There was even a hugely eggregious post with one DUer implying that another was calling for the extermination of the Jews.

Amazing ... just amazing.

[villager]

29. Being Jewish, let me say "yes." let me also say I've seen on DU

plenty of blanket statements about "The Jews" as a single, Protocols-of-Zion like entity that are, frankly, shocking.

[BurtWorm]

33. My antennae go up over that phrase as well.

Especially when people are talking about Israel as "The Jews." :eyes:

Mostly, I think it's ignorance. It's the way "well-meaning" gentiles talked about I/P in their churches in the 1960s and 1970s: "Arab vs. Jew."

[AngryOldDem]

35. Thank you.

Getting a little tired of the "if you criticize Israel, or the Israeli goverment, you're an anti-Semite" bullshit.

[zippy890]

37. agree with you

very strange to me when my opinion about israel is said sound anti-semitic.

my spouse is jewish fer chissakes!

[Old and In the Way]

38. Well said BurtWorm

[oberliner]

40. Antisemitic vs Not-Antisemitic Criticism of Israel

Not Antisemitic criticisms of Israel:

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been entirely disproportionate.
Israel is not using enough discretion in attacking only Hezbollah militants to avoid civilian casualities.
Israel should work towards a peaceful negotiation of this conflict rather than resorting to violence.
Israel should immediately bring a halt to its military operations and sign a cease fire agreement.

Antisemitic criticism of Israel:

How ironic it is that Israel is currently using the same sorts of tactics used against Jews by the nazis.
Zionists do not care at all about human life and are only interested in killing people and taking their land.
AIPAC is exerting its power in America to coerce the United States into supporting Israel against it's own best interests.

I've seen both around here in the past few days.

The first kind should be welcomed. The second kind should be condemned.

[BurtWorm]

42. That, actually, is helpful.

Should be a post of its own.

Two questions though: Isn't AIPAC exerting its power (such as it is) to convince (or coerce) the US to support Israel no matter what? Do we know if supporting Israel in all circumstances is in the US's best interest?

[oberliner]

44. on AIPAC

It's okay to say that there's an Israel lobby, that it's influential and certainly to criticize its support for various administrations and Israeli policies. But to depict Israel's American supporters as part of a group that secretly dictates U.S. policy and that consciously supports Israeli interests at the expense of American ones begins to imply an international Jewish conspiracy that has anti-Semitic overtones.

[BurtWorm]

46. Is it anti-Semitic to believe AIPAC is essentially Likudite

which is why its undue influence as a lobbyist group for "Israel" is dangerous, considering Likud is right-wing and anti-peace?

[lastliberalintexas]

48. It is wrong, though, to imply that Jews are running the US government

whether through AIPAC or through some other sort of organization. It is entirely appropriate IMHO to charge that there are Likudists who have undue influence on this particular neo-con administration because of the shared goals, war profiteering and racism of the Likudists and neo-cons. One sentence asserts an age old anti-Jew sentiment, that Jews run the world. The other states that hard liner Likudists who happen to be Jewish are in bed with hard liner Neo-Cons who happen to be Christians.

I'm sure that's so very clear to you now. Sorry if I've muddied the waters even more! :)

[tnlefty]

68. I think you just helped me a lot! "an age old anti-Jew sentiment, that

Jews run the world." I seem to remember reading years ago that a certain horrific tyrant used this to stir up resentment that eventually led to the Holocaust? I don't think I've ever said in my life that Jews run the world, but I couldn't figure out why mentioning the influence in government brought those charges about, especially when AIPAC was mentioned.

I guess I was merely thinking about the PNACers, and the hardline rwing elements in both governments. Not that AIPAC, etc. is running the government.

If this isn't what you meant then I am totally confused.

edit for typo

[lastliberalintexas]

118. Yes, that is what I meant

:)

[Emit]

50. BurtWorm

I just posted a study that attempts to examine the Bush foreign policy and why we went to war in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1717112&mesg_id=1717447

It touches upon the Israeli lobby influence issues, as well as the many groups and players involved. The author does conclude with pointing out the Likud, right-wing influence on Bush foreign policy.

I'd like your opinion about this report, if you have a chance to look over it ( and other's opinion, too).

[BurtWorm]

Looks very interesting, Emit.

I'm going to have to read it more carefully.

[oberliner]

comments

First of all, why did you put Israel in quotes?

Second, AIPAC is composed entirely of Americans (predominately Jewish ones) and they do not endorse any one political party in Israel over any other.

[BurtWorm]

54. I put Israel in quotes to signify my feeling that AIPAC represents Likud

not all of Israel. My problem is not with Israel per se but with Likud in particular.

AIPAC says it doesn't endorse or represent one party, but its actions have tended to favor Likud's policies, especially with respect to Israel's neighbors.

This is what I gather from Michael Massing, who reviewed the notorious Mersheimer-Walt paper on the Israel Lobby for the NY Review of Books a couple of issues ago:


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062

AIPAC claims to represent most of the Jewish community. Its executive committee has a couple of hundred members representing a wide spectrum of American Jewish opinion, from the dovish Americans for Peace Now to the militantly right-wing Zionist Organization of America. Four times a year this group meets to decide AIPAC policy. According to several former AIPAC officials I have talked to, however, the executive committee has little real power. Rather, power rests with the fifty-odd-member board of directors, which is selected not according to how well they represent AIPAC's members but according to how much money they give and raise.

Reflecting this, the board is thick with corporate lawyers, Wall Street investors, business executives, and heirs to family fortunes. Within the board itself, power is concentrated in an extremely rich subgroup, known as the "minyan club." And, within that group, four members are dominant: Robert Asher, a retired lighting fixtures dealer in Chicago; Edward Levy, a building supplies executive in Detroit; Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, a construction materials dealer in Mobile, Alabama; and Larry Weinberg, a real estate developer in Los Angeles (and a former owner of the Portland Trail Blazers). Asher, Levy, and Mitchell are loyal Republicans; Weinberg is a Scoop Jackson Democrat who has moved rightward over the years.

The "Gang of Four," as these men are known, do not share the general interest of a large part of the Jewish community in promoting peace in the Middle East. Rather, they seek to keep Israel strong, the Palestinians weak, and the United States from exerting pressure on Israel. AIPAC's director, Howard Kohr, is a conservative Republican long used to doing the Gang of Four's bidding. For many years Steven Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues, was the main power on the staff, helping to shape the Gang of Four's pro-Likud beliefs into practical measures that AIPAC could promote in Congress. (In 2005, Rosen and fellow AIPAC analyst Keith Weissman left the organization and were soon after indicted by federal authorities for receiving classified national security information and passing it on to foreign (Israeli) officials.)

AIPAC's defenders like to argue that its success is explained by its ability to exploit the organizing opportunities available in democratic America. To some extent, this is true. AIPAC has a formidable network of supporters throughout the US. Its 100,000 members—up 60 percent from five years ago —are guided by AIPAC's nine regional offices, its ten satellite offices, and its one-hundred-person-plus Washington staff, a highly professional group that includes lobbyists, researchers, analysts, organizers, and publicists, backed by an enormous $47 million annual budget. AIPAC's staff is famous on Capitol Hill for its skill in gathering up-to-the-minute information about Middle Eastern affairs and working it up into neatly digestible and carefully slanted policy packages, on which many congressional staffers have come to rely.

Such an account, however, overlooks a key element in AIPAC's success: money. AIPAC itself is not a political action committee. Rather, by assessing voting records and public statements, it provides information to such committees, which donate money to candidates; AIPAC helps them to decide who Israel's friends are according to AIPAC's criteria. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more. Over the last five years, for instance, Robert Asher, together with his various relatives (a common device used to maximize contributions), has donated $148,000, mostly in sums of $1,000 or $2,000 to individual candidates.

[oberliner]

58. ok so..

Having read your excerpt I return to your original point and question.

Critical comments about AIPAC cross over into antisemitism when one implies that this group, overwhelmingly made up of Jews, is so powerful that they can make lawmakers take a position on Israel that goes against their own values and opinions to the detriment of the best interests of the US.

Can we agree on that?

[BurtWorm]

60. I'm not absolutely sure I agree with that.

I believe, American politics being what it is, that any lobbying group can make a politician take a position counter to one they have previously held if the price is right. AIPAC is not immune to the charge that it can corrupt the politicians it courts. Furthermore, Israel's interests are not the only ones a politician can be bought to look out for that are antithetical to US interests. How many politicians put a corporation's or industry's interests above those of all American citizens? More than a few, I'd wager.

I'm not letting AIPAC off the hook just because it represents the "special case" of Israel. (Scare quotes connote sarcasm over idea that Israel is a special case, immune from criticism.)

[oberliner]

64. Guess we'll have to leave it there then

Thanks for discussing the issue with civility. I am dismayed that we are not able to agree on this but I appreciate your taking the time to respond and consider my points.

[BurtWorm]

69. I found your distinctions mainly helpful, except on AIPAC.

I'm sensitive to anti-Semitism, having a wife, daughter, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and nephews who are Jewish.

One thing that I kind of agree with you about AIPAC. I can kind of sense when someone is wielding it as an anti-Semitic weapon, implying that it's controlling US policy rather than merely influencing it.

Most of the Jews I know and love, by the way, are no fans of AIPAC and are in agony over what Israel is doing to Lebanon in the name of routing Hezbollah.

[oberliner]

76. one more thought

This is the line of argument that I think antisemites use when talking about AIPAC:

1. AIPAC coerces lawmakers who would not otherwise do so to support Israel
2. Supporting Israel is harmful to the interests of the US
3. Thus, the harm that comes to the US for supporting Israel is directly attributable to the power and influence of a group made up predominantly of Jewish people.

That bears more than a passing similarity to the "Jews control America"-type statements which I hope you will agree are certainly antisemitic.

The implication of the line of argument is not only do Jews control American foreign policy, but they are manipulating leaders to take positions that are harming America.

From there, it's a short trip to concluding that "Jews are a problem in America" and that their power and influence needs to be curtailed.

And on and on....

That is why many Jewish people get a little concerned by the type of comment I cited.

Now of course that line of argument suggests a conflating of AIPAC and Jews that does not have to occur. As you rightly pointed out, many Jews are no fans of AIPAC. However, it is quite common for AIPAC to be used interchangably with "The Jewish Lobby" as is evidenced in the article you excerpted.

Again, the whole thing is really tricky, I understand, but I hope you can agree to some of my points.

[Emit]

78. It is tricky

I happen to think that any group currently supporting Bush & Co. is harmful in varying degress to our Republic. If AIPAC is among those groups, then so be it.

edited typo

[oberliner]

80. they don't

AIPAC does not support Bush & Co.
They donate to as money Democrats as they do Republicans.
The position they hold regarding Israel is one shared by most Democrats from John Kerry to Russ Feingold.
Certainly those two fine men do not support Bush & Co.

[Emit]

101. AIPAC supports both Dems and Repubs

Of course. But I wasn't necessarily referring to monetary donations. And, as I noted above, AIPAC will be lobbying whatever administration happens to be in control -- that is the nature of lobbying in general and not specific to AIPAC.

On the subject of donations, I'll refer you to this quote from "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt:

"Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates."

This is the same for any lobbying group, however. It's what lobbyists do.


For 2005-2006 AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions, here's a link for any interested parties: http://www.wrmea.com/



Money aside, I would be more interested in examining AIPAC's policy issues and whether they are aligned with Bush's hawkish, authoritarian-style doctrine on foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Of further interest to me might be to examine how AIPAC views the old-style foreign policy of detente and realism in this day and age compared to this new aggressive approach we have with Bush & Co. Do they view a detente style of foreign policy with regard to the Middle East as hostile to Israel, or at least not in Israel's best interests? Do they view diplomacy and realism a la Kissinger style now as weak on defense for Israel? I have not studied these questions in depth, but I can't say I've read anything in the last few years about AIPAC calling for more diplomacy or having any anti-war sentiments toward Bush & Co.'s policies, for example.


On edit: BTW, I posted yesterday on a thread that sense has been locked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1702383&mesg_id=1706000

I linked to: http://irmep.org/Defaults.asp

and you responded "choice of source
Your source is IRmep?"

What sources do you prefer?

[oberliner]

107. regarding the source

I feel that the source irmep.org is a biased one with regards to the I/P conflict.

I realize that all sources are going to be biased one way or aother, but I feel that particular source to be very slanted and not at all even-handed.

Do you disagree?

[Emit]

111. Well,

I've been receiving their email newsletters now for a while and peruse it on occasion (I get email alerts from all kinds of news sources and groups, including such groups as Chalcedony, Jewish World Review, American Family Association, PFAW, PINR, Sojourners, FTW, etc.). It's difficult to find unbiased sources. I can't say irmep.org isn't biased, but its contributers make some important points -- and I find news I don't get elsewhere. I usually try to find information from all sides of the conflict -- I'm not opposed to controversial subjects and enjoy reading all opinions on any given subject, but, particularly, I think it is important to read both sides of the I/P issue.

What sources do you prefer?

[oberliner]

114. I wholeheartedly agree

with your assessment and your approach.

It is difficult (impossible?) to find unbiased sources, and it is critical to find information from all sides of the conflict.

Two sources that I've been reading today have been Haaretz and The Lebanon Daily Star.

Both have ran op-ed pieces with some very interesting perspectives.

I also find Daily Kos to be a good source of a variety of opinions on the subject.

I guess it depends if I am looking for opinions and editorials or facts and basic information.

[BurtWorm]

85. Yes, I know there is a type of argument much like the one you imitate

that is a direct descendant of Henry Ford's know-nothing anti-Semitism, whether it's made by people on the right or on the left. It's a paranoid sort of charge about the inordinate power of Jews on American policy.

But I maintain you can spin those three points you made about AIPAC another way and it would be much more difficult to argue anti-Semitism is behind them, because Jewishness is not the point so much as right-wing, anti-peace policy is:

1. AIPAC (like the NRA or other powerful lobbies) intimidates lawmakers into supporting policies they or their constituents may not support
2. Supporting the policies of the Israeli government (particularly when it is in its Likudite, expansionist mode) is not always in the interests of the US
3. Thus, AIPAC sometimes influences Congress to act in ways that may not be in the United States' best interests.

Michael Massing's article explains why these points are not merely paranoid.

[oberliner]

109. fair enough

And I would propose that:

1. Many lawmakers support Israel for their own ideological reasons.
2. AIPAC donates generously to those lawmakers to ensure their re-election
3. AIPAC (like any other lobby) lobbies lawmakers presenting the case for why supporting their cause is in the best interests of the US
4. Often times they succeed in convincing lawmakers to vote for the position they espouse

Whether or not supporting Israel is in the best interests of the US is not germane to my disagreeing with the premise that lawmakers are intimidated by AIPAC to support policies that they themselves do not actually support.

Someone like Russ Feingold, a man whom I respect deeply, is not a person whom I believe would betray his principles for money or intimidation.

[TahitiNut]

110. (Interesting subthread.) Does anyone doubt that AIPAC (or proxy) ...

... wouldn't hesitate to use the "anti-semite" slur against recalcitrant politicians who might not align with their Likuddite wishes? The "Swift-Boating" sewage from the right isn't limited to Kerry and I don't see any depths to which these people wouldn't stoop.

[oberliner]

112. any thoughts on

Have a look at reply #110

"I don't see any depths to which these people wouldn't stoop."

[lastliberalintexas]

117. Given the context of the discussion and

Tahiti Nut's posts I've read on DU, I'd wager a guess that by "those people" he meant *neo-cons* of all stripes, flavors, colors, races, ethnicities, religions, etc.

Though I can see how that statement might sound outside of that context.

[Ms. Clio]

120. more quotes out of context

interesting technique.

[oberliner]

121. full context

"Does anyone doubt that AIPAC (or proxy) ... wouldn't hesitate to use the "anti-semite" slur against recalcitrant politicians who might not align with their Likuddite wishes? The "Swift-Boating" sewage from the right isn't limited to Kerry and I don't see any depths to which these people wouldn't stoop."

I draw attention to:

who might not align with their Likuddite wishes

and

I don't see any depths to which these people wouldn't stoop.

as elements of the post that I find disturbing.

[Ms. Clio]

122. you seem to find a lot of things "disturbing"

most of them imaginary.

[sandnsea]

45. Thank you for that

That's the kind of thing that raises the hair on my head too. I see so much outrage over Israel's "terrorist atrocities" with actual dismissal of Hezbollah atrocities (planting ficus in rocket craters, yawn). What else is one supposed to think except that some people are, at the least, biased against Israel and may be harboring prejudices that they haven't even admitted to themselves. It may have nothing to do with the Jewish religion, but it sure is intense and in my mind, completely irrational.

[lastliberalintexas]

47. Good post, except

that it is not anti-Semitic to compare the tactics of the state of Israel to the tactics used by another state, even if that state was Nazi run Germany. Just as it is not amti-Semitic to compare the Bush administration's tactics to those of Nazi Germany. A fascist neo-con is a fascist neo-con is a fascist neo-con, regardless of race, gender, or religion.

[cracksquirrel]

49. Well

Have you heard of "Godwinn's Law" as pertaining to arguments?

[lastliberalintexas]

53. Yep, and sometimes it is as wrong

and irrelevant to the discussion at hand as a charge of Nazism is.

[cracksquirrel]

55. I know

And there are a lot of comparisons to be made, especially with the rise of the right here in the US. However, sometimes it's just a wiser choice to go for Stalin or even Mussolini as an example rather than Hitler/nazis.

[starroute]

59. And sometimes it isn't

A year or so ago, I gently suggested to my 91-year-old father that Israel was using tactics of collective punishment which were indistinguishable from those used by Nazi Germany during World War II.

His response was that he knew, that he didn't care, that his only interest was in whether it was effective, and that anything Israel did to protect itself was just fine with him.

He also regularly harangues my kids about how some day the United States will rise up and turn viciously against the Jews -- just like every other country has in the past -- and Israel will be their only bolthole.

No, he's not senile, but ever since my mother died he's gotten increasingly rigid in his ideas, and it freaks the hell out of me.

Luckily my kids are tolerant and recognize that he's the product of the era in which he grew up, but it's still putting a strain on all of us.

And how do I deal with that?

[Ms. Clio]

52. Links, please

to these precise "quotations":

How ironic it is that Israel is currently using the same sorts of tactics used against Jews by the nazis.
Zionists do not care at all about human life and are only interested in killing people and taking their land.
AIPAC is exerting its power in America to coerce the United States into supporting Israel against it's own best interests.

[Ms. Clio]

61. no links to those inflammatory "quotes?"

what a shocker.

[oberliner]

65. clarifcation

They were not quotations. They were meant to be examples of comments that I would consider to be antisemitic.

I know our perspectives are different regarding this debate. Can we agree to argue our points with civility?

[Ms. Clio]

67. They are YOUR interpretations of comments, not actual comments

I think that is highly significant to an honest debate.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Did it ever occur to you that those posts and threads...

...have been DELETED? He may hate me for doing this, but I suggest you PM the Magistrate and ask him if he has had to delete any posts of lock any threads BECAUSE they were ANTI-SEMITIC.

[Emit]

62. Regarding the lobby statement

Isn't the goal of lobbyists, in general, to win influence and attempt to assure that the lobbyists causes and concerns are high on the agenda?

I read somewhere recently that AIPAC's history shows that it is strong to lobby US government whatever the foreign policy is of the current administration in power. We just happen to have a very different foreign policy in power now than we did under Clinton or any previous administration.

AIPAC aside, what is curious and a concern to me, and I refer to my post above and the study I linked to for BurtWorm, is how many people from various think tanks have been involved in influencing our current foreign policy historically and their interconnectedness.

[librechik]

51. oh--you think they "think" before applying the label, about whether

the charge is accurate?

I don't think so. They use it because it is all they have--a gigantic axe for the task of brain surgery.

And guess what? For them, it does the job--silences the opposition.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

56. Since when is wanting peace anti-semetic?

cripes people- what have we descended into?

Thank you BW for a voice of reason.

[tomp]

57. anti-semitism is israel's raison d'etre.

israel's argument is, essentially, that they need a homeland because everyone hates the jews. israel can't give up anti-semitism, even if everyone else could, because then it's reason for existence would be gone.

[readmoreoften]

77. Well, good thing Israel still has plenty of reason to exist.

Because there's plenty of antisemitism in the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. Kind of ironic, really.

The sole remaining significant cause of antisemitism is the state of Israel and it's treatment of the Palestinians.

If Israel did not exist, it would not be necessary to invent it.

[oberliner]

86. hmmm

Wow, you mean so people are antisemitic because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

But I thought hating Israel had nothing to do with hating Jews.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. Two points in response.

Firstly, a large fraction of those hostile to Israel *around the world* probably are antisemitic, because of the large number of Arabs who dislike Jews in general as a result of Israel's behaviour; very little of the opposition to Israel's policies from people living in Western countries is motivated by antisemitism, which is why it's so rare on DU.

Secondly, "most antisemitism is caused by Israel's policies" and "most opposition to Israel's policies" are very different statements, from a statistical point of view.

[cali]

96. anti-semitism

isn't rare on the left and it isn't rare on DU or kos or any other lefty site. Just as we've been slugging it out on this topic, so have folkes on other sites.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. I think you're wrong.

I can't speak for Kos, but on both DU and the left in general I think antisemitism is very rare indeed, and that the majority of accusations of it are unfounded.

[cali]

105. Please see

this thread for examples,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1704735&mesg_id=1704735

as well as my post #84 in this thread.

Frankly the denial that there's a streak of antisemitism on the left and here at DU, on the part of so many, is worrisome.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. "A streak", yes; "isn't rare" no.

A very, very thin streak, though.

I am sure there are *instances* of antisemitism on DU, but they are rare, and considerably outnumbered both by false accusations of antisemitism and by examples of anti-arab/Muslim/Palestinian prejudice.

I think unjustified accusations of antisemitism are a much bigger problem on DU than antisemitism itself, simply because of the relative frequencies with which they oocur.

[cali]

116. Until

I have indeed seen some examples of anti-Arab sentiment, but not nearly in the number of antisemitic comments. I've seen nothing like the exerpt I provide in this thread, or the suggestions that Arab Americans aren't loyal to this country, or remarks akin to ones saying Israel should be 'eradicated'. And you didn't give any examples of anti-Arab remarks on DU.

[cali]

91. Oh, really,

and I suppose you know this because of your groundbreaking sociological work, published in ever so many peer reviewed journals.

[theboss]

79. So much of the Israeli criticims is couched in explosive language though

I don't think this invasion of Lebanon is helping anyone. But I've seen posts accusing supporters of Israel of dual loyalty, which is almost always an Anti-semitic slur. I've seen the Israelis called Nazis, which is offensive on any number of levels. I've seen calls for the elimination of Israel.

So, it's tough not to be a little bit paranoid.

[BurtWorm]

102. I think criticism of Israel is fair game, criticism of AIPAC is fair game,

but I agree with you that insinuations about "dual loyalty" or casual equations of zionism with nazism or racism are over the line. I believe zionism is also fair game for criticism, but it should be done intelligently and sensitively.

The bottom line for me is looking for a mutually tolerable solution to what seems to be a solutionless problem. I find persuasive Tariq Ali's explanation of why the very idea of Israel is offensive to Arabs in the region--not because it is a homeland for Jews, but because it is essentially a European colony cobbled out of Arab land. This is a painful fact that neither Israel nor its Euro-American sponsors seem able to hold in front of their faces for very long. Colonialism and its legacies are not comfortable subjects in the West.

At the same time, Israel exists. It can't be wished away, and it sure as hell shouldn't be blown away. But until the colonial question is faced honestly, I'm not sure lasting peace will be possible. How much does Israel want peace?

[cali]

84. Nope. Not as long as

DUers are posting stuff like this:

"The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives, as is documented in the following timeline. However, before you jump to the timeline, please read this invaluable introduction which will tell you who the Rothschilds are as oppose to who they claim to be.


The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people.

You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia."


Although most stuff posted and comments made, aren't this blatant, there's been far too much bigotry either expressed openly or implied strongly, to ignore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1718588&mesg_id=1718759

[BurtWorm]

104. People should be called on their anti-Semitism when they are anti-Semitic

as that post clearly was.

On the other hand, people should be free to criticize Israel fairly without having it implied that their motivation is anti-Semitic. There's a whole thread devoted to implying that criticism of Israel statistically predicts anti-Semitism, which seems to be the poster's way of saying, "Shut up" to critics of Israel.

I'm not saying charges of anti-Semitism should be off the table when anti-Semitism rears its head. That would also be a way of saying "Shut up" to people who really see anti-Semitism on DU. I'm saying that the charge should be used with precision.

[cali]

108. Absolutely agree.

I just want to note that I've been called an apologist for Israel and other pleasant names for bringing up real examples of antisemitism, more times than I can count.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Only if we can also distinguish between outrage at Israel's actions

and outrage at the mere existence of Israel as a nation.

[Polemicist]

98. I was called anti-Semitic a few days ago....

For criticizing Israel's actions in Lebanon. And the discussion was limited to Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, and America. It wasn't here, but on another board.

I made no references to any of the subjects above, such as Zionism, AIPAC, etc.

I did say that America's unquestioned support of Israeli aggressive actions, link America with Israel and we thus will share the blame for excesses. I didn't speculate as to the source or reason for such unquestioned support. I did say that the American media is very much pro-Israel and anti-Arab.

I was astonished that this elicited the slander that I am a racist bigot. For some defenders of Israel, it appears that they believe that any criticism of Israel is racially motivated. I can't see how that belief will do anything but ultimately harm their cause.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. I don't see many people abusing the anti-Semitism card.

The small but vocal minority who do it will probably continue to do it. I've alerted when I've seen it become too brazen.

[jonnyblitz]

119. it's the same few that police all the threads. nt

[ecstatic]

123. It feels different when *you* are the target

I'll be honest here. I don't notice the anti-semitism. At the same time, I am not Jewish.

I've also read comments from Latino DUers who found some immigration posts offensive--again, I didn't notice the racism in those posts either. Of course, I'm not Hispanic.

What I do notice from time to time on these boards are comments that can be interpreted as patronizing or prejudiced with regard to African Americans. I don't think its due to blatant racism or hate, I think its just due to ignorance about different cultures.

Point being, I think its hard to be sensitive to how another group feels, but because I am a member of a minority group I am willing to give those people who say certain posts are anti-semitic the benefit of the doubt, assuming of course, that the accuser is of Jewish heritage.

[The Magistrate]

124. Lockng

Flame-Bait.