« General Will (not!) | Main | To sleep, perchance to dream »

Meta: anti-Semitism

By Michael J. Smith on Monday June 19, 2006 03:39 PM

Just noticed we had a comment or two claiming to detect "anti-Semitism" in posts here.

I'm not going to censor such comments, and people are free to make them, but just for the record, there will never be any posts here (and I hope not many comments) attempting to refute such charges. It's a waste of time, and at this point, I think the accusation has been so debased by overuse that it's not worth bothering about. In fact, you can't talk frankly about Israel or the Israel lobby without being called an anti-Semite, and so if there weren't some of this chaff in the air, I'd be worried.

Comments (10)


The argument was MUCH more than just an accusation of antisemitism; and it linked to an article which used some logic and facts.

But by the time u used the KKK crapola a 2nd time, with a lot seething, I find the antisemitism argument quite reasonable.

js paine:


seething no
hate plays no part

i for one
am as cool as
a cucumber's moon beams

now i understand
how it may aid your digestion to envision me
in some hyde like state banging out
my ill formed
posts and comments
whilst slobbering over a pin up of tim mcvey

t'ain't so dear soul

you'll need to raise and rotate
your guns a little
to reach my sunny
surfs up


So u're so cool as to be unaware of how your language sounds?

And you still did not address my substantive challenge.

Great Morris Ankrum! MJS, I thought you already knew that AIPAC is just a quilting club for nice old ladies. They don't have anything to do with the US government or foreign policy or anything like that. Nope. Not a thing. Abso-tootly-ootly nothing. Nada.

Tim D:

I think the most fascinating result of the M-W paper is that the great sages of Middle East policy and Israel-US relations (Chomsky, Finkelstein, Neumann, Massad and the Christisons to name a few) came to such varying conclusions over the actual influence of the Lobby on U.S. foreign policy. It seems to me though, that if you take all these myriad analyses, you get something close to the reality of the situation.

To be sure, Israel has its own interests in the Middle East - the most important of which is the realization of the Zionist project (i.e. a Jewish state in the holy land with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital). The Israel lobby has been exceedingly successful in bringing American military, economic and political might to bear in furthering this primary goal. U.S. material support - in it's numerous forms - to Israel has been indispensable in helping the Zionists to vanquish and or marginalize all those who dare to oppose their plan (in the Middle East and here at home) and the Lobby has worked hard to make sure that tap of material support doesn't run dry.

That said however, the Israel lobby is obviously only one of many lobbies vying to craft U.S. foreign policy in a way that advances their interests. The counterveiling influence of corporations/multinationalscertainly cannot be discounted. They have certainly had their hands on the reigns of the U.S. foreign policy war horse far longer than Israel has. I mean has anyone here ever read Smedley Butler's famous anti-interventionist tract, War is a Racket? That was written back in 1935, yet if one were to read it now, he or she might easily believe it was published yesterday!

Nevertheless, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that sometimes - perhaps even many times - the interests of the various lobbies happen to converge to form a single mutually-benefitting policy. For instance, one might easily imagine that toppling Saddam was desirable for the Israeli government and Exxon-Mobile. Saddam was a bitter enemy who allegedly sponsored Palestinian terrorism against Israel and he was a quota buster, pumping oil far too liberally for companies that thrive on oil scarcity and the attendent high prices.

Oh well that's my impromptu, discursive take on the whole thing...

js paine:

not sure what
part of your
"challenge "
that remains ducked here
after the infernal time lags between comments
at several different posts are accounted for

but does this help

despite the subordinate role of aipac
in the shaping
amerca's corporate imperial mid east project

the clever and industrial little buggers
must go go go anyway
just like their
wall street sponsors must go

go go go
any progressively
" redeemed "
donk party

otherwise it will remain
just another
potential trojan horse
left behind by the trans nat outfits
ready to do
the bidding
of its dear departed
corporate masters

indeed anom
since aipac's sole purpose is to get uncle sam
and his two parties
to intervene places
its as much
of a typhoid mary
for a Democratic party
to break with its imperial past
as the thousand faces
of the klan were
for a Democratic party
determined to end jim crow

FWIW, Smith, I wasn't trying to acuse anyone of Anti-Semitism. Not even the folks who had that headline article on Counterpunch over the weekend. I don't think that Anti-Semitism is the sort of thing that you can measure in a policy article, any more than you can in a single personal encounter-- usually.

Anyway, I'm glad to see these discussions happening, even if there's a lot of re-inventing the wheel over and over again. I'm glad because the ruts are worn deeply in the two positions that either supporting Israeli policy is always the right thing to do or it's always the wrong thing to do. Even Israeli citizens --and the Palestinians who aren't allowed to be citizens-- probably don't limit themselves to those two points. So there's no reason for us to do so.

But old habits die hard.


Ms X -- I didn't think you were accusing anybody. I didn't have anything of yours in mind when I posted this. Tell the truth, I can't now remember just what comments I did have in mind, but the anti-anti-Semitic Geiger counter was starting to click a bit.

You're absolutely right, by the way, about Israeli discussion of these issues being much more open than American. I'm a devoted reader of Ha-Aretz -- in English, since what little Hebrew I know depends heavily on the Masoretic vowel points -- and there's just no comparison.

About the Palestinian side of the conversation I know less, of course, since access to that is not so easy, but the Palestinians I know are anything but ideologically monolithic.

js paine:

if i might put a toe in here
xeno writes

"the two positions that either supporting Israeli policy is always the right thing to do or it's always the wrong thing to do"

well its always wrong in my estimation
to officially support either side

following john q adams
i say stay out

we ought not
circle the planet in search of monsters to destroy
we should not be
palladins of human rights or sheriffs of human wrongs
any where at any time

Okay, Michael. Just checking.

JSP, I was talking strictly about the court of public opinion in this particular case of understanding or manufacturing support, for whatever that's worth.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Monday June 19, 2006 03:39 PM.

The previous post in this blog was General Will (not!).

The next post in this blog is To sleep, perchance to dream.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31