[Hermann the Cherusker]

I think that to perceive things that incorrectly requires a foundation of anti-semitism.

What is so incorrect about it? Most critiques here seem to have begun and ended like this one with cries of "anti-semite!"

When I look around elsewhere, such as here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/

I find statements saying that what they write is generally true but exaggerated.

"The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original.

"Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority."

Exaggeration of truisms hardly seems a form of hatred.

[gondramB]

"Exaggeration of truisms hardly seems a form of hatred."

There is a pattern to these things that one learns to recognize as they couch their thought in terms they think will sound acceptable.

Basically what they are saying is support of Israel has cause the same people we helped fight the Soviets to liberate Afghanistan to justly turn their wrath on us... and they did make it sound nice but hell, they teach at Harvard, they ought to be able to make it sound nice.

My gut feeling is that these guys are only a step or two from trotting out the Rothchilds, the CFR and the Illuminati.

I might add that Alouette and Sjackson have criticized me repeatedly (as have some of my real time friends) for not being understanding enough of Israel's situation with regard for the pccupied territories - I am not exactly an apologist for our Israeli friends - but I can recognize antisemitism.

[.cnI redruM]

http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/

This is the same webrag that ran the essay defending Cynthia McKinney's MIHOP and LIHOP theories. The day after the Joe WIslon oped in the NY Times they ran a banner headline reading "BUSH LIED." (I haven't figured out how to make the 48pt font work on this, so I don't do Slate's propagandizing justice. let's just say you'd have to pick up an issue of Debka or VDare.com to find anything that caters to the lunatic right the way Slate caters to the moonbat left.