Buchanan Accuses Israel of 'Blitzkrieg,' Creating 'Concentration Camp'

I like Pat Buchanan. I do. He's wise, funny and charming. But every once in a while . . .

Like tonight. If Buchanan wants to criticize Israel's conduct of the current war, and its treatment of the Palestinians, so be it. But in doing so, is it really necessary to employ terms associated with the Nazis? Appearing on "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Buchanan accused Israel of carrying out a "blitzkrieg" against Gaza and turning it into a "concentration camp."

I finally read the entirety of your posts on this thread... you've been pretty busy playing D for Pat! Loved this little gem

Opposing a position of Israel isn't "anti" anything but that particular position of Israel.

How about if that position is their right to defend themselves and their citizens!?! Honestly?! REALLY? I quit... your eloquent prose is utterly useless without the ability to read what you write objectively. What a waste of time; I usually like back & forth discussion where I leave with a better understanding than when I began. In this case, all I learned is how blind some people get when they can't see the forest through the trees. Keep thinking Pat Buchanan understands the plight of Israel and his desires aren't mired in ignorance... clearly if what HE says won't convince you otherwise, what chance does anyone else have?

Keep thinking Pat Buchanan understands the plight of Israel and his desires aren't mired in ignorance... clearly if what HE says won't convince you otherwise, what chance does anyone else have?

Unbelievable. After all the discussion on this thread you never managed to read any of it with clarity or understanding. And you would pretend to understand what Pat Buchanan really means?

What does whether Pat Buchanan "understands the plight of Israel" matter? Haven't you caught on yet? Pat Buchanan may be right, or he may be wrong, but that isn't the issue. You have claimed that he is "definitely" an anti-semite. That means he is a bigot who hates the Jews. Many people are wrong. Many people don't understand something. That doesn't mean people can go around calling them racists, homophobes, anti-semites or whatever. To do that is to lie, slander and libel people. It is a falsehood. Why can't you understand this?

If you think being unsupportive of Israel is wrong, fine. Defend that. Show how such is absolutely necessary and in our interest. However, simply because you think it is wrong, and you think anti-semitism is wrong, you don't get to pretend they are actually the same thing. They are not. Words have actual meanings and you cannot just pretend that they mean other things for your purposes. You are wrong, and pædophilia is wrong, but I cannot start saying that you are "definitely" a pædophile. That would, presumably, be lying, and lying is certainly wrong. Pat Buchanan may be anti-israel, but you are a liar.

Here you are agreeing with the poster in his insistence that Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, and labeling my refusal to concede such as the unsound, even dishonest, position. There are people on this thread who seem unable to read, but I assure you that I am not one of them.

Many of Pat's supporters do refuse to define the term. Many of the same people defended Sobran, Taki, and Paul Craig Roberts.

Oh, so the quotes falsely used to uphold the charge of anti-semitism are valid, but this is not. Why? Because he actually did say what I said he did?
Because Pat makes his psotion clear later on. Go read his article from the following year, Whose War were he attempts to deligitimize any support of the Iraq war as allegiance to Israel.

I have never read anything from Pat Buchanan, or heard anything from him, suggesting that he opposes "any action" to prevent Iran from nuking anybody. He may be opposed to "any action" being suggested by this or that person which they say would acheive that goal, but that isn't at all the same thing. And regardless his position on Iran seems entirely consistent with his position on other nations, even when not affecting Israel.
Every time any supports anything other than toothless negotiation, Pat starts screaming about the Israel lobby.

Buchanan is a non-interventionist. And regardless of whether you think that is sound or not, it obviously has nothing at all to do with Israel or the Jews.
It isn't my fault that Buchanan chooses the language he does. Likewise his defense of an SS volunteer says little good about him. Buchanan delgitimizes his own positions, often damaging those I agree with.

Pat wrote:

If Israel is to remain democratic and Jewish, she must either let the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem go—or annex them all and grant Palestinians full rights as citizens in a binational state. Are Israeli Jews willing to practice in their country what American Jews preach in ours, equality and multiculturalism?

cothrige responds
And you think recognizing the above is the same as destroying Israel in the name of peace? What I read above, like the Hitler quote, just seems like reasonable consideration of what reality is, and what democracy means.

It is calling for Israel to vote itself out of existance, with the excuse being the liberalism of American Jews. This isn't rational policy or looking at American interests. It is grievance politics; a white version of the Black Panthers.

This thread has been eaten up with charges of anti-semitism. These charges have been leveled at Pat Buchanan based on abhorrently ignorant readings of excised quotes.
And some charges are unfair, but others are not. Pat has an animus, which he makes clear in every second article relating to Israel.

Res Ispa Loqator.

Many of Pat's supporters do refuse to define the term. Many of the same people defended Sobran, Taki, and Paul Craig Roberts.

What's to define? Who needs to be told what such a word means? It is nothing more, nor nothing less, than a racially motivated prejudice held against the Jewish people. I really cannot see how this needs any further defining. However, with that said, the almost pathological refusal of people in this thread to understand that anti-semitism is not a synonym for one who doesn't support Israel with enough gusto is very troubling.

As for "many of the same" defending Sobran or any other, I don't trust such indirect "evidence." This is the kind of thinking, again, that the left loves to engage in. So and so endorses this candidate, and so and so turns out to be questionable, and that means the person he endorsed is too. This round the way logic is not logic at all. Additionally, I am uncomfortable with the "he defended so and so" tactic even when applied to the person being discussed. There a lot of reasons people defend other people, or appear to do so. These things can often be very nuanced, and be motivated for many reasons. Sobran is a case in point. Buckley defended him at first, and then, IIRC, reconciled with him before his death. And, that is assuming that Sobran himself was guilty of anything other than bad taste.

It is calling for Israel to vote itself out of existance, with the excuse being the liberalism of American Jews. This isn't rational policy or looking at American interests. It is grievance politics; a white version of the Black Panthers.

I see no such thing. What I see is Pat Buchanan simply giving voice to what many people would recognize, that a state founded on racial or religious identity cannot long operate on those terms as a democracy without somehow disenfranchising those who don't belong to that racial or religious genus. Pat Buchanan's view of this, far from some sort of use of force, is in my view nothing more than a recognition of what will face that nation in the future. I for one think he is likely quite close to right on that too.

And some charges are unfair, but others are not. Pat has an animus, which he makes clear in every second article relating to Israel.

And again we come back to the rub. Pat Buchanan may be any number of things, and I would not know. He may even be anti-israel, though I have seen enough from him to think that very unlikely. I do think he is critical of Israel as regards their influence on American foreign policy. However, in order to actually call somebody a bigot one must produce hard evidence that he is acting or taking his positions due to hatred or prejudice against that particular group. I have never seen a single word to support that. Over this entire thread, with all the clamouring about anti-semitism, nobody could quote him in any way suggesting that the Jews are to be held in low esteem. He has criticized Israel. He has also called for support of Israel. He has, supposedly, praised Hitler. But, he also condemned him roundly, and his "praise" was actually nothing of the sort. But, nothing at all about the Jews or anything even beginning to hint of anti-semitism. A person cannot be charged with such a thing because he often criticises Israel. I always criticise the NAACP, and I promise you that I am not a bigot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.