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."

“....he has also been very harsh regarding how much influence Israel and pro-israel organizations have over our agenda and policies, going so far as to describe the Congress, IIRC, as “Israeli occupied territory.” So, it has always seemed to me that he is overall pro-Israel, but is critical of the influence brought to bear on our government on the issue.”

There is a rub there too however. I never hear Buchanan complaining about other lobbying groups and their ‘influence’ on our policies. He seems to single out Israel. What about CAIR?

There is a reason that NBC and MSNBC have Pat as their token conservative and it’s because he can be depended on to stick his finger in the eye of our party whenever he gets the chance. The liberals love that because it divides and conquers our coalition. Especially our evangelical wing.

At this point, Buchanan does more harm than good. Just my opinion at this point in time. It doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with him on many issues, but in total, I think he hurts our cause. He allows himself to be a tool for our opposition..

First of all these are not obvious conclusions.

You really are dense.

"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament." William F. Buckley - 1990 in Newsweek

Unless you intend to prove you're a more capable defender of Pat Buchanan's intentions and honor than William F. Buckley, you can quit now while you're only modestly behind.

The original point is still true: Pat B doesn't feel too fondly about them crazy Israelites. He also accused Mossad of killing Vince Foster. In the late 1980s, he was an apologist for the Nazi camp-guards and various Nazi officials who had been tracked by both the Justice Dept and Israeli intelligence, basically saying justice 40 years later was not necessary. He expressed "regret" over the execution of Klaus Barbie. You can tell us we're acting like Liberals, not looking at the big picture, jumping to conclusions, whatever you'd like... If you listen to everything in context Pat Buchanan has said regarding the topic and still don't draw the conclusion he's not anti-Semitic, then it's painfully as obvious you don't like Jews much either

There is a rub there too however. I never hear Buchanan complaining about other lobbying groups and their ‘influence’ on our policies. He seems to single out Israel. What about CAIR?

I doubt that there has been nearly the same kind of influence to date from CAIR as there has been from Israel. My guess about Pat is that he is a fairly consistent America firster, and is bothered by any group or organization which can directly influence our nation or government from outside. He has said in the past that Israel is a friend of the US and we should come to their aid in their defense. I don't doubt for a minute that if the Islam lobby became so powerful that we began to go against that position he would say much the same about them.

There is a reason that NBC and MSNBC have Pat as their token conservative and it’s because he can be depended on to stick his finger in the eye of our party whenever he gets the chance.

Perhaps that is what they think. I doubt that they have him on because of his talent and brains, though he seems to have both. As for damage he causes, I don't see any. He presents a real conservative, pro-America position, unlike the hacks put forward by FoxNews. Sure, they certainly read the GOP talking points, but unfortunately that party has long since stopped even pretending to represent real conservative values and is doing nobody any good any more. All they do is run "conservatives" like McCain and Giuliani and help the likes of Obama get elected.

Unless you intend to prove you're a more capable defender of Pat Buchanan's intentions and honor than William F. Buckley, you can quit now while you're only modestly behind.

William F. Buckley? Why listen to a liberal? I know he is a liberal because he supported small government and libertarian principles, and the good folks on FreeRepublic such as yourself have made it abundantly clear that these are liberal politics, and those who espouse them are nothing less than dirty liberals. He even called for an end to the war on drugs and legalizing of marijuana. Who will you quote next to support your position, Barack Obama?

If you listen to everything in context Pat Buchanan has said regarding the topic and still don't draw the conclusion he's not anti-Semitic, then it's painfully as obvious you don't like Jews much either

Oh, so now I am an anti-semite? Because I won't say somebody is an anti-semite even though they have never said anything suggesting they are. Just who do you not label with that particular pejorative? You obviously throw it around a lot. It makes me wonder. How do we know that, secretly, you are not actually an anti-semite? You seem very comfortable with the language. You're awfully defensive too. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Well, you will get no argument from me about the state of the republican party today. That’s why we lost. It would have been a even greater loss, if Palin had not been on the ticket. Many of us would not have even bothered to vote.

I liked Palin too, but I am not too sure she helped a lot in the end. I just don't know if there were ever really a way to overcome McCain or the damage done by the Party over the last few years. Not this round anyway. I am hoping that after a few years of Obama and Pelosi maybe people will remember what conservatism offers, and both the GOP and the people will start to return to it.

Buchanan is not my cup of tea. Sorry. Neither is Huckabee. They both have played the role of spoiler in our national elections and I don’t cotton to that either.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think elections are made to be spoiled in a sense. The people we call spoilers are often just what could be best hoped for. In a way Palin herself was a spoiler, in that she was a more conservative voice that the people could speak through to turn McCain to a wiser course. Sadly McCain is slow to learn, and probably too unconservative to listen, but she still offered many Republicans a real representative of their views, which McCain was not. Palin, also, thanks to the press and public opinion lacked the weight in the public discourse to really move the discussion to the right where it should have been all along.

If you are really concerned for spoilers then I would look to the likes of FoxNews. They lost this last election. They, and by they I mean mostly the likes of Hannity, really pushed the election to the opposition every chance they got. For instance, consider "Joe the Plumber." Obama makes a mistake and answers a question honestly. He admits what he is wanting to do and what his goals are. He comes right out and says what he thinks of freedom, capitalism and private property. What do Hannity et al do? They run to bring "Joe the Plumber" on their shows to distract from that. Do they want the people to take the time to talk about what Obama said? No. Do they want to force the media elsewhere to have to answer for the words of Obama? Of course not. They want to anoint a working class distraction. A man asked a question, and Hannity &tc give everybody, on a silver platter, something to talk about other than that. Everybody can then criticize him, without ever having to even reference the phrase "spread the wealth," and give all the people reason to believe that they have answered the issue.

And why would that work? Why would people think that attacking "Joe the Plumber" has any real impact on the issue? I mean, what did he have to do with it anyway? Who cares what foibles he has since he only asked a question, and the answer is what matters? Of course, normally that might have been so. Except that Hannity and others kept bringing Joe in for his fifteen minutes, which meant that everybody at home thought that he really was the issue. Fox played the game for them, and gave them all just the setup they needed to run through the defense unscathed. If spoilers really do bother you then you should look at the GOP, who chose McCain and ran his campaign in magnificent self-destruct manner from the start, and the "right wing" media types, like Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly. They did everything they could at every turn to get Obama elected. They really spoiled it.

Enjoyed our back and forth though. Have a nice evening.

So did I. And I hope that you also have a wonderful night.

No one's "throwing around" the epithet of anti-Semitic. My charge is that Buchanan is definitely an anti-Semite, and since you can't see this despite quotes spanning 30 years, my suspicion is that you are too.

Good thing you don't throw this charge around.

And you do have quotes, neatly excised from all context, though you cannot understand them in any case. They say the opposite of what you think they do, and by making these absurd claims you only advertise your own shortcomings. Since nobody here has shown where Pat Buchanan has actually said that the Jews are to be hated or that he does in fact hate them there is, of course, nothing to be seen at all. Only a semi-literate cretin can make the leap that not agreeing with Israel's political activity or positions is synonymous with anti-semitism. And your "suspicion" about me puts the proof to the "veracity" of your charges.

Does defending the indefensible come naturally to you, or did you have to work at it after raping common sense?

I have defended nothing but sensibility and reality. And if the "sense" you use is "common" then the world really is in trouble.

Anyone... anyone who still thinks Pat Buchanan isn't anti-Semitic (or at the absolute very least, anti-Israel... which I will not delineate between) is seriously in need of some soul searching

Of course you will not "delineate between" these ideas. You could not delineate either of them if you tried, and that is obvious. Based on your "understanding" of the quotes given by Pat Buchanan it is clear that you read like many people swing hammers. Your understanding of anti-semitism, and why other than automatically agreeing with a country in the Middle East in politics is not such, is likely to be as clear as mud. We shouldn't trouble ourselves. And I am used to this "thinking," as I have made clear. The left uses it all the time. Not supporting the politics of homosexuals is homophobia. Not supporting the politics of blacks is racism. It goes on and on. Don't worry, you are in wonderful company.

As for my position, and my soul for that matter, perhaps you need not worry. In this case you didn't even need to sift 30 years of quotes to jump to mischaracterization, but did it with five or six posts in one thread on a public web forum. You are clearly improving.

Paleoconservatives are stuck in grivence politics and won't act rationally.

And who has the grievance here? :-)

They will not honestly define antisemetism or ct accordingly, because to doso would be to choose to expunge some, or to make antisemetism non-issue.

Oh, but I am the person here who is defining "antisemitism." The other half of the conversation is refusing to "delineate" anything at all. And I am acting accordingly. Since Pat Buchanan hasn't said anything anti-semitic I am not not saying he is anti-semitic. Pretty simple, huh? But, since you don't agree with me maybe you just hate people of my sex, color or religion? What about that?

Buchanan does not like Israel.

Well, that sure does close things out, doesn't it? I mean, there is no way to respond to that dazzling proof, is there? Though, when I think about it, it doesn't quite sound like anti-semitism, does it? I mean, I dislike the NAACP, but am I absolutely a racist?

It probably doesn't matter though since, unfortunately, even that lame charge is in fact a lie. Let us rely on Pat Buchanan to clear things up. Let us read what he wrote in 2003 in the American Conservative:

The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

Funny way to express dislike, isn't it? Not that it would matter. Even if he did dislike Israel it is not anti-semitism until you can prove that hatred of Jews in general is why he dislikes Israel.

But, please don't let this stuff get in the way of your own pet hatreds. We conservatives are used to being hated, and it is rarely for what we actually believe.

I don't hate Buchanan. I debated for him and voted for him in 2000.

I did not call PAt an antisemite. What I said was, "Buchanan does not like Israel. He despises Nazi hunters more than SS members. He is stuck in the 1930s. "

The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.
That's a nice statement, the equivalent of liberals defending their patriotism, right before they redefine it into meaninglessness. Buchanan not only opposes any action that would prevent Iran from nuking Israel, but he has also supported Israel becoming a bi national state, which is to say it being destroyed in the name of peace.

Since 1992, Buchanan has persistently attacked every single attempt of Israel to defend itself since then. And he does so in the most possible inflammatory manner possible.

Funny way to express dislike, isn't it? Not that it would matter. Even if he did dislike Israel it is not anti-semitism until you can prove that hatred of Jews in general is why he dislikes Israel.

I suggest that you read Lawrence Auster's Buchanan's White Whale

I did not call PAt an antisemite. What I said was, "Buchanan does not like Israel. He despises Nazi hunters more than SS members. He is stuck in the 1930s. "

Yes, but you also said this:

You are wasting your time... They will not honestly define antisemetism or ct accordingly, because to doso would be to choose to expunge some, or to make antisemetism non-issue.

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.

That's a nice statement, the equivalent of liberals defending their patriotism, right before they redefine it into meaninglessness.

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?

Buchanan not only opposes any action that would prevent Iran from nuking Israel, but he has also supported Israel becoming a bi national state, which is to say it being destroyed in the name of peace.

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. If he has a problem with Jews then his position would have be about them, and not universal. 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.

As for the binational state, the only thing I could find was this:

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?

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.

This thread has been eaten up with charges of anti-semitism. These charges have been levelled at Pat Buchanan based on abhorrently ignorant readings of excised quotes. They have been aimed at me because I will not join a mob in hurling unfounded epithets. Regardless of what certain people here want to believe, this is a very typical tactic of the rabid left. Twist what people say and then imply they are bigots to marginalize them. If you seek to defend those that attack Pat Buchanan as a Jew hater, then you share in the libel. Twisting quotes to your purpose is ugly and, to borrow your term, dishonest. Opposing a position of Israel isn't "anti" anything but that particular position of Israel. Nothing you or anyone else has presented on this thread has shown anything but a mad compulsion by the posters themselves to call people anti-semitic, regardless of reality. I really am appalled that people calling themselves conservative have become this comfortable using such ugly terms and group politics to attack those who are doing nothing other than actually being conservative.

I've (wrongly) assumed you'd just drop this losing battle... anyway

Buchanan: (...) The Israelis have been hit for six months with these little rockets that didn't kill anybody. It was outrageous, cruel and stupid, and they triggered a blitzkrieg against the Palestinians in Gaza, which in my judgment is an Israeli concentration camp, where a million-and-a-half people are locked up, cannot come out or go in. They've been controlling food, electricity, fuel. And the innocent people in Gaza are the ones suffering.

Buchanan has always patently refused the moniker of anti-Semite for obvious reasons. He said "...the slur of 'anti-Semite!' for what it has all too often become, an attempt to smear, silence, intimidate, ostracize and blacklist." He was addressing Mel Gibson after the Passion and he brought up a valid point.

Therein lies the problem with Buchanan: He's sharp. The man can anticipate attacks in interviews, answer when and how he wants and ultimate refuses to be pinned down with anything other than what he wants. Podhoretz, Dershowitz, and all the neocons in D.C. have, at one point or another, tried to tie him down to no avail. Does this nullify their point? If anything, it speaks only to Pat's uncanny ability to dance his way out of a hot issue. Unless of course it was his claim that diesel exhaust can't kill people, which he was challenged to defend but couldn't find the time to actually do so. I think getting Demjanjuk off the hook went to his head; all the future Nazi revisionism became self-fulfilling in his eyes

The real issue isn't taking things out of context here, which is apparently the hill you want to die on. The biggest question of all is why would anyone, when addressing Hitler, employ words like "courage" or "gifts" at all? Why even open yourself up to it? It's begging for controversy where there doesn't need to be any. That makes him an attention whore, on top of a running theme of anti-jewry/anti-jewish policy/anti-jewry-defending-itself... sorry, I'm just trying not to use "anti-Semite" anymore to prevent you having an aneurism

See, for us semi-literate cretins, while we pause hunched over text... grunting and foaming at the mouth, feet kicking the air wildly while we comprehend the next word's meaning, occasionally we get lucky and read between the lines as we stare listlessly at the page

There's a problem with being an Isolationist and passing judgment on a nation defending itself against terror and military aggression: it makes you sound like a blithering idiot or a hypocrite. When that nation is Israel, a nation who has never sought to conquer anyone else, only defend it's own borders and hard-won land, you go from sounding like an Isolationist with a chip on his shoulder to an ANTI-SEMITE

Interesting stuff. I especially like the part where you produce all that undeniable proof that he is absolutely anti-semitic. And your technique there is just brilliant. The way you demonstrate that all the stuff he says, over and over, which isn't anti-semitic is how we can tell he is anti-semitic. And how when he says he isn't anti-semitic that means he is anti-semitic. Wow. That blows me away. Who can argue with logic like that.

By the way, I have found some other anti-semites for you. I have been "reading" using these new techniques and it has revealed a ton. There is Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, George W. Bush, and the list goes on and on. You cannot imagine how suspiciously they have managed not to write or say anti-semitic stuff. Oh, and I am pretty certain that Woody Allen, Jackie Mason and Ed Koch are anti-semites too. Maybe if you came out and called them that they would deny it, and of course that would prove it beyond all doubt. Wouldn't it?

See, for us semi-literate cretins, while we pause hunched over text... grunting and foaming at the mouth, feet kicking the air wildly while we comprehend the next word's meaning, occasionally we get lucky and read between the lines as we stare listlessly at the page

I have to say, this is the pièce de résistance. Just how wonderfully you point out that you don't actually read what people write to discover that they are bigots. You know, I had a suspicion. And I am sorry if you got the idea that I think you are a semi-literate cretin. I don't think, after seeing you in action, that anyone would ever be tempted to use the term 'semi-literate' as a description for you.

I have to say, this is the pièce de résistance. Just how wonderfully you point out that you don't actually read what people write to discover that they are bigots.

It's easy to see how you could miss the point from your pedestal. The view must be breathtaking though

"’The civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown." - Washington Times, August 29, 1990

In other words, Jews aren't invested in their own self preservation. Only red-blooded Americans who have no business helping Israel via proxy in the Middle East... I had forgotten that our defense of Israel is America's only horse in that race

1990: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." - The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990

The only factions in the US who want resolution through military supremacy are church-going Evangelical sycophants or Israeli war-mongering lobbyists. Does Pat understand Islam will keep knocking our on door whether we're Isolationist or not?

"Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." - St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977

Who is this Hitler he speaks of? I mean, sure... he was a touch on the genocidal side... even anti-Semitic, BUT MY GOD HIS ORATORY! And oh, how he could marshal those Nazis. Let's not forget his unflagging courage. I mean, hell, the guy knew the whole world would want a shot at him and yet he killed all those Jews, Gypsies, Poles, British, French, Russians, Americans, Africans and Germans anyway. Whoever he is, someone make a plaque or something... Just, wow. The AFC agrees completely

"After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders." - A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.

Yes, we all know what "friends" Brzezinski and Kissinger have been towards Israeli interests and their statehood. But maybe he didn't mean them... he probably meant the other Jews controlling America as our leaders fawned over their consul. Maybe he was referring to the UN? Always standing steadfast with the Jews...

"Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line." - Syndicated column, December 18, 1991

That damn AIPAC. Sometimes I forget, are they the only lobbyists in Washington? If you paid attention to Buchanan, you might come to that conclusion

If you fail to back Israel in my eyes, you are an anti-Semite. Their statehood is a sacred thing, and America will be woefully mistaken should they ever forget this. Buchanan's latest charge that the defense of their country is over-reaching and on par with a "blitzkrieg" is the only evidence anyone should ever need to know exactly how he feels about them. What exactly are you STILL missing here? His statements reek of the Peace Now activists in Israel and elsewhere: the pinnacle of capitulation and cowardice... is your membership still active?

Well, there you go again. More quotes, some of them up for another round. And yet, not even one is antisemitic. Nothing at all. And still you insist that in the absolute and total absence of antisemitism we can be certain of antisemitism. Funny, I wonder how many quotes I can dredge up by you which don't evince your interest in paederasty.

If you fail to back Israel in my eyes, you are an anti-Semite.

And if you insist on equating not supporting Israel and antisemitism then you are an imbecile. Perhaps you might give some though to actually learning what words mean before you try using them. Antisemitism has as much to do with "backing" the actions of a particular nation as you have with intelligence. They are completely unrelated. Pretending they are the same does not mean that you get to go around accusing people of bigotry. That is called lying. There is another word you would do well to learn something about.

What exactly are you STILL missing here? His statements reek of the Peace Now activists in Israel and elsewhere: the pinnacle of capitulation and cowardice... is your membership still active?

I will tell you what is missing here. Substance to back up your lies. Proof. Evidence. That is what is missing. You have libeled people, and when called on it you cast sin before sin. You are worse than what you would decry.

The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. A history of calling the pursuit of SS guards a waste of time, tenuous praise for Hitler, insinuating the Jews are pulling the strings of power in D.C., singling out of AIPAC over & over, refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself, limp-wristed & dovish on any Middle-eastern conflict (which he's made apparent that JEWS are the only reason we are involved in)... and I'm the imbecile? When "backing" a nation or not is in direct correlation with it's survival, then you tell me what that's called. If you were any more dense, matter would start collapsing in around you. You are intellectual dishonesty at it's most self-righteous and disgusting

Buchanan hates intervention because he thinks it fosters terrorism. And, yes, disparaging or denying the sovereignty of a nation based on his conceptualizing of Isolationism is blatant antisemitism if, in turn, that results in a lack of support for Israel's military actions in defense. Splitting hairs on the meaning of antisemitism is a different story. Does Buchanan want to commit mass genocide against the jews? Not directly, of course... but he does think there's a peaceful alternative to the Palestinean charade. There is, of course, peace for Israel down that road... when the Islamic world stamps them out there won't be any more conflict. No, Buchanan is the same type of anti-Zionist that Charles Lindbergh was

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.