Posted on 12/05/2013 5:38:11 AM PST by SJackson
Anti-Zionism, as Jonathan noted, is acquiring an undeserved veneer of respectability in Barack Obamas Washington: The latest anti-Zionist screed to hit the bookstores will receive a prominent platform at an event organized by the New America Foundation, a prestigious Washington think tank headed by a former senior Obama administration official. But frankly, I dont see why anyone should be surprised. After all, anti-Zionism is merely an offshoot of a much older evil, anti-Semitism. And since the original has become perfectly respectable in Barack Obamas Washington over the last month, why be surprised that the offshoot is as well?
Exhibit A occurred at the Geneva talks with Iran earlier this month, when an unnamed senior U.S. official refused to condemn the latest rant by Irans supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Though many commentators found this silence disturbing mainly because Khamenei termed Israel a rabid dog, I was even more disturbed by the American representatives tolerance of the part of the diatribe aimed at France, in which Khamenei used one of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes in the book.
Since France had singlehandedly thwarted what it termed a suckers deal in the previous round of talks with Iran, forcing its negotiating partners to make some significant (though still insufficient) improvements, it was understandably in Khameneis bad graces. But rather than admit that France could possibly have had its own concerns about Tehran, he accused it of simply kneeling before the Israeli regime. Paris was furious and condemned the remarks, but neither the senior U.S. official nor a spokesman for EU foreign-policy czar Catherine Ashton would do the same. The best Americas official representative could do was mutter that yes, such rhetoric is uncomfortable, but Americans also say difficult things about Iran and Iranians (is it any wonder he or she was too embarrassed to be named?).
The claim that Jews control the worldor in this case, Frances foreign policyis classic anti-Semitism; this alone makes it worthy of condemnation. But the officials silence was particularly outrageous because the target of this slur was Americas negotiating partner in the talks: Frances representative was on the same side of the table as the U.S. official and Ashton, with Khameneis representatives on the opposite side. If American officials arent willing to condemn anti-Semitic slurs hurled at their own negotiating partner by their mutual opponent while the talks are taking place, when would they be willing to do so?
Answer: Never, as proven by Exhibit Bthe administrations silence in the face of an anti-Semitic slur against some even closer allies that same week. Im referring, of course, to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedmans outrageous assertion that lawmakers are siding with Israel against Obama on Iran not from any careful consideration of the facts, but from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.
Not only is this another classic example of the anti-Semitic Jews control the world trope, but many of the lawmakers whom Friedman accused of blindly obeying Jewish dictates rather than thinking for themselves are President Obamas fellow Democrats, who have loyally shepherded his domestic agenda through Congress. Yet even so, the administration couldnt be bothered to utter a word in their defense.
When an administration doesnt see fit to condemn anti-Semitic slurs even against its closest alliesits negotiating partner abroad and congressional Democrats at homeyou know anti-Semitism has attained the height of respectability. My only question is when all the American Jews who voted for this administration are going to wake up and start objecting.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.
One of the reasons I finally signed up on this forum is to develop some ideas.
One of these is that the conventional approach to ‘voting blocs’ (sex, race & ethnicity, net worth, self-identified religious affiliation) is completely wrong, wrong-headed, and causing us (conservatives) to campaign incorrectly and consequently to lose elections. These distinctions are invented, IMO, by marxists and other leftists to balkanize, to distract, and to induce people to vote against their own best interests.
That's because socialism is more important to them than antisemitism.
.
Bump for later.
No, seriously: what do you mean by the term?
Does “Jews” refer to an ethnic group, or to a group of people who practice a certain religion?
I suspect that there are a lot of people who identify themselves as “Jewish” who haven't darkened the door of a synagogue, read Torah, or refrained from eating ham in decades (if ever). To put them in the same category as those who keep kosher etc. is more than a bit silly.
IMO.
Same can be said for many “Christians”.
They go to a “christian” church like 0bama, or a liberal social justice church where God is a mist on the meadow.
Or, they are like several members of my conservative church; they consider themselves christian but never darken the door and the FBI couldn't fine them, but when they die their obit will claim their lifelong membership in said church.
There’s another element, pertaining specifically to the slur used against France, at work here as well.
France has a large, growing, increasingly influential and vocal but also confrontational and violent Muslim population.
Some of this was certainly aimed at them, both to help rile them up AND spur them to leverage their increasing political influence against the French gvt.
By all means discuss it. But you are being rational. Support for Israel in America comes from Christians. Blumenthal promotes a fantasy where there is no criticism of Israeli actions allowed.
“Does “Jews” refer to an ethnic group, or to a group of people who practice a certain religion?”
Historically, the term refers to the ethnic group; and while we might make distinctions between practicing and non-practicing Jews amongst ourselves, anti-semites wont.
For instance, I can’t imagine anyone asked Leon Klinghoffer if he was a practicing Jew before murdering him. His name was enough.
That’s all very nice, but it completely misses my point. This has nothing to do with “anti-semites”. It has everything to do with understanding voting patterns.
Is Charles Schumer (the democrat Senator from New York) Jewish?
Was Aaron Zelman (founder of JPFO) Jewish?
Most people, I think, would answer both questions in the affirmative ... yet politically, these two men could hardly be more different. Race/ethnicity and self-identified religious affiliation are not good lines of demarcation when trying to understand voting patterns ... yet many are mentally stuck using them.
“Race/ethnicity and self-identified religious affiliation are not good lines of demarcation when trying to understand voting patterns ... yet many are mentally stuck using them.”
Well, I’m not so sure your interpretation is that correct. You CAN say that the majority of Jews vote Dem, and that the majority of Blacks vote Dem and be 100% correct, based on their ethnicity. It’s a fact. Would you not say that that is a voting pattern?
Yes, you can say that ... but it isn't particularly informative. It doesn't tell us why the majority vote as they do, and the minority vote differently. Again consider Chuck Schumer and Aaron Zelman, or Al Sharpton and Thomas Sowell.
On another thread, I proposed viewing people in voluntary behavioral or occupational categories, rather than less voluntary or involuntary racial, ethnic or religious categories. I proposed the following classes: Productive, Protective, Ruling, Parasite, and Criminal. I suspect that identifying someone that way will be much more predictive of voting behavior than identifying someone by the conventional class, ethnic, or religious groups.
“To my mind, Jewish influence in politics and society should be as open for discussion as for any other group. But I guess that POV makes me anti-semitic.”
No, it’s not anti-Semitic.
But because so much of such “discussion” has historically been anti-Semitic and, at least on the left, is really anti-Semitism dressed up in new clothes, it’s a delicate discussion to be had.
“You CAN say that the majority of Jews vote Dem,”
You can also say, if not a majority, a plurality of the well-known conservative writers and commentators are Jewish, far outstripping our piddling 1.7% of the USA population:
Mark Levin
Jonah Goldberg
Lucianne Goldberg
David Horowitz
Denis Prager
Michael Medved
John Stossel
Bernie Goldberg
Pam Gellar
Ben Stein
Michael Savage
William Kristol
Charles Krauthammer
Matt Drudge
Does that mean anything, either? Nope.
“Mark Levin
Jonah Goldberg
Lucianne Goldberg
David Horowitz
Denis Prager
Michael Medved
John Stossel
Bernie Goldberg
Pam Gellar
Ben Stein
Michael Savage
William Kristol
Charles Krauthammer
Matt Drudge
Does that mean anything, either? Nope.”
Yup, it does mean something. It means I love them all. However, believe me, they are not the majority of conservative commentators by a long shot. The list of conservatives who are commentators is long, much longer than your list above. My point is simply about voting patterns, and pointing out the obvious, Jews and Blacks predominantly vote for Dems. Although Jews less and less, thank goodness. Hope the same thing happens with Blacks one day also. And it does mean something by the way. It means we have to change that equation. After Obamacare, there just might emerge a new voting pattern amongst both groups, one might hope.
The conservatives that are Blacks and Jews, are great thinkers, and I hope they can convince their fellow ethnics to follow suit. They are wonderful role models. My faves are Kraut, Pam Geller whom I think is incredibly brave, David Horowitz for the same reason, and Savage who in spite of his idiosyncrasies is brilliant also. A few on your list definitely fall into the category of RINO, like Medved and Bernard Goldberg and Ben Stein. Stossel is pure Libertarian. But I am just quibbling a bit about your list now for the sake of quibbling, lol. I want all Jews and all Blacks to be conservatives and vote that way. Sooner than later.
People asserting Jewish influence in American politics need only quote PM Menachem Begin's first visit with newly-elected President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Begin's offer to "help out" with some votes in Congress, which was an insult to the integrity of the U.S. Government (and yes, we still believed in it back then). Which is not to say that Israel was any sort of national adversary then or now.
All that said, one doesn't have to stretch at all to see how virulently anti-Semitic the Iranians are, and it should disturb anyone to see the Obama Regime hesitate to call the Iranians out on it, and to worry about the Regime's motives in hesitation.
I think 11 US senators are Jewish. Which is around 6x their percentage of the population.
I don’t have a problem with that, but most Jews are strongly liberal, and liberals are the ones who are constantly bringing up statistical disparities of this type as proof positive of discrimination.
bkmk
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.