STRANGE SYMBIOSIS – ISRAEL & ANTI-SEMITISM

Antiwar.com ^ | December 28, 2001 | Justin Raimondo

[Don Joe]

"I'm Italian and everyone knows that immediately when they realize what my last name is"

For a while I was on Italian-oriented mailing lists, and it took me a while to figure out why. Turned out that somewhere along the line, a list that contained my company's name and address was sold to another company, and in the transition, the new database didn't allocate as much space for the company name field as the other, which resulted in the name being truncated two letters from the end of the string "camera repair". Evidentally someone wrote some "ethnic logic" that decided that a last name ending in "repa" was Italian, and thus was born my new heritage. :) (Don't ask me how a company name got transmorgrified into a personal name, but I've received enough solicitations addressed to "Mr. Repair" and similar to know it's fairly common.)

[NewAmsterdam]

My butt is mine! Leave it alone! Who are you? Some poofter?

[Sabertooth]

…the term "Amen Corner" is provocative, but that is true for political-ideological reasons. It is not purely personal invective. I use it because it was coined by Pat Buchanan, a man whom I believe is the archetypal case of a man unfairly attacked and smeared as an alleged "anti-Semite."

Since Bill Safire and others are on the record as saying that Pat is not an anti-semite, I've taken them at their word. So I agree it's incorrect to label him as such.

But unfair?

Grudgingly yes, with this qualification: there are times in this world when people are "asking for it" even though they don't deserve it. For an extreme example, if someone runs through South Central at night, yelling "n*****r!" they're going to die. They won't have deserved it, but they sure were asking for it.

Sometimes, Buchanan gives me the impression that he's asking for it. So do others.

Even if we grant the hair-splitting of "political-ideological" provocation vs. "personal invective," to what end? It's an emotionally-charged debate on both sides, with plenty of old antipathies and chip-laden shoulders. It can't be productive.

When I see that, I have a hard time understanding how "open debate" is really the goal.

I don't agree with your formulation of "on the borderline of anti-Semitism." There is no "borderline": a statement is either anti-Semitic or it is not. Period.

I disagree, there is a whole continuity of contexts in which the same statement may or may not be anti-semitic. I might say "Foreign aid to Israel should be cut off," with the underlying premise of disengaging Israeli domestic policy from American foreign policy, which I believe would be in Israel's best interests. Someone else might say "Foreign aid to Israel should be cut off," with the underlying premise that the Jews should be driven into the sea.

In one case there is anti-semitism, in the other there is none.

As for the Palestinian question and the US stance: if we withdrew all the "aid" money given, directly and indirectly, to the Israeli settler colony, totally and immediately, Tel Aviv would be in no condition to be "unleashed." It would then have to face the economic contradictions of maintaining a militarized Sparta-like society in a hostile sea of Arabs. Diplomatically, I think the US has to condemn any inherently unjust situation, such as the Israeli occupation, and it ought to link the withdrawal of all aid to this ongoing crime against an entire people. If Sharon wants to be "unleashed," then he must do it on his own dime -- and without the moral sanction of the US.

First, since Israel was perfectly capable of winning wars prior to receiving any US foreign aid, even when their economy was weaker and more socialistic, I think they might be tougher off the leash than you're willing to concede.

Second, calling Israel a "settler colony" is disingenuous at best. Prior to the late 1800s, there weren't many Jews or Arabs living in what is now Israel. But no one doubts (do you?) that there has been a continuous Jewish presence there going back 3,000 years. When the Jews started emigrating there in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, they did so with the knowledge of the ruling Ottomans, and later, the British. Itinerant Arabs came to work on those Jewish settlements, some legally, some not. These are the broodstock for the bulk of the "Palestinian" population today.

Bottom line: to any degree that Israel is a "settler colony," the "Palestinians" are moreso.

My view, expressed on several occasions, is that Jews (and all oppressed minorities) have a homeland in the United States of America, and that the religious obscurantism that dictated Palestine rather than, say, Uganda or Madagascar as the Jewish homeland was a big mistake. Be that as it may, I recognize the right of the Jews living in Palestine to national self-determination, but, if I lived there, I would fight for the creation of a secular bi-national state.

Religious obscurantism?"

What form of "obscurantism" is it that says that " Jews (and all oppressed minorities) have a homeland in the United States of America?"

Is this in the Constitution anywhere?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for immigration at reasonable and sustainable levels, but with a few billion "oppressed minorities" in the world, this view of yours sounds nice on its face, but really can't be taken seriously.

Regarding your suggestion of a "secular bi-national state?"

As of what date should we draw the boundaries of such a state? Prior to 1922, when 2/3 of Transjordan was given up by the Jews to be a "Palestinian homeland?" Should Transjordan be a " secular bi-national state," where Israelis and Arabs can live together, side by side?

If not, at which of the many different boundaries would you draw the line? And why?

One also has to wonder, where is the historical example for an Arab Moslem majority to live peaceably in a "secular bi-national state?" Arab Moslems don't live peaceably with Arab Christians, let alone Jews. Christian populations have been slaughtered and driven out across the Arab world in the last fifty to eighty years, a bloody process that continues to this day.

Setting that aside, when you say you "recognize the right of the Jews living in Palestine to national self-determination," does that mean within defensible borders? Given the numerous wars they've instigated, what would you require of the surrounding Arab States to show good faith to the Israelis?

Since 1993, the Egyptian Yasser Arafat has been calling for jihad to liberate Jerusalem, exhorted suicide bombers, and taught a generation of children that Israel doesn't deserve to exist.

Can Arafat be trusted? He strikes me as an unregenerate anti-semite. If he can't be trusted, then whom?

I would amend that last formulation to: a radically decentralized secular bi-national state. That is, one in which politically authority is devolved back to local communities.

If it was decentralized, and one of the local communities decided to carbomb another, then what?

[CommiesOut]

Give him a break!
NewAmsterdam just wanted to make 1000th post.

[Don Joe]

"... so as to prevent the site from degenerating into a free-for-all. That is precisely what FR is: largely a free-for-all. Racist rants are not permitted, and personal abuse is frowned on, but the parameters are pretty broad here -- and your own posts attest to that. If you prefer a forum where it is written into the rules that no material by me is permitted, such forums exist: Lucianne.com has an explicit rule banning anything that comes from Antiwar.com, of which I am the editorial director. So go there, and don't let the door hit you on your way out....

How thoughtful of you to take up the standard of official policy director for Free Republic.

Unfortuantely (for your cause), the founder's position is at a rather severe contradiction to your "free-for-all" fantasy. To-wit:

(excerpts, with my comments interspersed, from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a19e2c90dfb.htm#260)

Well, I've said it many times before and I'll repeat it here for you. I did not open this website as a liberal debating society. In fact, it was actually designed to be a conservative oasis, free of liberalism.

So much for your assertion. But wait, there's more:

And so I decided to get away from the Barleens, Pedigrifts and eschoirs (you had to have been there) and open my own website where we like-minded individuals who wish to discuss and critique the liberal media and the out of control government and try to find a political solution for our problem (as opposed to an armed revolution) could do so without suffering the interference, pesterings and disruptions of leftist/marxist liberals and/or assorted right-wing nuts (by the way, this particular person is not a liberal, he's probably more of a libertarian with a conspiracy theorist bent).

Hmm, not looking very good for your annoying cause, is it.

The free speech I'm talking about here on Free Republic is OUR free speech and the free speech of those who want to join US in OUR mission.

Nope, not looking very good for your cause at all. In fact, it's almost as if he's aiming a spotlight on it! (Hahahaha, "spotlight")

Those who oppose our mission are welcome to stay and post here as long as they do not become too disruptive or actively work against our cause or our goals.

Oh my, really homing in on you now!

In no way do I want to run anyone out of here, but if you or anyone else who is signed up to post here do not want to work toward our common goals, and/or if you have another agenda in mind, then I respectfully suggest you open your own website (as others before you have done) and have at it.

Ah, but wait -- you've already got your own website! So why do you persist in disrupting here with your anti-semitic rants?

If your bag is to debate liberals or to enlighten the world with intellectual stimulation (or whatever it happens to be) then I will wish you well and wish more power to you. But I see absolutely no reason to give a soap box to those who oppose OUR chosen goals. You who dissent from our dissentions are free to exercise your own free speech rights on your own websites.

Man, does he have you pegged or does he have you pegged!

...just so others would get the message that I do not care what he thinks of me and to give notice to others who feel that I am some sort of ogre or dictator that there are other places you can post. You do not have to stay on Free Republic.

That door you were mentioning, pal? It's for you.

Those of you who feel I'm a crook or a fascist or a dictator or a statist or whatever will be welcome to go somewhere else and fight your own battles on your own turf.

The defense rests.

[Justin Raimondo]

Your rather longwinded argument would make sense, if this were IsraelFirst.com, or whatever. But nothing in my written works posted on this site, nor in anything I have ever written, could possibly be mistaken for "liberal" or "leftist" -- unless, looking at the world through Sharon-colored glasses, you define conservatism as per pro-Israel no matter what. The article we are (ostensibly) discussing here opposes foreign aid (a classic conservative position) and wrestles with the concept of anti-Semitism, both real and imagined. Given what I know about FR's policies and procedures, nothing in it contradicts the basic mission of FR: far from it, in seeking to define an American foreign policy that puts the interests of America first (and not, say, Gabon, or Israel), it advances that mission.

It is interesting, as I have said before, how some of the responses to my piece underscore its themes. I wrote that the methods of the Israel lobby have not been to argue, or to allow free and open debate on a very debatable topic, but to simply silence all opposition. Your screed, which I guess advocates that I be banned and my writings proscribed, certainly verfies that point.

I would agree with you that there is no "right" of anyone but the owner to post anything on FR. But I might add that I have never posted my own work here, although I do enjoy participating in the discussion if and when somebody else posts it. And I would also point out that various individuals, over the years, have indeed posted my work, and that I am grateful to them for having done so; none of these FR members have been banned, as far as I know, on account of it. So your call for a jihad against me and Antiwar.com is, for the moment at least, going unanswered. You are free, of course, to agitate for it, call for it, demand it: but I don't think you're going to get very far. I would also advise you that this line of attack is apt to be very unproductive, and will cause people who might've taken your other arguments seriously (and even agreed with them) to dismiss you as a crank.

Try another tack, dude: this one is only making you and the rest of the Amen Corner look really bad....

[NewAmsterdam]

Ah! Now I see what she meant! Lol. I didn't do it on purpose. Somehow my post ended up being posted four times. It wasn't quite interesting enough for that. Apologies.

[Justin Raimondo]

There are more Jews in America than in Israel, wouldn't you say? So it appears that the majority agree with me.

No, there is nothing in the Constitution specifically about how America is the best homeland for the Jews. In a more general sense, though, the idea of universally recognized rights and freedom from government, particularly the concept of freedom of religion enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is the political basis of my contention. On the Palestine question: As an advocate of noninterventionism, I would be in violation of my own principles if I designed some scheme whereby these two ancient desert tribes could live side-by-side in peace. Not all problems have solutions, however, and the US government is under no obligation to provide one in this case or any other outside its own borders. However, we do have a moral obligation, after subsidizing the Israeli occupation, to mitigate the effects of our policy on the civilian population insofar as that is possible.

[CommiesOut]

Afraid to complain

[dighton]

Try another tack, dude: this one is only making you and the rest of the Amen Corner look really bad . . . .

See a doctor for your tic, dude. It's getting worse and worse.

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

My butt is mine! Leave it alone! Who are you? Some poofter?

You should be so lucky, you a$$. ROFLMAO, BIG TIME!!!!

[NewAmsterdam]

Are you normal?

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

Normally. LOLOL

[IronJack]

More enlightened, issue-based criticism from the "Hate Justin" crowd? Or am I to be the next target for the name-calling childishness that's permeated the responses so far?

Were there some FACTS you cared to contend?

[Aedammair]

Evidentally someone wrote some "ethnic logic" that decided that a last name ending in "repa" was Italian, and thus was born my new heritage. :)

Well welcome! :) It's always nice to have an intelligent addition; what with John "the last of the mohicans" Gotti and all. It's not easy explaining how someone as left of the bellcurve as him remains a living member of the tribe.

[Sabertooth]

There are more Jews in America than in Israel, wouldn't you say? So it appears that the majority agree with me.

On what, exactly?

There are more folks of Irish or German descent in America than there are in Ireland or Germany. I'm not sure I follow the relevance of this to our foreign policy.

No, there is nothing in the Constitution specifically about how America is the best homeland for the Jews. In a more general sense, though, the idea of universally recognized rights and freedom from government, particularly the concept of freedom of religion enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is the political basis of my contention.

These rights aren't "universally recognized." They're recognized (in principle, if not always in practice) by the US Constitution, and extended to American Citizens and to those whom we see fit to welcome here. We don't have any obligation to extend them to everyone.

Was there another possible basis for your contention?

On the Palestine question: As an advocate of noninterventionism, I would be in violation of my own principles if I designed some scheme whereby these two ancient desert tribes could live side-by-side in peace. Not all problems have solutions, however, and the US government is under no obligation to provide one in this case or any other outside its own borders. However, we do have a moral obligation, after subsidizing the Israeli occupation, to mitigate the effects of our policy on the civilian population insofar as that is possible.

Well, I really don't see where you've established a compelling argument to base our policy on notions implicit in the loaded term "Israeli occupation."

Sometimes countries start wars, and lose territories. That's a good thing, because it serves as a disincentive to start a war.

That's why, for example, it would be silly to talk about the "Polish occupation" of parts Germany. The Germans lost a war they started, and it cost them territory. So did the Ottoman Turks.

So did the Arabs. That's life.

So, "Israeli occupation" goes the way of "settler colony."

In any case, the "a radically decentralized secular bi-national state" idea doesn't work, because we can't implement it and remain noninterventionist. Do I have that right?

As for the rest of #1003, shall I assume those points are not in dispute?

[malarski]

David Ben-Gurion himself frequently referred to his main opponent Jabotinsky as "Vladimir Hitler."

It takes one to know one.