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?
