[Moby Grape]

Don't always agree with Farah, but it is my view that he hits the nail on the head in this article.

[xzins]

I had come over time to the belief that Pat Buchanen was anti-Israel and, perhaps, anti-Jew. His consistent attacks on Israel and support for anything non-Israeli had gradually convinced me that it was so.

That's why the Richard Nixon/Billy Graham revelation was SOOOO telling. The conversation has Nixon clearly being anti-Semitic. His joy at finding Graham's alignment with his views about "Jews in the media" was followed with some statement to the effect that he (Nixon) was glad to discover Graham's anti-semitism.

Buchanen was part of Nixon's staff. If Nixon was glad that an outsider aligned with his anti-semitic views, one can only suppose that Nixon specifically CHOSE his staff with their views on this subject foremost in his mind.

This is an assumption on my part. But it is an assumption that is not illogical and is based on some compelling circumstantial evidence.

[sixmil]

I totally agree. I was right there with Pat on most issues until recently. It used to be that he was tough on Israel, but now it seems like he is pro-Palestinian. I know there are still patriots out there trying to contain the American Empire, but it is too late now. We will have to try dismantling the Empire again after this war is over. For now, the Palestinians are with the terrorists, and Israel is with us.

[Cincinatus]

He has the right to be wrong – even dangerously and badly wrong.

Indeed, but he abuses the privilege so!!! LOL!

[MoJo2001]

I always wondered what the issue between the Vatican and Jews was all about. It seems more and more I'm getting a better idea. Pat merely adds to that!

[OldFriend]

PJB has taken Ramsey Clark's position on Iraq as well. The man has become a traitor in his utter hatred of Israel and his desperation for media attention. Perhaps they removed some brain cells along with his gall bladder.

[dennisw]

Great stuff from Joseph Farah who I see getting face time on TV these days. Pat should be kept as a columnist since he is good on so many "issues". But on the MidEast he better put on his dunce cap. Cause that's what he is even aside from his pro-Pallie slant. He tries to "understand" the Pallies way too much........

.......... while I have never seen him try to understand why Jews might feel the way they do. About the holocaust and Israel's safety for example.

[Rambro]

Everyone seems to be convinced that PJB is antisemitic because he believe that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances that should be considered. I believe that is true, altho I think that they have forfeited their right to our sympathy by resorting to terrorism. Of course what PJB and I think is irrelevant. If Israel wants to destroy the terrorists (and I think that it has the right to try) then I would submit the two primary imediments are its own policy of tolerating Arafat (it could easily kill or capture him at any time) and Bush #43, who is obviously restraining Israel (which may also be responsible for problem #1, Arafat, altho Israel accepted him at Oslo in '92, and can't blame Bush #43 for that).

Of course, in the real world, Bush #43 and Israel have to accept that the political reality is that killing Arafat would probably just transform him from a powerless symbol of an impotent force to a martyr to the Palestinian state.

Given these realities, I doubt that Israel is going to "conquer a peace" by invading the West Bank. To the contrary, I think it is going to learn the lesson of the "tarbaby", which Sharon should have learned in Lebanon 20 years ago. How long do you think Sharon will keep Israeli troops and tanks in the West Bank before "declaring victory"?