ANDREW SULLIVAN: Anti-semitism sneaks into the anti-war camp

First of all, G-d bless the purity of your sould and the streangth of your convictions. I say that because I know how hard (and costly) it is to keep them in confrontation with one's flesh and blood.

And you are absolutely right about the wake-up call. When Jewsish kids cannot safely walk on American campuses, believe me, Jews sense that "time have changed." I am Jewish, and it pains me to see how many of my co-religionists, just like many from good Christian homes, have forsaken the traditional Judeo-Christian values for the leftist ideology. For most it is a utopian "love of mankind." They fail to see that the wold is full of those who love mankind and hate people.

The Jews have much more in common with true Christians, but the age-old apprehension learned in Europe does not make them see that. I think the younger generation will be more conservative, but what it portains for the furture, I do not know. Every time gasoline prices go up, new Buchanans emerge to tell us that "they are fighting us here because we are over there;" it's all because of Jews (Israel and its "amen corner" as Buchanan calls them). Anti-Semitism was alive and well in America for centuries and has become hugely unpopular after the Holocaust. But for how long will that last?

You are right, Jews better wake up.

Once awake, though, what is there for them to do? One will say that it's Israel; another will claim "Jewish conspiracy;" the third will say, as many did for centuries, that Jews make matzos on the blood of Christian adolescents; the fourth will claim that Jews inventied and imposed communism (very popular now in Eastern Europe and Russia: those 5 million poor, uneducated, provincial and unworldly Jews, you see, tricked 500 million poor Slavs into communism and then twisted arms behind their backs; without those Jews, the Russia would still be trarist, you see).

In the end, the world simply does not forgive for living and failure to be extinguished. Moreover, we even have hubris of setting high standards for the children, as a result of which many succeed in the professions. If someone hates your existence, there is noting you can do but die to appease; your behavior is irrelevant. The world similarly hates Roma (Gypsies), but is not so agitated: since many of them are not highly educated, it is hard to feel envy and threat.

Sorry for the post that became longer than I intended. Most of all, I wanted to say thank you: it is people like you that preserve conscience in this world. G-d bless you and keep you.

The evil is in the tactics, not in the choice of victims. The same evil used against conservatives to a lesser degree is part of the democrat playbook. That they would now shine that evil on Jews is not a surprise. The evil of this tactic is always used on those with a perceived weakness. Think about it: ABC, CBS, and NBC feel it's cute to show unattractive pictures of conservatives while showcasing liberals in a golden light. Picture them doing the same to American Jews, and you'll see the hate the left is already doing. Each of us can come up with hundred's of examples of liberal hate (we call it bias because we're afraid of the stronger word ). Liberals haven't changed, they've just discovered a better victim.

I'm a Gentile, but seeing that was enough to make me want to put to the sword anyone who felt that way. Anti-Semitism is evil and has evil consequences. Regards, Ivan

The evil is in the tactics, not in the choice of victims. The same evil used against conservatives to a lesser degree is part of the democrat playbook. That they would now shine that evil on Jews is not a surprise. The evil of this tactic is always used on those with a perceived weakness. Think about it: ABC, CBS, and NBC feel it's cute to show unattractive pictures of conservatives while showcasing liberals in a golden light. Picture them doing the same to American Jews, and you'll see the hate the left is already doing. Each of us can come up with hundred's of examples of liberal hate (we call it bias because we're afraid of the stronger word ). Liberals haven't changed, they've just discovered a better victim.

I'm a Gentile, but seeing that was enough to make me want to put to the sword anyone who felt that way. Anti-Semitism is evil and has evil consequences. Regards, Ivan

Think about it: ABC, CBS, and NBC feel it's cute to show unattractive pictures of conservatives while showcasing liberals in a golden light.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, I would take what you said even further: you spoke of conservatives in general, but witness the treatment of Christians in the mass media. I think it's no longer merely a bias but qualifies as bigotry.

I am very pained by that. I am Jewish, and from personal experience know how being on a receiving end of bigotry feels. And I can recognize bigotry when I see it. I can say with all seriousness: the portrayal of Christian people in the media is very, very close to what the Soviet propaganda machine put out under the communists.

You are correct about the left and its methods: the victims are moving targets, but the methods remain the same.

I'm afraid you are seriously in error.

There's a difference between political discussion between equals and psychoanalysis of one person by another. In your very first words:

more often the motivation is different: to make the speaker discuss the issues <>fairly.

...you attempt to obscure this difference. Moreover, no one has ever made a discussion of any caliber better or "fairer" by accusing the other party of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. Accusations like that end discussion; they don't improve it.

If you don't want to argue about facts, logic, and moral principles, that's your perfect right, but you can't pass psychoanalysis -- especially the kind where the other party's motives are assumed from a position of moral superiority rather than explored as equals, without prejudice -- off as political discussion.

The argument you advance is based on an old rhetorical trick, which when not detected is unsurprisingly effective: assuming the consequent. You take for granted the conclusion you want to reach, and speak as if others must see it, too.

"What is that in you that made you choose unfair principles?"

Raucous horselaugh! What about the prior question, that must be answered first: "Are your premises and principles unfair, and if so, why?" Why are you so certain that your unilateral judgment of such a thing would stand unchallenged? Or that your pronouncement would make the pronounced one do anything but leap for your throat?

Conservatives, of all people, should be extremely reluctant to impugn the motives of others. Haven't we been the victims of that tactic far more often than not? Haven't we been accused a million times of being "heartless," "uncaring," or actively "malevolent" toward some group simply because we don't want to give them special privileges in law or put them on a government teat?

The list of people who've been called racists, sexists, or anti-Semites includes persons whom most conservatives hold in high esteem. Ronald Reagan and George Bush are on that list.

To divert political discussion off into amateur psychotherapy based on a diagnosis of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism -- or any other sort of collectivist perversion -- is to assume a position of moral superiority over your conversational partner. It also assumes that your insight into his character and motivations is reliable -- even in the case of good friends of long standing, seldom a sound assumption. And it can never be equivalent to actually discussing the objective merits of a discrete political issue.

My original point stands: Once you call someone an anti-Semite, you're no longer discussing politics. At that point, you're at war.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

I'm afraid you are seriously in error. That may be, but you've failed to point it out.

There's a difference between political discussion between equals and psychoanalysis of one person by another. In your very first words: more often the motivation is different: to make the speaker discuss the issues <>fairly.

No, this is not analysis of the id: that is a response to behavior.

no one has ever made a discussion of any caliber better or "fairer" by accusing the other party of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. No question about that. Such acusations are the end of discussion.

It is pretty clear from my post, where I emphasized the criteria themselves, developed before and revealed as they are applied to a particular situation.

If you don't want to argue about facts, logic, and moral principles, that's your perfect right, but you can't pass psychoanalysis Again, it is not a question of imputing motives: everything I said in the previous post was with regard to the bahavior. When one advocates (behavior) to divest from Irael because of its "treatment" of Palestinians but not from Zimbabwe of Iran, one questions the criterion applied. By itself that is not sufficient for conclusion. If one finds --- and all too often one does --- that that person is preoccipied (as demonstrated by behavior) not with sins but with sins of the Jews only, one has the basis to declare that person biased.

Conservatives, of all people, should be extremely reluctant to impugn the motives of others. YEs, but they are also the only one left in this country who can tell evil when they see it.

The list of people who've been called racists, sexists, or anti-Semites includes persons whom most conservatives hold in high esteem. Ronald Reagan and George Bush are on that list. I never told you that every accusation of anti-Semitism is justified. There are plenty of Jews whose skin have grown so thin that they are too quick to throw that accusation. WHen that happen on this forum, I was there to call it wrong.

Have you alse stated to your fellow travelers, "YOu've gone too far? Have you ever said, "It's OK to criticise Israel, but you just claimed that all American Jews have no loyalty to this country. That's an insult."

My original point stands: Once you call someone an anti-Semite, you're no longer discussing politics. At that point, you're at war. I never disputed that point. I merely tried to explain what typically transpires in the Discussion before that accusation is made.

You choose to ignore that altohether.

Look, if upon reflection you are confident that in your own discussions of Jews-related topics you applied the same standards that you would apply to others --- wonderful! Have a wonderful righteous life.

We've exchanged our opinions; thank you.

It would be nice if wisdom came easily and without pain. Thanks for the comment:

I am very pained by that. I am Jewish, and from personal experience know how being on a receiving end of bigotry feels. And I can recognize bigotry when I see it. I can say with all seriousness: the portrayal of Christian people in the media is very, very close to what the Soviet propaganda machine put out under the communists.

You are correct about the left and its methods: the victims are moving targets, but the methods remain the same.