[Snuffington]

Anyone who calls you anti-Semitic, or any other defamatory name, in the course of such a discussion is then quite clearly attempting to stop discussion.

I understand your point, but it almost seems you ignored the article above. Sullivan isn't just casting labels, he's citing specific examples of undeniable anti-Semitism. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is hardly a rational treatise about foreign policy difference.

What Sullivan is saying, and I agree, is that real and true anti-Semitism of the proto-Nazi type is really and truly manifesting itself in the anti-war movement. It comes there by means of a thriving anti-Jewish press in the Arab world.

Cate blanche dismissal of an argument for containing the term "anti-Semitic" is just as much an attempt to stop debate as the misuse of the term you condemn.

[fporretto]

Well, you might say Sullivan is more concerned with one aspect of the matter, whereas I'm more concerned with another. I don't deny that 1) there are true anti-Semites -- people who hate the Jews just because they're Jews, nor that 2) such people are gladdened by the Palestinian irredentists' terror bombings and the support they get from the Arabic press. But generally speaking, these people are easily identified for what they are. They don't attempt to persuade, but to bludgeon. They'll be found handing out copies of the Protocols and trying to pass off easily-refuted lies -- the "blood libel" and other malefactions of that stripe.

Once these folks have been ostracized, sober discussion of the issues must continue. Ostracizing them is important in large measure because they want to stop discussion. But the use of inflammatory, highly prejudicial labels such as "racist," "sexist," and "anti-Semite" is itself a major barrier against sober discussion. When Smith calls Jones an anti-Semite, he's saying the following:

• Jones can never be persuaded to change his position on policy issue X, because he's animated by an irrational, unchangeable hatred of the Jews.
• Jones should therefore not be listened to; all his arguments and assertions are inherently suspect, because he would say anything, true or false, to advance his hatred of Jews.

This is not argument; it is anathematization. It precludes any discussion of the merits that would include Jones. Moreover, if Smith's charge is true, it is very serious, but if it is false, it's even worse: it can ruin Jones for life.

There's another angle on it. This involves a fairly subtle chain of reasoning, so please bear with me.

Let's imagine that some identifiable group has supplied 100% of all the participants in a campaign of terror bombings, kidnappings, torture-murders and the like. Let's further imagine that the objective evidence strongly indicates that the great majority of the other members of this group -- that is, the ones that weren't hands-on participants in this campaign of horrors -- nevertheless approves of the terrorists' deeds and will support them at least passively, by refusing to aid in any attempt to identify them and bring them to justice. For convenience's sake, let's give this group a name: we'll call them Millennium Summitteers, or for short, Milsums.

Within the conditions described above, a good case could be made that all Milsums should be regarded with suspicion, as potential terrorists or abettors of terrorism. Moreover, if the defining characteristic of a Milsum were that he subscribes to a theology that explicitly encourages violence and fraud against non-Milsums, a good case could be made that to identify oneself as a Milsum is to say, "I am your declared enemy, whether I lift my own hand against you or simply support others who do so in the name of our shared creed."

The best demonstration of this is to replace "Milsum" above with "Nazi" or "Communist," and set the historical context as appropriate.

I'm being a little coy here, of course. But the argument is a serious one; collective characterization must remain available for those rare circumstances where it really would apply. This cannot be the case if we fling it about in cases where it does not apply.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea: I am not saying that the Jews -- a religious and cultural group -- or the Israelis -- a nation-state -- stand indicted for some sort of systemic evil. Hell, no! The Jews are among the best and most longsuffering of all the tribes of Man. They've persevered and thrived under conditions that were intended to eliminate them, while nurturing a culture of life that stands near the pinnacle of civilization. But other groups do stand indicted of such systemic evils, which they practice in a collective fashion that appears inseparable from their group identity. If the Jews -- God Forbid! -- were ever to decide that, as Jews, they have a special moral dispensation that permits them to commit the sorts of atrocities practiced by "Milsums," then it would be right to suspect and oppose them as a group.

So, by all means, if you find a real anti-Semite -- a person who hates Jews simply because they are Jews -- give true coloration to his attitude and his statements. But be very careful about the use of such terms in political discussion. They're too potent to toss about lightly, and are too easily put to unjust use.

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