Replies

Your response is clever but specious. As it happens, the "Yeshu ben Pandeira" figure is conflated by Talmudic scholars themselves with Jesus of Nazareth, as part of an argument for their position that Christ -- "the historical Jesus" -- never actually existed.

The rest of your remarks are either off-the-subject or clever evasions, and I will not trouble myself with them.

What interests me most about this contretemps is the unwillingness, as with racism-shouters and sexism-shouters, ever to define what constitutes anti-Semitism. It's a regular pattern among those who hurl epithets instead of arguing facts and logic.

Is an anti-Semite someone who opposes the existence of Israel as a formally Jewish state, in which Jews have a legal privilege (the "right of return") denied to non-Jews, apart from any opinions he might hold about Jews or Judaism?
Is an anti-Semite someone who finds that he personally dislikes most Jews, or all, but has nothing against the Judaic faith or culture?
Is an anti-Semite someone who holds that most Jews do not adhere to the tenets of their professed faith, but would have nothing against them if they did?
Is an anti-Semite someone who holds that the Judaic faith and culture are themselves evil, and that, by aligning oneself with them, one is formally embracing evil?

I hold that only #4 above is an adequate definition of anti-Semitism. Political opinions, unless they involve the identification of a particular group for genocidal treatment, cannot be racist, sexist or ethnicist (into which broad category all notions of anti-Semitism fall). Personal dislikes cannot be regarded as racist, sexist, or ethnicist either; the disliker has to promote some program of action or oppression to qualify for those. And one such as Joseph Sobran, who points out that others are failing to adhere to their own professed creed -- a creed he admires and endorses as the foundation stone upon which Christianity was laid! -- is merely noting hypocrisy, an important practice at all times.

Anti-Semitism is the identification of Judaic faith or culture as an evil with evil effects. I can think of very few persons in public life who fit this description; Louis Farrakhan and his henchmen are all that come to mind.

If the anti-Semitism shouters would just reflect on the predictable long-term effects of their rhetoric for a moment, they would realize that they're doing Jews and Judaism the worst possible disservice. Look at what racism-shouting and sexism-shouting have done in the United States. The reaction against those communities of interest is now in full swing, such that, in most circles, to be identified with those groups comes near to a condemnation. We temperate ones have grown tired of dealing with them, and more than mildly irritated at having to introduce half of our opinions with "I'm not a racist / sexist / anti-Semite."

In part, the current American ambivalence toward the support of Israel -- a support it desperately needs if it's to stay afloat among so many vicious and dedicated enemies -- arises from the previous relentless drumbeat of "anti-Semite!" which was routinely shouted at anyone who questioned whether American foreign policies aimed at supporting Israel were in fact in the interests of the United States. Those conservative opinioneers who've cut loose from Israel, and who emphasize that American foreign policy should be oriented toward American interests, are among the disaffected group. Sobran and Buchanan are prominent among them.

By the way, Bill Buckley never said that Sobran was an anti-Semite. He chided Sobran for presenting his anti-war opinions in a fashion that some might interpret as anti-Semitic -- pure deference to the anti-Semitism-shouters who were so numerous during the days before the 1991 Gulf War.

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

Your response is clever but specious. As it happens, the "Yeshu ben Pandeira" figure is conflated by Talmudic scholars themselves with Jesus of Nazareth, as part of an argument for their position that Christ -- "the historical Jesus" -- never actually existed.

Citation please. I have read translations and commentaries and have not seen things to this effect. This is not to say that Jesus of Nazareth was liked, he was a heretic and false Messiah, only that these are two different people. As far as I know, all refrences to Jesus were expunged, at least in European editions, due to Christian censorship.

The rest of your remarks are either off-the-subject or clever evasions, and I will not trouble myself with them.
They are specifically on subject and undermine your case. You want to lecture me, not debate anything.

What interests me most about this contretemps is the unwillingness, as with racism-shouters and sexism-shouters, ever to define what constitutes anti-Semitism. It's a regular pattern among those who hurl epithets instead of arguing facts and logic.
We are having a debate. I'm not sure why you see this as an embarassing episode.
At any rate, I have noted why I consider Sobran an anti-Semite. I am looking at his repeated behavior in totality, not one or two incidents. You are debating the color of the leafs, instead of looking at the etnire forest.

Is an anti-Semite someone who opposes the existence of Israel as a formally Jewish state, in which Jews have a legal privilege (the "right of return") denied to non-Jews, apart from any opinions he might hold about Jews or Judaism?
No. This is a general anti-nationalist stance.
However, Sobran only holds this position towards Israel. He supports other natioanlisms and even discriminatory laws.

Is an anti-Semite someone who finds that he personally dislikes most Jews, or all, but has nothing against the Judaic faith or culture?
This is a tenuous counter-factual. Sobran has condemned his straw-man versions of Jewish culture.
I suppose it is possible to dislike most Jews without hating all or their culture. It is difficult, though. One cannot hate all Jews, without this being a reflection of their opinion on belief or culture.

Is an anti-Semite someone who holds that most Jews do not adhere to the tenets of their professed faith, but would have nothing against them if they did?
Hardly.

Is an anti-Semite someone who holds that the Judaic faith and culture are themselves evil, and that, by aligning oneself with them, one is formally embracing evil?
YES.
The Webster's definition of anti-semitism is "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"

As for your definition, it is neither the standard one, nor is it coherent. Personal dislikes always influence behavior and ideas.

Anti-Semitism is the identification of Judaic faith or culture as an evil with evil effects. I can think of very few persons in public life who fit this description; Louis Farrakhan and his henchmen are all that come to mind.

Check out David Duke.
Michael Hoffman Jr(http://www.hoffman-info.com/) is not a very public figure, but Sobran does associate with him. (http://www.hoffman-info.com/irving.html)

Those conservative opinioneers who've cut loose from Israel, and who emphasize that American foreign policy should be oriented toward American interests, are among the disaffected group. Sobran and Buchanan are prominent among them.

You just refuse to get it. Sobran's anti-Zionism is not the reason why he is called an anti-Semite. It is a symptom of it. Sobrans repeated attacks on Jews, his double standard against Jews and Israel, and his lies about Jews and Judaism all show anti-Semetism.
You have bought into Sobran's claim that anti-semetism is a PC "thought-crime" with no purpose other than to silence critics. (http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml) I can find no more Orwellian reversal than Sobran's doublespeak here.