Progressives and Israel

Oh please, really this whole 'poor me' paranoid whining by some in the Jewish community worldwide needs to stop - it's a bit tiresome and frankly disingenuous. Not everyone who doesn't jive with exactly what Israel, Bibi, and rightwing American Jews think and say is "anti-Semitic". I think if that card is overplayed in America any more than it has, given the general war-fatigue among its people, it's going to lose its value so fast Bibi will need to find another sugar daddy real soon, influential lobbyists or not.

Why is debate over the pro Israel lobby handicapped and stygmied by political correctness to the extent that it is ? Let the discourse on this subject tell it like it is - Israel has been ruthlessly persecuting Palestinians for the past six decades, something virtually every strata of American politicians and the majority of Jewish Americans are complicit in.

Here's the problem with the "Jewish neocons" phrasing: Their ethnoreligious label should be irrelevant.

If you have a problem with neocons, that's fine. But unless we're now turning into a society where it is de rigeur to prefix everyone's identification with his or her ethnic/confessional affilitation ("so I introduced my African American Episcopalian boss to my German Lutheran girlfriend at our Russian Orthodox friend's party..."), I'm at a loss for why the "Jewish" part is relevant.

The term "Israel-firsters" was coined by the radical right some 40 years ago (Liberty Lobby, the KKK, neo-Nazis) in their nativist, white supremacist propaganda. It is shocking and disheartening to see some on the left now using the same term. What's up with that? A revival of the socialism of fools?

Well said. If I said that, in the US, I would lose my job and any chance of a position on a board of directors or invitation to a soiree, intellectual or social.

I think groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre call these accusations of the Jewish role in the Iraq war anti-semitism because many people DO in fact take it to the level of anti-semitism. I was in school in Montreal when the Iraq war started, and Jewish students were most definitely harassed about it regardless of their actual stance on the war. I remember during the protests against the Iraq war, the Jewish club on campus, Hillel, was vandalized with red paint dumped all over it. Hillel had never supported the Iraq war, yet they were regarded as a legitimate target by anti-war groups by virtue of being Jewish. When I complained about it, I got the same "see no evil, hear no evil" argument that is evident in this article

So what if some Jewish conservatives supported the Iraq war cause they thought it would help Israel? The overwhelming majority of Iraq war supporters were not Jewish and had other reasons. Most Jewish politicians opposed or were ambivalent about the Iraq war. Many pro-Israel supporters opposed the Iraq war.

There were also people who supported the Iraq war to help the Kurds, but no one goes around accusing the warmongering "Kurdish lobby" of controlling America.

For those who need to under stand certain facts, simply read "The Clean Break" put out by the original Neo-Cons. The paper was sent to Mr Netanyahu and he has been following it ever since.

The same Republican neocons (Kristol, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and Abrams) that helped lie our way into Iraq still control the Party. They have obtained pledges from all the Presidential candidates, except for Paul, to go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf, a year before the election. A nucleur Iran is no threat to the US nor to Israel, since Israel has 400 nucleur warheads. The neo-cons disinformation program has started up just like the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Another pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation over alleged WMD's is sick after the last one went so well. One can only hope that the US people will rise up against another war on the same trumped up reasons, for Israel, not the US. Why should American soldiers die for Israel? No Israeli lives were lost in Iraq although Israel and its neo-cons promoted the war with lies about WMD's, yellowcake uranian, Iraq's links to Al-Quaida, etc.

We will never have a real and serious discussion... religion + money + politics have never, since the beginning of time, mixed well.

The term "Israel Firster" which I may have devised, refers to all people, of any race or faith community, who invariably takes the side of the Israeli government over that of the US govt and, while critical of US Presidents, is invariably supportive of anything an Israeli prime minister says or does. (Israel Firsters have no problem condemning a Bush or an Obama but never never Netanyahu or Sharon). An Israel Firster, simply put, places Israel First. The effort to stop use of the term demonstrates the extreme sensitivity toward that description by those to whom it applies, whether Jewish or not. For the record, I admit that the term is partially inaccurate. Real Israel Firsters would champion peace for that country along the lines (two states, an end to occupation) supported by the last two U.S. Presidents. The people I'm talking about, also known as neocons, are, in fact, Netanyahu firsters, whose primary goal is not security for Israel but ensuring that the United States never succeeds in pushing Israel toward achieving peace by ending the occupation. It is in pursuit of that goal that they have worked so successfully to scare both the Congress and White House toward submission to Netanyahu and his suicidal policies. In that same spirit, they are now promoting Netanyahu's other big project: war with Iran. MJ Rosenberg

That horrific ugly racist Arabs' "aparheid" slur - in categorizing of Isarel's legitimate self-defense anti bigoted-Arab attacks... While Israel treats Arabs with preferential treatments and ALL Arab Republics are anti non-Arabs and anti non-Muslims in fact it's all about 'Arab-Islamic Apartheid worlds'!

I think Martin Horn is putting his finger on it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center put "Jewish neocons" in inverted commas to show that the two words are sometimes placed together, as though the first explains the second. It doesn't. It's possible to explain all of the neocons' positions, from their support for Israel to their advocacy of the war in Iraq, without referring to the Jewishness of some of their proponents. These are political opinions, not ethnic or religious motivations.

You can certainly argue against Israel's policies, America's support for the country and the wisdom of neoconservative interventionism without being an anti-Semite. But you when attribute a political opinion to the ethnic origin of its proponent, you're standing with Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.

Re the Wiesanthal Center statement:

1. Weren't American Jews the most outspoken communities in the US pushing for America to enter WWII? This seems like an objective statement that any historian could make without being guilty of antisemitism so why attack Lindberg for making it?

2. “and 'Jewish neocons' were charged with colluding with Israel to cause the 2003 Iraq War." The center has carefully worded this charge to make it technically untrue but on a basis other than the one the reader is being led to believe. The neocons did not collude with Israel to initiate the Iraq war. The neocons did it on their own - in fact Netanyahu was pushing for Syria not Iraq to be attacked.

Dear Sir-

I had not noticed any attempt to actually debate any issue by the pro-israel lobby in the US. Any negative statement or admonishment (like, perhaps you shouldn't use cluster bombs on apartment buildings) is ALWAYS met with the charge of anti-semitism.

If you want to be a separate group, then you can't complain about being "grouped" and stereotyped.

You can complain about inaccuracies, as your article clearly states.

But, I think, that if one wants to debate with the pro-israeli lobby, you are playing with yourself: they have one card and they always play it.

My best wishes,

The American Jews who felt guilty about staying here in safety when Israel was genuinely at risk are dying off. No doubt, they atoned by being "more Catholic than the Pope". But those who follow will join debate as freely as Israelis do. It has been years since I've heard a Jewish friend preface a comment on Israel with, "Now I can say this to you, but I would never say it to another Jew."

Given that a large number of the extremely pro-Israel faction of US politics comes in the form of fanatical Christians or anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists who are not Jews, there is no reason why the term "Israeli firster" should be considered as targeting Jews. It could easily apply, say, to several of the Republican presidential candidates who are not Jewish.

I'm curious: why does this matter? Who cares?

If I want a "critical line" on Israel, I can read the Israeli press. They cover that angle quite well. In the last day, I could read about Haredi rioting in Beit Shemesh because a street sign ordering gender segregation was removed. And then about a demonstration for gender equality whose location had to be changed because the Haredi - who are the most devoutly religious - threatened violence. I can read about a health care organization removing images and references to women from their materials because of Haredi objections - and then sending it out to the wrong people. These are pretty negative and they're reported across the spectrum of the Israeli press. I can also read a typical Amira Hass piece that points out athletes from Gaza can travel across Israel while intellectuals can't. (These examples were picked from one edition of one paper, but I could have piled up a list from many sources.)

When I read blog posts like this, I think about how the media covers the "horse race" and itself more than what actually happens. Of all the stories in the world, why pick this teeny, tiny one?

There's a big difference between blaming neo-cons, some of whom happen to be Jewish, for getting the US into Iraq and Jewish neo-cons for our entry. Despite Democracy's take, I, who am often very critical of Israeli stances, take the latter statement as blatantly anti-Semitic.

"Their confusion on this point is symptomatic of the inability of many conservative Jewish institutions to distinguish between legitimate criticism of specific political factions with the Jewish community and Israel, and anti-semitism."

I would go further than that and say that charges of anti-Semitism today seem to be done in bad faith, and are just as conspiratorial as Charles Lindbergh's belief that Jews wanted to drag America into WWII

On a side note, it's very much a good thing that American Jews are taking a more critical view of Israel, but we ought to maintain our stance on Israel even if this were not the case. Support for the two-state solution is based on the principle of self-determination, and such principles should not be subject to popular will.

I agree. The larger issue this is part of, though, is the legitimation since the 1960s of "victimization politics." I believe they began with worthy causes and in proportional degree, but, inevitably, teaching people that this or that narrative is what gets them what they want teaches them to seem that way. Abusing idealism destroys it.