Harry’s Place

Strange how many Jew-haters - oops, meant to say Jew-obsessives - insist on peddling their trash on this site.

Here’s another particularly nasty piece doing its rounds on the internet:
“The Truth About Those Hamas Rockets”
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4186.shtml

yeah, it’s the prerogative of the middle class guilt-ridden fuckwits who missed out on the miners’ strike and the Poll Tax riots that their parents were all in favour off.

They always get it wrong.
Jew-hating is their thing these days.

I remember when I was much younger reading an interview with Roxy Music where Eno declared, in all seriousness, that he was from the planet Xenon.

I wonder what planet he thinks he’s on now, the daft bastard.

Very true Kendod’sdad’sdog’s dead

Eno - a man of huge musical talent and a child-like understanding of the world was on Question Time once. The poor boy was out of his depth.

He said that America invaded Iraq so it could have bases there. Of course American has more bases than it knows what to do with, its always closing them down, but the talented ninkompoop didn’t know.

He seemed like a very nice, middle class, guilty White Guardianista who’d had a very privialaged life. It was sad to see someone I’d always admired make such a fool of himself on TV.

But then again, the Guardian-BBC is largely made up of Middle Class kids of Public and Grammar school education, who live privialaged lives, feel awfuly guilty and want to kick the very society that has given them so much.

I have a suspicion that many get a thrill from mixing it up with Hammas and Islamists. Like the Lord of the Manor’s daughter shagging the gardener. Its a bit of rough, a bit of naughty fun.

I missed the BBC documentary about Islam and science. I’m guessing they invented all of it or it wouldn’t have been on BBC4.

“I missed the BBC documentary about Islam and science. I’m guessing they invented all of it or it wouldn’t have been on BBC4.”

yeah, let’s turn this into a bash Islam thread, for a change.

Sounds good to me

It isn’t Buddhism that wants to wipe out Israel, Waseem.

You make Brian Eno look like an odd duck when in reality his views are in the mainstream, and in fact reflect the attitude of young American Jews:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3446492,00.html

Study: US Jews distance themselves from Israel

Feelings of attachment to Israel declining among non-Orthodox American Jews, and are replaced by indifference and even alienation, study finds. Only 48% think Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, only 54% ‘comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state’

Young non-Orthodox US Jews are becoming increasingly lukewarm if not alienated in their support for Israel in a trend that is not likely to be reversed, according to a study released on Thursday.

Blending into US society, including marriage to non-Jews and a tendency to look on Judaism more in religious terms than ethnic ones, is part of what’s happening, the study found.

“For our parent’s generation, the question that mattered was, how do we regard Israel? For Generation Y (born after 1976) the question is indeed, why should we regard Israel?” said Roger Bennett, a vice president of The Andrea and Charles Bronfman philanthropies, which sponsored the study.

“Until people recognize that a healthy and animated dialogue about Israel is the first step to a meaningful connection, the ‘Israel debate’ that takes place in America is liable to become moot well before Israel celebrates its 100th birthday,” he added.

US support backed by a vocal and politically powerful Jewish lobby has been a key feature of the Jewish state’s success since its founding in 1948, an event that is widely backed by US Jews and non-Jews.

But the study found that “feelings of attachment may well be changing as warmth gives way to indifference, and indifference gives way even to downright alienation.”

The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older.

In addition, only 54% of those under the age of 35 are “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State” as opposed to 81% of those 65 and older.

(clip)

Damn. How do you say rich, powerful, and influential Jews vocally and strongly support the Israeli government? In my view, nationalists are the same the world over: it’s my country right or wrong, and its all hands to the pump when its war. But apparently its antisemitic to say that about Jews. It happens to be fact, of course, and indeed there is nothing exceptional with lobbying for or supporting a country and its government you love - that is nationalism. Jews do it, and other folks do it too.

It seems necessary for HP to deal with criticism of Israel, such as Eno’s, by associating it with antisemitism, if not saying it is antisemitic itself. Other criticisms are described as straightforwardly antisemitic when they may or may not be. If this habit becomes knee-jerk it is a weakness, and there is danger of ‘crying wolf’ too often. I think there needs to be robust way of dealing with criticism of a nation state and its government without appearing to fall into the trap of exceptionalism.

The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older.

In addition, only 54% of those under the age of 35 are “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State” as opposed to 81% of those 65 and older.

Luckily they all get older and wiser.

AsaJew and the Cult of Jew baiting

Isn’t Jew baiting fun!! Its easy to do and immediately gratifying. Some of the posters love coming to HP just to do this. And when Jew baiters assemble as they have on Counterpunch in next to no time they allow themselves to get carried away by their anti-Semitic hatred with each writer eager to outdo the next in his/her anti-semetic tirade.

Its easy to see why. To the anti-semite Jews are everywhere and nowhere. They are all powerful and at the same time impotent weaklings. They are cunning and nefarious, yet pitiable but vicious. They can be guilty of any crime, and have always been are guilty of everything, yet never responsible for anything. They always shape world events but are insignificant and few in number. One can go on and on ….. its easy.
To the non Jewish Jew baiter, Jews are supernatural beings and as such fascinating.

And pointing the finger at Jews never harms anyone’s careers, or social standing, quite the opposite - as long as they don’t have to work in Hollywood (sorry Mel Gib … get your timing better next time) .

The Jewish Jew baiter is a more interesting phenomenon – yet one can see why from Norm Finkelstein to Bobby Fisher why Jews cant resist to get in on the Jew baiting – my latest favourite Jew baiting Jew is Alexi “AsaJew” Sayle – he just couldn’t resist.

AsaJew reminds us – that the easiest Jews to bait are the “Zionists” – Hitler temporarily made Jew baiting unfashionable – but with Zionists its another thing alltogeter – all the old sterotypes can be redeployed.

AsaJew reminds us that Zionists have the psychology of “rapists” and “murderers” – they go out of their way to besmirch the innocent “AsaJew Jews” of this world Jews, they are accomplished liars. They shame him.

And AsaJew doesn’t want to feel bad and ashamed – for it is only recently that AsaJew has realised that he is in some way connected to Jews.

Israelis have the psychology of murders rapist and bully
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7808005.stm

criticism and shame at “that country”
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iNwwa825wBM

“they” are accomplished liars
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n0sYcrje6nw

AsaJew bonding with friends

Rees
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1VxLxE1kcCs&feature=related

Eno
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOYOZzEu-4&feature=related

Martin Luther wrote in his seminal “On the Jews and Their Lies” that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”… that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,” and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut …” He argued that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.”

Shame Luther is long dead – he could have edited Counterpunch and befriended Alexi Sayle – they could have had hours of fun swapping Jew jokes.

He seemed like a very nice, middle class, guilty White Guardianista who’d had a very privialaged life.

Yes, its remarkable how skin colour, class, education and privilege suddenly become important about a person when you happen to disagree with them.

But then again, the Guardian-BBC is largely made up of Middle Class kids of Public and Grammar school education, who live privialaged lives, feel awfuly guilty and want to kick the very society that has given them so much.

Ah, of course. Having criticisms of foreign policy and war is “kicking the very society that has given you so much”.

So has anyone actually worked out whether this Brian Cloughley chappy is actually an antisemite? It’s a rather serious charge. Having an article in Counterpunch and a couple of editorialised copy and paste quotes at HP are not really enough evidence for the prosecution.

Benjy, I write this somewhat tentatively, since I’ve seen you engaging with others on here - and frankly, part of me would happy to remain a spectator. But I’ll take the plunge and ask you to explain how Cloughley’s comment differs from David Duke’s.

maybe off topic but my wife (Indonesian) always complains about BBC being biased against Indonesia - constant references to “moslem country/most populous etc” when it does not merit such comment. When I met the local BBC reporter last year and said she should meet my wife, she shunned me - seemed public school, type to me. Keeping her name secret to save her any embrassment.

Two or three generations ago, say, between WW1 and WW2, artists followed all kinds of political orientations. There were all kinds of poets, musicians, painters, actors etc.: hardline communists, trots, fascists, nazis, democratas, nationalists, right-wing Catholics, left-wing Catholics, zionists, antizionists, indifferent, nationalists, antinationalists, patriots, antipatriots, anarchists and so on. It seems that the menu has shrinked a lot lately and, when it comes to politics, mainly foreign politics, all of them think basically the same. Maybe there has never been another era when the huge majority of artists thought in so uniform a way. There’s nothing so globalized as this unanimity and, of course, whoever disagrees with any part of it is unanimously called a neocon.

Hi Ben,

Duke, I think, believes in global conspiracy of malign and perfidious Jews that is bad for America - presumably similar to some in the militia or patriot movement.

Cloughley says:

“There are thousands like him in the UK and the US. They unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans and policy and wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses. Killing Palestinians is Israeli policy, and these people spare no effort to justify it”

Here he is referring to rich, influential Jews who strongly support Israel. Israel is the Jewish state by definition. It is perfectly obvious that rich, influential Jews would support and campaign for Israel, and simply noting that is not antisemitic per se. Disapproving of their supportive actions on the basis that he disagrees with the policies of the government of Israel while they do (particularly over war) is not antisemitic per se.

These comments could indicate antisemitism but you need to establish that Cloughley believes that all Jews are malign and perfidious and that he believes in a global Jewish conspiracy.

Simply saying that a statement, taken out of context, is similar to one by David Duke (from another context) is not sufficient evidence, in itself, to establish antisemitism.

So has anyone actually worked out whether this Brian Cloughley chappy is actually an antisemite?

One exhibit, writing for a Muslim audience about Obama:

In President-elect Barack Obama’s speech to AIPAC in June, he declared that he “first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture…I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an Israeli Defence Force helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean.

….

His “narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean” was never Jewish land: it was Arab land until it was seized by the Zionists.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2008\11\12\story_12-11-2008_pg3_4

Never? Ever? Ok.

When folk talk about rich, influential Jews supporting Israel, it is perfectly understandable why the alarm bells should start ringing. After all, there is a clear history of antisemitism that uses similar language. However this does not mean it is axiomatic that all such individuals are antisemitic.

George Soros is a rich, influential, American Jew. Is he a “Likudnik” too?

However this does not mean it is axiomatic that all such individuals are antisemitic.

Sure, but when such an individual is also in the business of writing that Israel “was never Jewish land: it was Arab land until it was seized by the Zionists,” you might have found someone who happens to be more than a run of the mill/mere “critic of Israeli policy,” no?

was never Jewish land: it was Arab land until it was seized by the Zionists.

This is not an antisemitic statement per se. It may be wrong, but it is not necessarily antisemitic. This may fall in the category of ‘circumstantial evidence’. Of course many antisemites have that view, but it is possible not to be an antisemite and still hold that view (however erroneous).

Possible, but highly unlikely.

Besides, plenty (I’d say most, that view history as playing a role in the conflict at all) of legitimately pro-Palestinian people get by on the “just because it was ONCE Jewish land doesn’t mean that it should be now” argument.

Stating that Israel was “never Jewish land” bumps you into non-credible subject matter expert, at a minimum. But the more likely explanation has already been discussed. Counterpunch deals in both, unfortunately for them.

It is perfectly obvious that rich, influential Jews would support and campaign for Israel

Only if you are an antisemite. If you actually knew very many rich Jews, you would know that a significant proportion, if not majority, are not particularly interested in Israel, or Judaism for that matter. But that would involve learning about Jews in the real world, offline.

Only if you are an antisemite.

How very odd. You presumably accept that some rich and powerful Jewish people support and campaign for Israel. You presumably agree that these folk can band together to form various bodies of support. This seems a perfectly natural and acceptable way to go about things. These folk can be influential, that is certainly their aim.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. There are numerous support groups and campaign groups concerned with various areas. It seems to me quite natural that some Jewish people would support the self-identified Jewish state of Israel. Now, there is nothing antisemitic, per se, about saying all; antisemitism is the belief that Jews are necessarily malign and perfidious and that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy.

One can certainly disagree with these campaign groups if you do not agree with the policies they support, and that does not automatically indicate antisemitism either.

One really has to be careful about all this, guys - antisemitism is a very serious charge; it is a particular attitude that, in extreme form, has lead to the death and suffering of millions of people.

However, perhaps folk making critical remarks about pro-Israeli influence should make it clear they are not antisemitic, or attempt to do so, to at least try to avoid all the silly shouting matches. Its a terribly strained and sensitive area, which is understandable.

What I do love about these people is their refusal to admit that the seat of power, the government in Israel is actually in Jerusalem.

“They unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans”

Would that be going clubbing?

The “Jews-should-know-better”

They must stick to what they know best. Getting killed for coming out of the wrong womb and accepting it.

Jews obviously don’t know how to fight and should be banned by International Law from defending themselves.

The role of the Jew is to take it. Defending oneself is actually an act of agression if one is a Jew.

An excellent point from Gabriel, which I think points to one of the most weird and interesting aspects of all this - namely, the complete disconnect between the small, very nice and deeply human and therefore flawed country that is Israel, and the strange, huge, metallic, satanic, occult entity that one finds emerging from the minds of the haters.

look i think the anti-semitism thing gets thrown around too liberally here too. But i think it’s appropriate to consider anti-semitism (though perhaps not the traditional right-wing kind) when the German analogies start flying around, such as, for example, Eno’s comparison of the Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza. Gaza would have to sink several significant degrees lower to even approach the Warsaw Ghetto in terms of human horror, and yet Eno has loads of company gleefully making these comparisons, and I believe they do it simply to hurt or sneer at Jews. There doesn’t seem any other explanation for it. Saying the Israelis perpetuated a massacre is a very serious charge, as a massacre is a horrific crime. But calling it genocide or a “holocaust,” that’s different. I’m reminded of a tom waits song about the “heartbreak of psoriasis” where he says, “buddy you don’t know the meaning of heartbreak.” Well, Eno et al don’t know the meaning of the Warsaw Ghetto, genocide or holocaust if they use those terms to describe what is a very bad situation with a few hundred dead, but hardly the worst thing going on in the world right now, much less a holocaust. Jews intuitively know this, which is why, i suspect, some too quickly raise their “anti-semite” antenna and throw out the charge when maybe they shouldn’t.

If i were penny pemberton i wouldn’t rub my hands together with glee at the results of the study. When I was in my 20s, i would certaianly have been among the 48% who would rather blithely say that the destruction of Israel wouldn’t be a personal tragedy. But then along comes an Entebbe, or a Maalot, and you know what, suddenly Israel matters a lot. From my vantage point here in Vancouver, it seems like Jewish kids today are much the same, perhaps even more devoted to their ethnicity and culture, which generally translates to supporting Israel to some degree or other.

But by all means, Penny, enjoy that warm and fuzzy glow thinking israel will just gradually slip away due to lack of support. Not gonna happen in my lifetime, i’m sure of that.

This blog entry is commenting on anti-semitism on Counterpunch.

Talking about UK jews Mr Clough says:

“they unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans and policy and wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses”

One of HPs resident loons (and not the brightest one at that) posts, as he has done many times, an 18 month old newspaper article as evidence that Israel is about to implode. The article is actually about how jews in diaspora countries are losing interest in and support for Israel.

Obviously the discrepancy between the two narratives is lost on this particular moron. Are jews mindlessly parroting the ‘Tel Aviv’ line, or have they lost interest in Israel. Perhaps Penny/Ahmed should go away and think about it, rather than posting the same old article again and again? Thinking is good.

Yes, the Clough comments are anti-semitic.

Generally I find a good barometer of whether or not someone/something is anti-semitic is if the idiot Hong Kong Benjamin is on here defending it.

MattG

To spell it out for Benji and all the other left liberals who seem to be in denial on this point, Cloughley said:

‘And this rabbi was British. Here we have a British citizen supporting hatred and bigotry on a BBC religious program. But of course he isn’t really British. He is an Israeli religious propagandist of British citizenship whose main allegiance is to Israel. There are thousands like him in the UK and the US. They unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans and policy and wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses. Killing Palestinians is Israeli policy, and these people spare no effort to justify it.’

Cloughley is saying that if a British citizen who is also a rabbi supports the Israeli military actions, it proves he is not really British.

I don’t know who this rabbi is and I haven’t heard him, so cannot comment on what he actually said. But I believe that a British citizen should be able freely to express his or her views on a foreign conflict - no matter how outrageous those views might be - without their nationality being called into question. For example, Neil Clark or George Galloway may support the UK’s enemies against it on pretty much every occasion, but that doesn’t make them less British than the PM or the Queen. And I don’t think anyone seriously suggests otherwise.

On this occasion, however, a British Jew expresses his viewpoint, and Cloughley attacks him for not being properly British; for being ‘Israeli’. If a British citizen who was not Jewish were to express identical views to the rabbi in question, it would not have been possible for Cloughley to attack him in this way.

Having established that the rabbi is ‘not really British’ but ‘Israeli’, Cloughley then goes on to say that ‘there are thousands like him in the UK and the US’. This can only mean thousands of British Jews who aren’t ‘really British’, and thousands of US Jews who aren’t ‘really American’. And these un-British Jews, says Cloughley, wield ‘amazing influence over politicians and businesses’.

Can I make it any clearer, Benji ?

So Benji you think a subset of jews wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses?

Let me guess what you think: not exactly no, although we can’t be sure what he meant by that, further reading could help here, but in any case the issue is quite complicated and there are two sides to the story you see. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, but be that as it may perhaps a more nuanced take on the situation would ultimately be more appropriate. Maybe. All else being equal of course. However, one must be careful, folk can be misconstrued. Notwithstanding that, circumstances can change.

Another question - you always include a link to your blog when you post here. Yet you never have anything to say there - instead you spend every single day of your life complaining about Harry’s Place, at Harry’s Place.

So why include the link?

MAB

Cloughley believes that the rabbi in question has a loyalty to Israel that supersedes loyalty to the UK. I don’t think there is enough evidence for that. However, is claiming that the rabbi lacks patriotism for Britain, that he is ‘not British’, and that he is an ‘Israeli religious propagandist’, really an indicator of antisemitism, i.e. that he thinks all Jews are malign and perfidious and there is a secret Jewish conspiracy?

Again, it may be indicator of it, but it may not. It depends, partly, on what value you put on patriotism to Britain, and your view of that. For me, its of no value, so the statement that a Jew is committed to Israel, over and above the UK, is of no concern, irrespective of the truth of the allegation. Of course Cloughley has it wrong anyway on the British thing anyway, since the old chap is British, but his point was about the loyalty of this particular rabbi. Whether or not stating that denotes antisemitism per se (i.e. seeing all Jews as malign and perfidious), on the part of Cloughley, is unclear.

Counterpunch is really quite weird - it does a good job of channeling Chomskyite bilge. Often, like in this instance, it’s rather malevolently nasty.

Mr Danger

I updated my blog today.

So Benji you think a subset of jews wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses?

No, not amazing, that’s a stupid word. I can’t remember when I was last amazed by anything, at least not in the political world. I am just saying you can say that without necessarily being antisemitic. (The subset being referred to are religiously inspired Jews who are deeply committed Israel’s foreign and military policy.)

The word that is most worrying is ‘businesses’ actually.

I wrote a letter making thorough nonsense (I thought) of Penny Pemberton’s statistics about indifferent Jews in The USA and I must have clicked on something that made it disappear. Just now, I don’t feel up to starting again.

A few points:
The indifference and alienation from politics and culture are widespread and would lead to similar results on a lot of subjects with most groups.

Try these survey questions:

Do the music of J.S. Bach and the plays of Shakespeare make any difference to your life?

Do you know the name of your Minister of Justice?

My impression is that the questions in Pemberton’s cited survey were vague and aiming for the answers they got - and were something of an insult to intelligence.

If someone stopped me in the street and asked me: “Do you feel comfortable with the existence of the state of Italy (to which an ex-German province now belongs)?” I would refuse to answer the question (as it makes no sense).

Since Penny indicates that the people questioned were already indifferent and alienated (as many are from politics), what point is there in asking them questions about things they don’t know and aren’t interested in?

If “Only 48% think Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them,” does this favour the effective destruction of Israel?

How can one even bring up a question like that? The question itself is barbaric. It treats the annihilation of Israel as a hypothetical fait accompli, not as some future possibility, and without any thought for the horrific consequences. People who answer questionnaires should have some idea of what they are talking about.

Sociological and anthropological studies show that survey guinea pigs will answer one way and then, if you happen to catch one of them for a coffee, express entirely different views. This realisation has changed the way anthropolgists work.

If the Islamic Fundamentalists ever got half a chance, there would be more bloodshed and holocausts than the world has ever known and not only of the Jewish people. They have to be stopped.

Pseudo left-wing fundamentalists play into their hands. They say the tradionally rapacious capatilists have been bad. Yes, they have, and that should be worked on seriously. But the whole history of the world has been bad in that sense. Unfortunately the Islamic opponents of our world are not better, but worse. This is the problem that has to be unravelled.

In the middle of Penny’s citations there is a sudden, odd leap to the idea of a reanimated relationship between indifferent Jews and Israel, but this is quickly forgotten, as the main aim of her mail is antagonism toward Israel.

Those indifferent Jews will rediscover their identity when murder begins to stalk them directly. I hope it doesn’t

(Somehow, I feel unsatisfied. My lost letter was better. These problems are so complex that it is hard to find the right words)

I have no doubt that vast majority of Jewish Americans are loyal to the US in the same way as other ethnic groups in the US are loyal, but some of them are not, just as some members of other groups are not. But rather than engage in generalities as Benjamin does, I would like to give an example of a highly placed Jewish American from the Bush administration whose activities strongly suggests that he is loyal to Israel rather than the US.

Douglas Feith comes from a strongly Zionist background, and he has been a prominent figure in the US Zionist movement. He has, for example, served on the board of the hardline Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA), and in 1997 the Zionist Organisation of America honoured Feith and his father for their pro-Israel activism at a dinner.

In 1996 Feith was part of a private group including Richard Perle and David Wurmser that produced the very detailed ‘Clean Break’ report for Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This report recommended that Israel should adopt a more aggressive role in the region and also advised that Israel should depose Saddam Hussein. In 1997, Feith wrote ‘A Strategy for Israel’, a paper which stated that Israel should re-occupy the area under Palestinian control even though “the price in blood would be high”.

In July 2001, he was appointed as Undersecretary of Defense in Bush’s administration, the third highest position in the Department of Defense. Feith was in charge of the Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit. It was these two groups that manufactured a large proportion of the false evidence that led the US to war with Iraq.

In January 2002, the department with which these two groups were connected was purged of long time civil servants by Feith and another radical Zionist Harold Rhode. They replaced these employees with people of a more neoconservative outlook, many of whom were from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). In the department’s final form, David Wurmser worked directly under Feith, while Richard Perle had direct input to the groups.

It was these facts and others that led intelligence expert James Bamford to say in his book A Pretext for War (2005) “The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors [Douglas Feith, Richard Perle (Study Group leader), and David Wurmser]”. It was also in reference to this that Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar said in Ha’aretz in 2002 that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.

Under Feith, the Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation group deliberately bypassed normal intelligence channels, and passed off unsubstantiated data as verified fact. In 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence carried out an investigation into the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. One of the committee’s members, Senator Carl Levin, said “An alternative intelligence assessment process was established in the office of Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith . . . that was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. His staff then conducted its own review of raw intelligence reports, including reporting of dubious quality or reliability. Drawing upon both reliable and unreliable reporting, they arrived at an ‘alternative’ interpretation of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration.”

Levin goes on to say “Misleading or inaccurate statements about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship made by senior Administration officials were not supported by IC analyses but more closely reflected the Feith policy office views. These assessments included, among others, allegations by the President that Iraq was an “ally” of al Qaeda; assertions by National Security Advisor Rice and others that Iraq “had” provided training in WMD to al Qaeda; and continued representations by Vice President Cheney that Mohammed Atta may have met with an Iraq intelligence officer before the 9/11 attacks when the CIA didn’t believe the meeting took place”

Levin asked the Department of Defense Inspector General to carry out an investigation. The Inspector General’s report, released in 2007, stated “The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers”. It also comments “The Inspector General also finds that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy was inappropriately performing Intelligence activities of developing, producing, and disseminating that should be performed by the Intelligence Community”.

On an earlier thread, ‘Global Stakes in Gaza’, I posted a number of quotes by very senior figures in the US who maintained that the view is widespread in US public life that the America went to war with Iraq in large part to strengthen Israel. One of those I quoted, Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired US Army Colonel and Colin Powell’s chief of Staff, says “A lot of these guys, including [David] Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with [Douglas] Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”

It seems clear that people like Feith were acting to an unacceptably large extent for Israel. Both the evidence and the statements of numerous well-placed figures support this view. They have also damaged the image of the Jewish Diaspora, and the fact that Lobbyists such as Abe Foxman continue to attack all mentions of dual loyalty serves only to make the situation worse, especially as more and more evidence has appeared since Mearsheimer and Walt published their first paper on the matter in 2006.

Among the other Jewish Americans in the Bush administration who have been mentioned in connection with ‘dual-loyalty’ issues are Paul Wolfowitz (number two in the Department of Defense under Rumsfeld), Lewis Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff), Richard Perle (Chairman of Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee), Elliott Abrams (Special Assistant to Bush), David Wurmser (worked under Feith), Dov Zakheim (Foreign policy advisor), and a number of others.

In regard to the present debate, there is, on the one side, people like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who, along with others like Stephen Sniegoski, are making the US public aware of the situation; and on the other side, there is the Israel Lobby that is attempting, and failing, to distort the truth.

I don’t expect Ben Cohen will agree with this analysis. After all, his blog, Z-Word, is sponsored by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), an integral part of the Lobby and a group that can count Elliott Abrams (above) as one of its former members. In fact, it was the AJC that published “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an essay that caused outrage in the US Jewish community.

The Jewish newspaper Forward said of Rosenfeld’s essay “From its sensationalist title to its tired invocation of the Holocaust in the opening paragraph to its closing words about the ‘drift of ‘progressive’ Jewish thought, the slim essay is a shocking tissue of slander”. They go on to say “Explaining nuance would muddy the essay’s apparent intent, which is to turn Jews against liberalism and silence critics”. Cecilie Surasky, founder of ‘Muzzlewatch’, a site that tracks ‘efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy’, says “The report is a kind of black-listing by a major Jewish organizations of other Jews”.

Noted Jewish-American commentator Matthew Yglesias responded to the essay with the article ‘Are We All Anti-Semites Now?’. He says “One doubts that any actual progressive Jews will find any of Rosenfeld’s argument persuasive. That, however, is hardly the point. Rather, the existence of strident Jewish criticism of Israel poses a threat to the taboo on non-Jews criticising Israel. After all, one might think, if Jews are saying it, surely a non-Jew can say it, too - and without being accused of anti-Semitism. Thus comes the AJC essay, a brief shot across the bow to warn the ‘goyim’ that nothing will spare them from being smeared”.

Incidentally, pages on the Z-Word blog have a footer indicating that the pages are copyright of the American Jewish Committee. Since articles by Z-Word authors on Harry’s Place appear on the Z-Word blog as well, shouldn’t the pieces that appear on Harry’s Place have a copyright notice? Surely it is important to know that a blog is affiliated to such a group.

“There are thousands like him in the UK and the US. They unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans and policy and wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses. Killing Palestinians is Israeli policy, and these people spare no effort to justify it.”

It’s called the pro-Israeli lobby, which is not a fictitious anti-semitic bogeyman, but a real lobby with real influence. What Cloughley failed to mention was that its most formidable component is Christian not Jewish.

Saying that there are non-Israeli Jews whose allegiance is to Israel is not the same as saying all Jews’ allegiance is to Israel. And it’s certainly true that some non-israeli Jews identify more with Israel than the country they live in.

The charge that Jews are not ‘really’ loyal to the country in which they live, but rather to Israel, is not only an old one, but also terribly unoriginal…

The irony is that Jewish religious law states that all Jews owe their *first* loyalty to the nation in which they reside. This rule has existed for thousands of years; perhaps if certain people bothered to actually ask a Jew, rather than simply rant and rave about ‘hardline zionists’ etc, they could discover these facts for themselves. Nor does this rule preclude many Jews from being fiercely protective of, and supportive of, Israel. We would be fools not to. History shows us that when we most needed help, no nation agreed to offer unconditional sanctuary. Thus it’s a matter of sheer self preservation that many Jews have an emotional and sometimes practical investment in Israel.

The comments cited above by Cloughley are anti semitic; indeed, I’m astonished that anyone would even question this. The notion that there is some cabal of Jews that ‘control’ or particularly ‘influence’ world events, or that have as their greatest desire the demise of the Palestinians, is a perfect example OF anti semitism.

A side note on anti semitism: it’s extremely rare for someone who is not an anti semite to actually be accused by Jews, of hating Jews. This is because anti semitism has a certain ‘tone’ that most Jews over the age of sixteen recognise with ease. Sometimes it’s blatant; sometimes far more subtle. But it’s extremely rare for decent people who don’t hate Jews to ever incorporate that tone in their remarks, no matter how critical of Israel they might be.

A thought on the much-used word ‘zionist’: when Muslims support their numerous Islamic nations, they are still ‘muslims’ or ‘Islamists’; when Americans support America, they are ‘patriots’. Ditto for most nationalities. It is only when a Jew supports the Jewish state that suddenly, we cease being Jews and become ‘zionists’. And it’s become a dirty word; I almost got lynched at a dinner party recently for mentioning that I am indeed a zionist.

zionist = person who thinks Israel has the right to exist

That’s all it means. Nothing more. There is nothing within zionism that is inherently ‘anti palestinian’ nor ‘expansionist’ nor ‘radical’. I think it’s time to reclaim the word and remind the world that ‘zionist’ is NOT just a new version of ‘nazi’ - a notion which is expressed by far too many people at present.

Here I am again, although I should be sticking to poetry rather than politics. (Poetry tells the truth more than any politician is able to do). My comments are necessarily naive, while awaiting others that are more authoritative.

Is Ala above surprised that many Jews identify with Israel after centuries of persecution? Here is an entity (I’m trying to avoid the word ’state’) which says, “No, we are not going to be sent passively to gas chambers, and if anyone tries to put us there, they are in for a hard time.”

The long letter by Ken Fulcrum is to be taken seriously. Maybe there is an influential Jewish lobby in the USA government. Bush was certainly deceived about nuclear arms in Iraq. While no-one could possibly regret the demise of Saddam Hussein, my impression watching TV news at the time was that Bush and Blair were suffering under the impact of 9/11 and that any excuse would have done for them to attack Iran. In this sense, Iran was something of a scapegoat for the horror and rage of 9/11. Osama ben Laden chuckled with uncontrolled mirth in his hideout as he watched and rewatched the twin towers going down. But even someone as politically naive as I am could foresee that there would be chaos in Iraq after the removal of Hussein.

The intentions of Bush and Blaire at the time were to hunt down Islamic terrorism into its last hiding place. This intention has weakened considerably. As HP has revealed bloodthirsty Islamists are hobnobbing with ‘liberals’ all over the place. The Islamists have something much more powerful tham a mere lobby in pseudo left-wing fundamentalism in the West.

I am not expert enough - but supposing everything Ken Fulcrum writes in his letter were true. Why is he concentrating all his attention on this particular Machiavellian lobby and not on the others? Hamas don’t need a lobby, they have the support of the entire retrograde Islamic world which openly takes pride in vicious barbarism.

Maybe I’ve see too many films, read too many newspaper articles, or maybe the truth exceeds their tale, but no-one is innocent in this network of lobbies, secret services, 007 schemes and murders, no-one can point a finger at others. Yet something as simple as the cessation of rocket attacks on Israel could take a first step in the opposite direction. For those who are concerned about the killing of women and children - as though grown up men were dispensable - should reflect on the consequences of persisting in the aim of annihilating Israel -; they should take a step back to spare their women and children, rather than indoctrinating them with hatred from the age of two. However Israel came into existence, it is now a fact that cannot be eradicated without infinite suffering. It’s time to stop and think of people’s lives whatever jurisdiction they live under. Not the least of considerations is the fact that Israel, at the moment, seems to be the only halfway civilised country in the area. It does not hang gays from cranes or have acid thrown into the faces of school girls.

The Arabic people have such a great promise of beauty and joy in them - I know this from experience - don’t let that go down the drain to end in this ferocious dead end of history. There are people whose minds can’t be changed, but there are also many who are capable of waking up from ideological stragleholds, like most of the German people after the defeat of Hitler.

Ever notice that people like Brian Cloughley only seem to care about loyalty to one’s country when they are bashing Jews for allegedly not having it?

Well said, Tabatha.

Cloughley says: ‘Any nation that has behaved towards a subject people, as Israel has to Palestinians, is worthy only of utter contempt.’

He’s not saying that the Israeli government or ‘ruling class’ is worthy only of utter contempt; he’s saying this about the entire Israeli nation. I rarely look at Counterpunch, but I very much doubt it has ever used this sort of language to describe Turkey over its treatment of the Kurds, or Indonesia over its treatment of East Timor, for example. To say nothing of Iran, Russia, China…

Ever notice that people like Brian Cloughley only seem to care about loyalty to one’s country when they are bashing Jews for allegedly not having it?

Bashing Jews, or bashing a rabbi, who he describes as a ‘Israeli religious propagandist’? Suddenly you move onto generalities.

‘Any nation that has behaved towards a subject people, as Israel has to Palestinians, is worthy only of utter contempt.’

This statement is a bit like saying Britain deserves utter contempt for the Amritsar massacre. When people talk of the nation like that, they are often talking about the state or government. They might be right or wrong. But it does not necessarily mean they are racist, and in Cloughley’s case it does not necessarily mean he thinks all Jews are malign or perfidious.

The notion that there is some cabal of Jews that ‘control’ or particularly ‘influence’ world events, or that have as their greatest desire the demise of the Palestinians, is a perfect example OF anti semitism.

He didn’t there was a cabal of Jews controlling anything. He said that Israel has influential Jewish supporters. That is simply fact, which is wholly understandable and natural. It’s a fact that can be noted by antisemites and non-antisemites alike, in different contexts. Indeed, its noted by Jews too. He stated killing Palestinians is Israeli policy (one can agree or disagree, but its not an antisemitic comment per se) and he notes that these supporters justify Israeli policy.

RE: Surely it is important to know that a blog is affiliated to such a group.

To you, perhaps.

I find the entire tone of your post to be willing to swallow whole a variety of so-called progressive postulates (MersheimerWalt, Rosenfeld as a Jewish McCarthy, etc.) but unwilling to accept the postulate that singling out Jews (there’s that singling out again) for this “dual loyalty” accusation might possibly be due to some anti-semitism, perhaps. Is that too much for a “progressive” mind to accept.

As a centre-left Jew who used to be publicly critical of Israeli policy (until I saw how such criticism was twisted and used by Israel-haters and so-called progressives), I am not terribly interested in the howls of Jewish progressives regarding Rosenfeld. The implied accusations of McCarthyism are silly: There are, after all, no consequences to being on Rosenfeld’s imaginary “list.” And when you think about it, how is his “list” different from the “mearsheimer/walt” list you so faithfully reproduced in summary fashion in your posting. It should be pointed out that you seem to accept at face value the statements by the so-called progressives, in the same sort of way that “progressives” like to quote the “historical” work of Ilan Pappe, for whom inconvenient facts are things to brushed aside in the service of ideology.
Finally, the concluding smear of Z-blog is, ridiculous. A blog is a collection of individuals writing opinions and posters responding to them. Does anybody seriously believe that if the AJC weren’t the sponsor of this blog, it would be any different. Are the other unaffiliated pro-israel blogs any different. This just seems to be another seemingly reasonable but in fact sly and malicious way of pointing out that Jewish sources or sources even remotely funded by Jews aren’t to be trusted.
In short, the post, despiite its moderate tone, is not an edifying display.

I am genuinely interested to know whether Brian Cloughley is actually an antisemite. I certainly do not discount the possibility, I just have not seen conclusive evidence to date. If anyone has any, I’m all ears.

yeah, let’s turn this into a bash Islam thread, for a change.

Any thoughts about that islamistsuicide bomber that blew away 47 muslims in an Iraqi mosques a few days back?

Any thoughts at all, darlin’?

When are you going to get offyour stick, Waseem, open your mouth and tell these people that “Islam-means-peace” and that they’re all misunderstaning the peaceful nature of their religion?

It isn’t Buddhism that wants to wipe out Israel, Waseem.

Waseem is fascinated by islam’s total perfection, Morgoth.

Think about it…”Islam-and-science”

It’s a bit like juxtaposing “Mother Teresa and hot sex”

Benjamin:

You ask for ‘evidence’ that Cloughley is an anti semite. Yet you have been provided with ample evidence, at the start of this thread. The fact that you fail to recognise what we might call ‘classical’ anti semitic themes in his comment does not negate the fact that he *is* an anti semite. Read his remark again. Slowly.

“”There are thousands like him in the UK and the US. They unconditionally promote Tel Aviv’s plans and policy and wield amazing influence over politicians and businesses. Killing Palestinians is Israeli policy, and these people spare no effort to justify it.”

- you don’t see the bigotry in this? The unfounded and frankly downright paranoid statement that there are ‘thousands’ of these Jews sneaking around the UK and USA, who ‘promote Tel Aviv’s plans’?

And what is this ‘amazing influence’ that he refers to? You have argued that because he does not *literally* state that ‘all jews’ are actively trying to take over the world, he can’t be labelled ‘anti semitic’. Allow me to introduce you to the concept of SUB TEXT.

The sentiment of those remarks is blatantly anti semitic. No further ‘evidence’ is required. Case closed!

“However, is claiming that the rabbi lacks patriotism for Britain, that he is ‘not British’, and that he is an ‘Israeli religious propagandist’, really an indicator of antisemitism…?”

Surely it depends how one defines ‘antisemitism’. I would say ‘antisemitism’ means, minimally, ‘discriminating unjustly against Jews (assuming there is a such a thing as justly discriminating against Jews)’.

if you think ‘any British Jew’s sympathising with Israel’s actions is no longer British’ is a legitimate thing to say, then you would not say such a thing is antisemitic.

Felix,

You ask “Why is he concentrating all his attention on this particular Machiavellian lobby and not on the others?” Well, aside from the fact that this thread is really about Jewish lobbyists, the Muslim Lobby does not have a fraction of the influence that the Israel Lobby had at the time of the Iraq War. How many high ranking Muslims who have, crucially, close connections to pro-Arab groups are there in the UK’s department of defence?

In my view, the dual loyalty charges that are made against certain Jewish Americans in the Bush administration are well-founded. Moreover, the data in the above post represents only a fraction of the information supporting such a claim, and it is obvious that when Bush’s term ends there will be more facts available.

The view is also widely held. Here is an excerpt from a 2004 CBS interview with Anthony Zinni, a US four-star General: “Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as ‘the neo-conservatives’ who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby. Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

‘I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do…I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from’”.

And here is a quote from the Jewish newspaper Forward: “According to [Barry] Jacobs, a former State Department official with broad contacts in Washington’s bureaucracy, the notion that American Jews and Pentagon neoconservatives conspired to push the United States into war against Iraq, and possibly also against Iran, is pervasive in Washington’s intelligence community”.

So it is hardly suprising that the view is widely held outside the US administration as well.

I would like to address Ken’s comments on the ‘jewish lobby’.

Firstly, the term is somewhat deceptive. It implies some united and highly organised movement. In fact, the ‘jewish lobby’ comprises a number of various groups, most of whom disagree on many things, up to and including the reasons *for* supporting Israel in the first place.

I would also query Ken’s comments on the ‘muslim lobby’ being so much less powerful. CAIR seems to have quite a lot of pull, and isn’t anyone worried that at least one founding member has openly stated he hopes to see America ultimately become an Islamic state…? Not to mention that several members have been investigated for alleged ‘terrorist activities’.

CAIR is, arguably, far more well funded than the ‘jewish lobby’ could ever hope to be. Interestingly, though, it provokes a fraction of the ire that the ‘jewish lobby’ seems to.

Ken

As a reply to this second mail of yours addressed to me, I suggest you reread my mail.. with greater attention. Nothing changes.

It’s a pity there wasn’t a powerful Tibetan lobby in the USA with dual loyalties in favour of a humaner world.

Vildechaye,

I have not swallowed any ‘progressive postulates’; I have simply put forward well-established facts in support of the claim that Douglas Feith was more concerned with advancing Israel’s interests than those of the US. And if a radical Zionist who has previously advised the Israeli Prime Minister to depose Saddam Hussein is later found manipulating evidence to make a US attack on Iraq more likely, then I think such a claim is entirely plausible.

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, it is entirely wrong. If an Irish- American who had connections to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and who had been honoured by the Gaelic League of America was subsequently found manipulating US immigration policy in favour of Irish immigrants, then it would not be remotely anti-Irish American to suggest that dual loyalty issues are relevant. Nor am I implying anything at all about the wider Jewish American community, nearly eighty percent of whom rejected McCain’s patently more aggressive Neoconservative stance.

The charge of ‘singling out’ is also incorrect. Douglas Feith was in charge of the two departments that produced the false evidence that led to the Iraq war, and it was Feith and his departments that Carl Levin and the Inspector General of Defense were specifically criticising. In regard to the other Jewish Americans I referred to, all of them have close connections with groups having a strong pro-Israel outlook.

Concerning the ‘smear’ of the Z-Word blog, you say “A blog is a collection of individuals writing opinions and posters responding to them. Does anybody seriously believe that if the AJC weren’t the sponsor of this blog, it would be any different”.

In the words of Z-Word itself “Z Word is an editorially independent creation of the American Jewish Committee (AJC)”. Given this fact, and the fact that the AJC also sponsors the Z-Word blog, it seems to me quite reasonable to suggest that the blog would be different were it not for its connections to the AJC, notwithstanding the claim that it is ‘editorially independent’. Is it not a rational inference to say that bloggers would be naturally inclined to the AJC line and less inclined to express dissent? At the very least, I think readers should be informed of the connection, because Z-Word is not an ordinary blog. Ordinary blogs are not founded and supported by advocacy organisations with millions of dollars at their disposal and a definite agenda.

Finally, it is utterly absurd to imply that I am taking this attitude towards Z-Word blog only because it is funded by a Jewish organisation. I hold the same opinion in regard to all blogs that are set up and supported by advocacy organisations. And I believe this is not an unusual position.

Your arguments are very cleverly put but they ignore the context of Jewish history where Jews have always been considered “rootless cosmopolitans” and or accused of dual loyalties. Not to mention that Walt/Mearsheimer have echoes of the protocols of the elders of zion (cabal of powerful jews manipulating foreign policy of countries, controlling the media etc.)

The Irish never had to contend with anything like that.

And no i don’t accept your thesis re: the blog. There are dozens of pro-zionist blogs out there, they are independent and don’t differ in any substantial way from Z-blog. And the fact you pooh-pooh their stated “editorial independence” is revealing; the CBC is editorially independent of the CAnadian govt, people don’t normally accuse it of being influenced by Canadian govt policy because of that. Same with the Beeb. Why is a jewish blog different somehow. Like i said, underlying all the oily cleverness something else seems to be going on.

Ken Fulcrum speaks of his opposition to “all blogs that are set up and supported by advocacy organisations.” Am I missing something, or aren’t there many of these? I don’t want to go on writing all night, but there are many good things one can advocate and finance, so long as the discussion remains free and open.

With regard to our previous correspondence, Ken, maybe I’m being unfair to you, but I’m now too accustomed to seeing obsessive and fixated anti-Israel, anti-Jewish propoganda which refuse flatly to look at the infinitely greater wrongs on the other side of this spectrum.

I can’t desist: The belief in a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world goes back to Hitler. Guess who really wanted to dominate the world? Herr Adolf himself, and now Islam is trying very hard.

Tabatha,

I agree with your point. The Israel Lobby is composed of a number of different groups with different interests, although if you asked me to say what precisely those interests were, I couldn’t really tell you, because I am interested mainly in US policy regarding the Iraq War.

If you look at my first, very long, post, which is mainly concerned with Douglas Feith, you will see that while I do mention the groups he was allied to, I am more concerned with what he did as an individual in charge of the Office of Special Plans, and the same principle holds for my knowledge of all the participants from Bush downwards.

Still, I see what you mean. I said “on there other side is the Israel Lobby that is attempting, and failing, to distort the truth”, when I should in fact point out specific individuals and the groups they belong to. By the same token, you say the ‘Jewish Lobby’, when you should have said the ‘Israel Lobby’, as commentators like Max Boot and Walter Russell Mead, who have also attacked Mearsheimer and Walt, are not Jewish. As it happens, the phrase ‘the pro-Israel Lobby’ is more descriptive and less misleading than ‘the Israel Lobby’, but everyone uses the latter term.

On the subject of the current strength of the Muslim Lobby in the US, I couldn’t really give you an informed answer, but the same is true regarding my knowledge of the Israel Lobby at present.

Pemberton
The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older.

Only 48% of tyrants from the United Nations over the age of 120 believe the destruction of the world would be a major personal tragedy.

Pemberton
The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older.

Only 99.9% of African Red River Hogs believe the destruction of Arab areas, after Israel’s destruction would be beneficial for the world’s emmission figures.

Vildechaye,

You say that my questioning of the Z-Word’s blogs editorial independence is ‘revealing’. This is simply not true. The American Jewish Committee has not merely endorsed the Z-Word blog; they founded it and continue to sponsor it. I would raise questions regarding editorial independence if the parent group were a Muslim, Christian, or for that matter any other type of advocacy organisation.

Consider a couple of hypothetical questions. In regard to the Rosenfeld essay, a large section of the Jewish community was outraged not just at the essay but at the AJC itself. Now suppose the editors at Z-Blog were of the same opinion, and decided to publish a criticism as harsh as Matthew Yglesias’ (“Thus comes the AJC essay, a brief shot across the bow to warn the ‘goyim’ that nothing will spare them from being smeared”). Would the AJC allow this? Or would they allow an essay by the editors to the effect that the Israel Lobby has an adverse effect on US foreign policy, or on US public life?

I would say that the AJC would certainly take action, not because it is a Jewish organisation, but because it is an advocacy organisation, and the Z-Word blog must be in large measure an extension to a new medium of its advocacy work. And I think it is naive to imagine that the editors are not aware of this fact to some extent.

You also draw a parallel between the Z-Word blog and the AJC, and the CBC, BBC and the Canadian and British governments. Then you ask “Why is a Jewish blog different somehow”. This is pure foolishness. It is not different because it is Jewish, but because its is run by an advocacy group. I certainly do not hold the same opinion in regard to the Israeli media. Nor am I saying the AJC does not in general have commendable aims.