Adbusters makes a list of Jews

Is there any point to this article, aside from anti-Semitism?

A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the [sic] disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals – labeled “Likudniks” for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?

Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.

But, as their own list (with the Jewish names carefully marked) shows, about half of the neocons aren’t even Jewish. Sop apparently you can come to neocon opinoins about Israel without any suspicious Jewish blood influencing you in that direction.

I certainly approve of criticism of neocons – on ideological grounds, on policy grounds, or heck, on grooming grounds. But to criticize them because half of them are Jewish is anti-Semitic. What assholes.

This entry posted in Anti-Semitism. Bookmark the permalink. 

87 Responses to Adbusters makes a list of Jews

  1. 1
    Daniel says:

    And about half of their list aren’t even Neocons – ‘Gary Bauer?’ Just your plain old, run-of-the-mill, frightening, old-style conservative.

  2. Visions of Joe McCarthy and his list of communists.

    Since they even admit that most American Jews are liberal and don’t agree with Israel’s policies or American agression in the Middle East, I’m not sure why they felt the need to point out that some neocons are Jewish. This smacks of a witch hunt.

    Pogroms, anyone?

    I used to like Adbusters, before their unintentionally ironic anti-logo sneaker campaign against Nike. Yeah, that’s it. Fight consumerism and materialism with. . .consumerism and materialism.

  3. 3
    Hestia says:

    Adbusters jumped the shark when it used a picture of a naked Christina Aguilera flipping off the camera to advertise “Buy Nothing Day.”

  4. 4
    pril says:

    i saw that over at Michael J. Totten’s yesterday, and it just struck me as the height of creepiness. Any of the CI/AN skins i knew in Phoenix could have spewed that article, word for word.

  5. 5
    r@d@r says:

    yeah, i found the article disappointing to say the very least. when they started out i thought they had a stunning manifesto, but they’ve strayed from their original vision it seems.

    non-jewish leftists seem to have this disturbing tendency to start conversations with “of course i’m not anti-semitic, but…” i remember hearing a lot of white leftists saying that they were of course “not racist but” over the years too, not to mention men saying “i’m not sexist or anything, but…”. “i’m not __________, but” is categorically a sentence that gets one into big trouble. it’s basically a way of saying, “i don’t want to take any responsibility for the admittedly rhetorically questionable and probably offensive line of reasoning i am about to present.” anti-semitism, like racism, sexism, and homophobia, isn’t some nebulous gray area. it’s all bad, period. and when employed as an analytical tool, it’s unsupportable, logically as well as morally.

  6. 6
    Elayne Riggs says:

    Kalle’s always been a bit odd in places, according to someone who used to work with him at Adbusters. I think the anti-Semitism was unintentional but sometimes only Kalle knows what’s in his own mind…

  7. 7
    msg says:

    Mohamed Mahathir? Famous anti-semitic Muslim leader.
    What was his accusation, that so incensed right-thinking people everywhere?
    That “the Jews” were fighting the Muslim world by proxy, using the American military.
    Pure anti-semitic nonsense.
    Unless it matters that Tommy Franks, the American general that led the invasion of Iraq is a Jew. And that Paul Bremer, the proconsul who has run Iraq since that invasion is also a Jew.
    Garner, the interim proconsul, while not Jewish was definitely pro-Israel.
    Is it anti-semitic to point that out?
    What do you call the decision to use those men in such highly visible positions in that context?
    Do you think the Arab world cares about being accused of anti-semitism?
    Or is that the point? That the Arab world is the enemy.
    Is it anti-semitic to point out that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a large and troubling threat to Israel?
    These questions, by never being addressed, much less answered, fuel the flames of bigotry, and innocent people continue to suffer.
    Using accusations to defend what may be indefensible will only work for a while; then it will stop working at all.

  8. 8
    Jake Squid says:

    “Unless it matters that Tommy Franks, the American general that led the invasion of Iraq is a Jew.”

    I can’t see how that matters. Was Norman Schwarzkopf (sp?) a Jew? I don’t think the religion of military commanders enters into the discussion. Aside from which, I can find no confirmation of Franks’ religion one way or the other. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn’t? Or do you have a RELIABLE source that you can point me to?

    Same goes for Bremer. Of whom I’ve also found no confirmation of religion, although his bio seems to hint at it. But, again, what does it matter whether he is Jewish or Hindu or Evangelical Christian?

    I also ask if it is possible to be strongly pro-Israel w/o being either Jewish or influenced by Jews.

    Please also keep in mind that it is possible to not be pro-Israel and not be anti-semitic at the same time.

  9. 9
    Dan J says:

    I also ask if it is possible to be strongly pro-Israel w/o being either Jewish or influenced by Jews.

    As a matter of fact, most of the pro-Israel lobby, as well as the people who pour the bulk of the money into supporting Israel’s right wing and its military action, are in fact not Jewish at all. I’m sorry I can’t link any articles off hand, but I’ve read and heard that most of the Americans “supporting” Israel right now are in fact fundamentalist Christians looking to hasten the return of Christ by doing something (I’m not a Christian , so I don’t know what the theology is here exactly) in Israel. This might just be paranoid rambling on the part of my fellow Jews, but the going theory is that once permanent Jewish rule is established in Israel, then 2/3 of the Jews have to die and the remaining third to convert to Christianity and then Christ will return… or something. Anyway the point I was driving at is that the religious right (who exist in far greater numbers than Jewish people in the US) are more responsible for the US policy toward Israel and the middle east than Jewish people are.

  10. 10
    msg says:

    I don’t mean pro-Israel as home for the Jews, I mean pro-current Israeli government.
    These distinctions become almost impossible without the invention of a new vocabulary.
    You can’t even talk about it without getting bogged down in vague non-definitions. Which is proabably the point.
    If you need it pointed out to you that having an imposed government – headed by a Jew, put in place by a military action that was headed by a Jew – could just possibly feed anti-semitic attitudes in an already anti-semitic population, you are seriously running away from reality.
    Not that it matters, or that it should, to you, or even to me, but that it might, just might, to an Arab/Muslim population.
    It was either intentional (likely) or an intentional disregarding of how it would appear.
    So the linking of “neocons” with Israeli/Jewish political intrigue and with American military decision-making, instead of looking like a paranoid fantasy, looks more and more like a possibility.

  11. 11
    msg says:

    Dan J-
    Thank you for a viewpoint I haven’t seen expressed anywhere else.
    Maybe if enough people can think about these things, and publicly discuss them, we can triangulate the as-yet unnamed and invisible cause of this awful mess.
    I can only imagine what it would be like to feel that you were taking fire for something that was using you as a shield.
    I hear you.

  12. 12
    Porkchop Texan says:

    About the non-Jewish neocons: On Sunday 60 Minutes included a story about the fundis visiting Israel to tell the Israelis how much they are supported by the evangelicals (despite the fact that the evangelicals all believe Jews are going to hell for rejecting salvation from Jesus.)

    What’s really amazing is their (the fundis) hubris in thinking anything they do can speed up the rapture – I thought god was in charge of that. I’m all for their rapture happening right now to get all those fundis out of my hair and my city.

  13. 13
    Dan J says:

    Well I did some half-assed digging and found some news items and essays that articulate what I mean… sorry, my html is not so good, so I can’t link them directly.

    http://fccbucc.pair.com/christian_right_&_israel.htm

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml

    http://www.counterpunch.org/eldar04092003.html

    if you can only look at one, I recommend the CBS news one, as it goes into greater detail. As regards the AdBusters article, I think it is terribly irresponsible to overlook the influence of the Christian right–which is, after all, the overwhelming majority religious group–and to instead prop up the Jews as the primary influence on middle east policy. It smacks of ZOG paranoia.

  14. 14
    Charles says:

    msg,

    Not that it matters, or that it should, to you, or even to me, but that it might, just might, to an Arab/Muslim population.
    It was either intentional (likely) or an intentional disregarding of how it would appear.
    So the linking of “neocons” with Israeli/Jewish political intrigue and with American military decision-making, instead of looking like a paranoid fantasy, looks more and more like a possibility.

    I will grant the likelihood that having a Jewish head of the occupation government, and a Jewish general in charge of the invasion would be used as evidence of a grand Jewish conspiracy by anti-semites (of course, since the standard anti-semitic theory has the Jews as shadowy backers, and not as front-line participants, the absence of Jews would also have been evidence for anti-semites).

    However, you seem to be saying that the willingness of the Bush administration to employ Jews in positions of power in the Middle East is evidence of a grand Jewish conspiracy, since it will be used as evidence of such a conspiracy by anti-semites. So are you suggesting that Jewish Americans should have been excluded from participation in the deciding and implementation of Middle East policy? And that the failure to exclude people from high ranking government positions on the basis of ethnicity or religion is evidence that a grand Jewish conspiracy exists?

    What exactly are you arguing?

  15. And what about the large number of progressive Jews who are critical of Israel? You could look at the Adbusters list, note that half of them are Christian, and say, “See, this means that all Christians are suspect” while ignoring the fact that there are plenty of liberal (and radical) Christians who vehemently oppose current US/Israeli policy.

    “For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?”

    How was war in Iraq beneficial to Israel? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard. We went to war with Iraq because GWB was itching to do it. He and his cabinet wanted to make an example of Iraq; if they gave a hoot about Israel, they would have focused far more on the peace process. But according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, they didn’t want to bother–they thought Iraq would be an easy win. And let’s not forget, it was Daddy’s old score to settle.

    “The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.”

    The neocons have this “special affinity” for a whole host of reasons. A leftist administration here that didn’t excuse Israel’s policies would have just as many Jewish allies and advisors.

    This implication of Jewish complicity *does* sound like a paranoid fantasy.

  16. 16
    msg says:

    It’s another quagmire just getting everybody to agree what the terms mean.
    -
    Anybody who really wants to defend Jews and/or Israel against the attacks of bigots and irrational racists should answer the simple questions being asked world-wide, of which the two I put here are only a sample. But instead of clear reasoned rebuttal, there’s only vicious counter-attack or inane sidetrack.
    -
    Charles seems to think that there’s only paranoid fantasies and simple realities. As though “conspiracy theory” really does mean bogus idea. It doesn’t.
    It means a theory about a conspiracy. There are and have been conspiracies that were very real, the Boston Tea Party comes to mind.
    That the only interpretation of Franks and Bremer being where they were, and are, is that they were best-suited seems intentionally naive, a kind of inverse paranoia, a refusal to see what’s there.
    As I said, it’s either intentional placement, “Take that!”, or serious disregard of how it would appear, “Who cares?”.
    Either way it’s more than it seems, to people who didn’t realize that both Franks and Bremer were Jews.
    And, my guess is, the people who ran that scam were banking on accusations of anti-semitism bogging down any exposure of what they’d done.
    -
    But I’m more interested at this point in pursuing Dan J’s idea. Intrigue inside the subterfuge.
    Now where’d that enigma go?

  17. 17
    Corwin says:

    Having been a religious studies major, I can corroborate Dan J.’s post about fundamentalist support of Israel. You can read more about it in a book called, “When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture,” by Paul Boyer.

    The basic idea seems to be that, because God made a covenant with the Jews regarding a certain piece of land, only once all Jews are gathered back on that land will Jesus come back, convert some, and cast the rest into hell for their “stubbornness.” By encouraging Jewish emigration to modern Israel, and supporting modern Israel directly, these particular Christians believe that they are indeed hastening the day of Jesus’s return, and their (the Christians’) ascension into heaven.

  18. 18
    Jake Squid says:

    msg: “But instead of clear reasoned rebuttal, there’s only vicious counter-attack or inane sidetrack.”

    I haven’t seen a vicious counter-attack here. Could you be specific? I haven’t seen inane sidetrack either. Can you be more specific about that?

    Can you answer my question? Can you provide evidence that Franks IS Jewish? I haven’t seen any. Can you also provide evidence that Bremer is Jewish?

    Also, I think that Charles is correct. To anti-semites, the appearance of Jews in positions of power is confirmation of their conspiracy theories. And I don’t think that we need to exclude Jews from positions of power based on how it might (will, really) appear to anti-semites. Also, conspiracy theories are usually bogus. They usually lack evidence to prove them as fact. This is true of the “Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy Theory” as well. Certainly the fundi right that is the Bush Administration has no great love of Jews.

    So, while I agree with you that it is possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-semitic, I cannot agree with your claims about Franks & Bremer until you can provide some evidence that they are Jewish.

  19. 19
    Jake Squid says:

    What I mean to say is that I cannot even consider your claims about Franks & Bremer until some evidence is provided as to what religions they follow.

  20. 20
    Charles says:

    msg,

    Charles seems to think that there’s only paranoid fantasies and simple realities. As though “conspiracy theory” really does mean bogus idea. It doesn’t.
    It means a theory about a conspiracy. There are and have been conspiracies that were very real, the Boston Tea Party comes to mind.

    I seem to think nothing of the sort. I merely think that talking about theories about Jews conspiring while ignoring the vast body of anti-semitic paranoid fantasy that constitutes the history of theorizing about Jews conspiring is dangerous and foolish.

    Even that is irrelevant to what I said. I merely ask for clarification. Are you saying that the only thing that would not be proof to you of a vast Jewish conspiracy would be if there had been NO Jews in the upper echelon of the Iraq War? Are you also saying that if the US (a well established ally of Israel) had conquered Iraq with no Jews in high ranking positions that the conquest would not have been fitted into a anti-semitic conspiracy theory?

    Or are you merely saying that the administration is willing to employ Jews in high ranking positions even if it fits into some one else’s anti-semitic conspiracy theory? That does seem to be the case, but I don’t think that they should be condemned for it.

    there’s only vicious counter-attack or inane sidetrack

    I haven’t seen either of these in this discussion. Given the degree to which you are failing to distinguish your own position from the positions you wish to discuss, the other participants in this discussion have shown impressive restraint and an impressive willingness to engage.

    So, rather than complaining about attacks that haven’t happened, perhaps you would be willing to clarify your positions.

    In you opinion, what actions would the administration have had to take to avoid inflaming anti-semitic theorizing, and do you feel that they should have taken those actions? I read your previous statements to say that they should have removed all high ranking Jewish military officers from the Iraq War, and that their failure to do so is clear sign that they didn’t care about inflaming anti-semitism.

    Am I correctly representing your opinion?

    Personally, I think that they didn’t remove General Tommy Franks from command because removing a general because he is a Jew would have been illegal and wrong.

    Of course, the fundies Dan J mentions actually do desire to increase Arab anti-semitism (as well as backing Israel), since the Arab states are the most likely group to fulfill the goal of killing 2/3 of the Jews.

    Can’t say that I care for reckless anti-fundy conspiracy theory all that much more than I care for reckless anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

    This post by Kip at Long Story, Short Pier contains several excellent links detailing the distinction between theories about conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Well worth the read.

  21. 21
    msg says:

    Quagmire. I said that already though didn’t I?
    “…as to what religion they follow.”
    In that same vein, a non-religious-following Jew is not a Jew; well yes, a Jew, but a different kind; and it just all disappears in a cloud of semantic confusion. Which I said twice already.
    And yes there has been no viciousness here in this specific thread at this time. Nor inane sidetrack. Though the withheld vitriol in your comment is clear.
    As to documentation on Franks’ and Bremer’s ethnicity or whatever the current pc term is, I’m not obsessed enough with the question to document it. I saw clear enough proof somewhere, it’s out there I’m sure. Arguing that aspect is inane.
    Sliding that “religion-following” definition across the question seems kind of bizarre. But then it’s a bizarre topic. Grotesque really. People are dying because of this, whatever “this” is. And it isn’t anti-semitism that’s causing that dying, not in Iraq anyway.
    This is maybe my third attempt at some kind of dialog with people online about what I’m the first to admit is a heavily weighted subject. To speak from the position I’m speaking from, in a forum like this, where the subject’s already framed in partisan bias, is a little more than uncomfortable. I don’t like it. But I don’t like what’s going on either.
    There is no dialog. Only accusation and defensive posturing.
    Something’s happening here, things are not nearly as simple as they appear to be.

  22. 22
    Jake Squid says:

    msg,

    I’m going to try once more and then give it up.

    What are you trying to say? I’m not clear on it.

    I think that it is vital to your position that you provide some evidence that the 2 powerful people to whom you refer are what you say. I did a search on both of them. For Franks it seems unanimous that nobody knows what his religion is because he refuses to discuss it. I found no references for Bremer although I did find that he has worked for American Jewish organizations.

    As I understand it, you are saying that having Franks & Bremer in the positions that they hold (or held) fans the flames of anti-semitic related hatred of the US in Iraq because they are Jewish. If this is the case isn’t it important to provide evidence that they are, in fact, Jewish? I mean if they are not Jewish this claim about “Jews fighting the Muslim world by proxy, using the US military” cannot apply here.

    Or am I missing something. Perhaps you could be a little more clear in what you’re trying to say because either I’m lost or you’re dodging important aspects of a conversation we could be having.

  23. 23
    Jake Squid says:

    One last thing before I go….

    msg: “Though the withheld vitriol in your comment is clear.”

    I’m not sure how you got to that? I’m asking questions that are basic to the point I think you’re trying to make.

    msg: “Arguing that aspect is inane.”

    Fist off, it’s not inane because it goes to the basis of your implications. If it isn’t so, your implication isn’t so. First insult on this thread. People who live in glass houses and all…..

    msg: “Sliding that “religion-following” definition across the question seems kind of bizarre. But then it’s a bizarre topic.”

    Another insult? And an avoidance of the issue. If you want to get bogged down in semantics, fine, but you obviously understood what I meant.

    And not a single insult from me. I really am trying to understand your position. But there is no way I can agree with it without some evidence. If you don’t want to provide any, fine… we have nothing further to speak about. But it’s not because I didn’t give it a chance.

  24. 24
    Charles says:

    Jake,

    I think msg meant my withheld vitriol, since I was asking him to clarify the parts of his comments where he came closest to stating positions that were simply advocating anti-semitic policies (not hiring Jews because it might inflame anti-semitism for Jews to be in positions of power).

    msg,

    Of course, I merely asked for clarification, I didn’t accuse you of anything. So I think it is pretty clear that the vitriol was indeed withheld. On a topic such as this, when you are having such difficulty making it clear what it is that you are saying, vitriol can be expected to exist. Having it withheld from display is the best you are going to get.

    I’m with Jake. It seems to me that the people who have responded to you have made an honest attempt to engage you in discussion, but that so far, you have been more interested in worrying if you are being attacked and in spouting lines of innuendo and confusion than you have been in making any actual points.

    If you actually want to discuss this, then make it clear what you are saying. You haven’t done so so far.

  25. 25
    tikae says:

    Ah, a housemate of mine receives this charming magazine. In this month’s issue, there’s an article about how badass liberals and Democrats used to be, and how sad it is that they’re just not like that any more.

    Why were they badass back in the 60s and earlier? Because they had affairs, of course! They were *real men!* Urgh.

  26. 26
    msg says:

    Well I’m off to meet my lover before her husband gets home from work.
    -
    As clearly as I can say it-
    I wasn’t aware that being a Jew was a matter of religion. I think there’s a few people out there who might disagree with that, especially secular Jews.
    So the Franks/Bremer thing is a matter of *insert term for group identity here*.
    Insisting on a religious definition is what I meant by inane.
    If I have time later I guess I’ll try to track down the documentation you insist on, though I’m not at all keen on becoming some kind of resident or visiting anti-semite for anyone.
    The simplest expression that comes to me at the moment is:
    The “neocon” conspiracy as a “Jewish” conspiracy is given at least some validity by the confluence of the Iraq invasion and Israeli geopolitical interests; coupled with the unannounced and seemingly unmentionable ethnicity of the two main figures in that invasion.
    And again, Dan J’s angle on teh fundamentalist presence in all this makes it even more bizarre and unpleasant.
    I’m sorry it’s not as concise as it might be, but I’m losing a little steam.
    This is a tangent for me. I’m not Jewish, or Iraqi, and only vaguely American now, and less of that each month it seems.
    I am though still pretty much human, and this is, finally, a human issue.

  27. 27
    Charles says:

    You know, I actually like Adbusters some portion of the time, but …

    Yeah, that was the main problem with the Clinton presidency, not enough affairs. Not his support of deregulation, or sanctions or gutting wellfare, no, just not enough affairs. Honestly, 1 affair with an intern, big deal. Couldn’t he at least have had sex with someone important?

    Gack!

  28. 28
    Jake Squid says:

    OK, so you ARE saying that there seems to be a “Jewish Conspiracy” of some sort going on. Good. I’m glad we got that out of the way.

    Now, let’s look at some stuff you said: “I wasn’t aware that being a Jew was a matter of religion. I think there’s a few people out there who might disagree with that, especially secular Jews.”

    Well, what does Judeo-Christian refer to? Not Ethnicity, but religion. I hate to be the one to break it to you but Judaism is a religion, not an innate genetic trait. You know the Old Testament? That is the basis of Judaism. Anybody who so chooses can be Jewish. And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between a religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) and an ethnicity (Eastern European, Ainu, Native American, etc.). And it really doesn’t matter if quite a few people disagree with me because that does not change the facts (nor the definition of Judaism). Besides which, the secular Jews I know DON’T disagree on this point. What, for thingssake, makes a person Jewish if not that person’s religion?

    Your view on my phrase, “…what religions they follow…” becomes clear now. Did you not know that Judaism was a religion? I’m stunned that this view still exists. What distinguishes a Jew from a European, African or Asian?

    msg: “coupled with the unannounced and seemingly unmentionable ethnicity of the two main figures in that invasion.”

    What does that mean? You haven’t announced or mentioned your ethnicity. Does that mean you’re part of some conspiracy? Or is it just irrelevant? And you might add, “unconfirmed,” just before unannounced.

    Honestly, thanks for clearing up what you are saying and what you believe. I do appreciate it. But I’m done with this conversation until you do your research and understand the difference between ethnicity & religion.

  29. 29
    Jake Squid says:

    Although it’s true that religions can be classified as an ethnicity, that doesn’t seem to be what msg is saying. My reading of msg’s posts is that by ethnic he/she is referring to common racial, national or tribal background. But I could be wrong.

  30. 30
    Charles says:

    msg,

    I am also glad you are finally willing to clearly state your position. Since you have already noted my vitriol, I will refrain from dousing you with all that much of it. You haven’t proven much worth arguing with, so I won’t bother attempting to rebut your paranoic fantasies at the moment. If you want to bring up particular points, I will be happy to do my best to demolish them for you, but your vague paranoic fear is clearly not worth tangling with.

    Jake,

    While msg’s views on ethnicity vs. religion as a basis for Jewishness seem at best muddled, surely you would agree that the question of ethnicity vs. religion as the meaning of Jewishness is itself not crystal clear. I know several people who self identify strongly as Jews, but who also self identify strongly as agnostics or atheists. Certainly, their self-identification as Jews is an ethnic identification, and not a religious one? Certainly, the major ingredient of Jewish culture is Judaism (the religion), but surely one can choose to reject Judaism while remaining a Jew.

    To my mind, ethnicity is based in culture, not in genetic lineage. This is why African-descended Belizeans, Spanish-descended Mexicans, Welsh-descended Argentines, and Mayan-descended Guatemalans can all be counted as ethnically Hispanic (of course, this also points out the highly contextual nature of ethnicity, since only in the US (and possible only to an anglo) would ethnically hispanic seem more important than ethnically Mayan and ethnically Welsh Argentine). The particular cultural feature which serves as the basis of an ethnicity can be regional (Argentine), historical (Welsh Argentine), linguistic (Hispanic), or religious (Jewish).

    Like all forms of ethnicity, the further one moves from the basis of the group, the less one belongs to the group. So the child of 3 generations of atheist Jews is possibly substantially less Jewish than a religious Jew, and a Jew who converts to Catholicism is no longer a Jew. Likewise, I (the child of several generations of atheist Christians) am far less ethnically Christian than Kip (the child of Christians, but not a believer in Christ), but am more ethnically Christian than Matt (the child of Christians who converted to Judaism).

    Jews are far from the only religiously based ethnicity. Christians can also be viewed as an ethnicity. Various Christian sects also spawn ethnicities (Catholics are probably the most obvious example in the US). The ethnic difference between Croats and Serbs is primarily religious, but an atheist Croat and an atheist Serb are still ethnically different.

    Hope that wasn’t too incoherent.

  31. 31
    Raznor says:

    Jake, Judaism can be a description of ethnicity or of a religion. The thing is, in either case, the exact conditions of Judaism aren’t exactly clear. The only nonambiguous definition is a legal one, the Israeli law of returns, that states someone is Jewish if he/she can trace Judaism back matrilinearly three generations (which would be ethnic) has converted to Judaism (religious) or can trace matrilinearly to the first point of conversion (some crazy combination of the two). This is imperfect, of course, but I think it can at least put some defining terms on the table as to what we mean by saying someone is “Jewish”.

    Now that I’ve clarified that, I’ll ask to msg, so what is the point? I can’t tell if your position is anti-Semitic, that there is some sort of Jewish conspiracy, anti-Arab, that Arabs are too dumb to tell the difference between a Jew and all Jews, or some crazy combination of the two. Or I guess neither. But I don’t think it’s useful at all to try to understand why people are anti-semitic, because anti-semitism is an inherently illogical mind set, like racism or sexism.

  32. 32
    Raznor says:

    Charles and I cross-posted, but in the meanwhile, r@d@r’s post reminded me of a line in a screenplay my brother and dad cowrote but haven’t sold yet:

    “It’s not that I’m racist, it’s just that whenever I see a person of ethnicity I instantly think ‘criminal’.”

  33. 33
    Jake Squid says:

    Charles,

    I’ll agree that Jewish is an ethnicity in the same sense that Roman Catholic is an ethnicity. In the sense that there is a certain cultural commonness in upbringing, etc. But that’s still, to a large extent, a choice. One is part of that ethnicity if one chooses to be —- for the most part, though not necessarily. So, yeah, I agree.

    I don’t think, however, that is the way msg means it. And that is not the way that most people, IME, who talk about Jews as an ethnicity view it. Usually they talk about Jews as a race. And that’s what I saw in msg’s thought that “religion following” was bizarre. Religion never entered msg’s thoughts regarding Franks, Bremer & the great Jewish conspiracy.

  34. 34
    Charles says:

    Obviously, Jake clarified his initial statement on religion vs. ethnicity to msg while I was writing my response. I think that we are basically in agreement.

    Charles

  35. 35
    Charles says:

    Wow, is that a lot of cross posting!

    I agree entirely that msg’s view seemed to be of the at best highly problematic “jewish race” line of thought. I just wanted to clarify the overly strong position you were initially taking (as did you in your addendum post) that Jewishness is purely a religious identification, and not an ethnic identification.

    Of course, to further complicate matters, and to provide the fig leaf of scientism for anti-semites, it can alos be noted that most American Jews are descended from a particular genetically linked group. However, this genetic link among some Jews is of zero relevance if one is talking about US foriegn policy in the Middle East.

  36. 36
    Charles says:

    The Law of Return, while it has the advantage of being clear, doesn’t really apply to anything other than emmigrating to Israel. The Law of Return applies to people who are not generally counted as Jews in any other context.

    Specifically, the Law of Return also includes the spouses of Jews (and the spouses of the children or grandchildren of Jews), but whenever I try to claim that I am a Jew, I get dismissed out of hand.

    Oh wait, here is the actual definition from the law of return:


    For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a
    Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member
    of another religion.

    Somehow, that doesn’t really help to clarify the situation (what makes a Jewish mother Jewish?); although it again makes clear how deeply tied it is to Judaism (the religion). Also, it does make clear that, while I do have the right of return, I am not a Jew.

  37. 37
    Raznor says:

    Yeah, but I only use it because it is the only clear definition I can think of for what it means to be “Jewish”. In reality, it’s much more subtle than that. But then, I still don’t think it matters much. Let’s just accept Jew has ethnic and religious connotations and leave it at that. Which is why I’m still Jewish, even if I’ve mostly abandoned the Jewish religion.

  38. 38
    Quadratic says:

    In my humble opinion, this is how to read this story:

    2% of the population of the US is Jewish.
    A small percentage of THAT number is blindly sympathetic to Israel.
    They represent 50% of the foreign policy hawks that indirectly dictate the political climate in the middle east.

    Is this a good thing?

    The author was right. Say ANYTHING about the Jewish people and you are automatically an anti-semite.

    I believe in Israel. I think the Jewish people have been kicked around this planet since…well..forever. We established it to say “ok guys, nobody is going to mess with you anymore”. This does not, however, give them geopolitical carte blanche.

  39. 39
    Ben G. says:

    Let’s say for a moment that msg is correct in his assertion that Bremmer and Franks are Jewish. Let’s also say that he’s correct that their prominence in the Iraq war is an intentional flaunting of their Jewishness to dis the Iraqis or some broader part of the Arab world.

    Msg writes, ” If you need it pointed out to you that having an imposed government – headed by a Jew, put in place by a military action that was headed by a Jew – could just possibly feed anti-semitic attitudes in an already anti-semitic population, you are seriously running away from reality.”

    Alright, now please explain how this neo con conspiracy to incite antisemtism among portions of the Arab world is in Israel’s interest? That was msg’s point right? The neo cons promoted the war to serve Israel’s interest and the Elders of Zion—er, neo cons—intentionally incited anti semitism by placing Bremmer and Franks in their respective roles. How do the two things go together? How is fanning the flames of antisemitism in the Middle East good for Israel?

    The only good thing for Israel in the US war on Iraq is that there is no longer any credible arguement for Israel to keep the West Bank as a buffer between itself and Iraq. So the US invasion of Iraq gives Israel yet another reaons why it ought to withrdaw from the West Bank and give it (along with Gaza) over to the Palestinians. This would be very good for Israel, but I don’t see the neo con Elders or Bush or the Israeli government supporting such a move in any way.

    Btw, just to be clear, I’ll out myself: I follow at least two strands of the Jewish religion. The one based on the rabbinic literature that translates the Bible into a manual for daily living. And also the one based on Jewish secular socialism and Jewish secular art.

  40. I think maybe the ethnicity of the neocon roster may be related to a founder affect. Wasn’t poderetz (sp?) the first neocon, and the others tended to be recruited from his circle of friends? it’s not unknown for jewish intellectual types to prefer their own company more than randomness would hold. and if neocons are secretly strausians… if say, keanu reeves had invented (neoconism) the ethic mix might be different. those zoroastrians tho, now that’s a conspiracy.

  41. 41
    bad Jim says:

    I think that this is, at root, just a (rather nasty) joke, a lame rejoinder to David Brooks’ suggestion that opposition to neoconservatism is generally a barely concealed anti-semitism.

    We millions who marched against the invasion of Iraq are considered evil, by some.

    This also got mentioned on Crooked Timber, in a perhaps needlessly contentious and typically inscrutable post.

    Isn’t the point that being Jewish isn’t the point?

  42. 42
    Tara says:

    As far as I know, Iraq and Iraqis are actually a lot more open and tolerant of Jews and have been for a long time than a lot of the other Arab states, possibly going back to the originial Jewish dispersion there. Not all Arabs are the same in every way.

  43. 43
    Corwin says:

    Ben G.,

    What is Jewish secular art? That sounds interesting.

  44. 44
    m says:

    Tara Iraq deported/strongly encouraged its entire Jewish population c. 1970/1 of about 200,000 people.

    Google to find out more info but the reporting of it seems pretty inflamed.

    I get the feeling which might be unfounded that there is still strong anti-semitic feeling amongst Iraqis – this is on the basis of the opinions of a woman I know married to an Iraqi in Scotland. OK OK not a representative sample!

  45. 45
    Ben G. says:

    Corwin,

    Jewish secular art is all sorts of things. It’s yiddish literature and klezmer music. Go listen to the Klezmatics, a current group in NYC, for example. It’s also, the secular Jews in all the arts whose Jewishness influences their work in overt or not so obvious ways. I know literature best, so I’ll mention Delmore Schwartz, Gertrude Stein, Kenneth Koch, Louis Zukofsky, Muriel Rukeyser, Alan Grossman, George Oppen, Henry Roth–to name some American writers at random. There’s also composers like Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copeland. And there’s all the Jewish American songwriters who wrote the songs that became Jazz standards—Gerswhin, Berlin, etc.

  46. 46
    Ben G. says:

    Tara, M—

    It is true that in general Jews have had good relations with Arabs in lands that were ruled by the Ottoman Empire. However, when Iraq gained independence in 1932 there began a continuous history of persecution and violence against Jews. It’s hard to find good on-line historical sources on Iraqi Jews, but here’s a couple of links that should give you a good idea of why nearly ALL of the Iraqi Jews have left Iraq in the last 70 years.

    http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iraqijews.html

    http://www.bjcny.org/our.htm

  47. 47
    Ben G. says:

    bad Jim,

    Pish posh on David Brooks. What a stupid idea that any criticism at all of neo cons is anti-semitism. Did he really say that??? Hey I love Jews, being one and all. But those frickin neo cons make my blood boil. I don’t agree with them on much of anything, though some of them are very very smart people, whom I’d admire more if I didn’t hate their politics.

  48. Quadratic says:

    “2% of the population of the US is Jewish.
    A small percentage of THAT number is blindly sympathetic to Israel.
    They represent 50% of the foreign policy hawks that indirectly dictate the political climate in the middle east.

    Is this a good thing?”

    That wasn’t the focal point of the article. The article used sleight-of-hand logic to imply that there is Jewish control of our foreign policy.

    “The author was right. Say ANYTHING about the Jewish people and you are automatically an anti-semite.”

    Not quite. Criticize Israeli policy or the positions of blindly-pro Israeli Jews won’t get you called an anti-Semite except by the most dogmatic. Imply that the presence of Jews in our government means there is a big Zionist conspiracy reeks of the propaganda of White Aryan Resistance.

    “I believe in Israel. I think the Jewish people have been kicked around this planet since…well..forever. We established it to say “ok guys, nobody is going to mess with you anymore”. This does not, however, give them geopolitical carte blanche.”

    No one said it did. But most of us can manage to make an argument against Israel’s policies without making broad-brush generalizations about the Jews.

    msg–You go back and forth on what a Jew actually is, and expect us to define it for you. Yet you *then* tell us that two Jews (undefined by your own argument–relgion? Ethnic? what?) were instrumental in the Iraqi invasion.

    Finally, for all this screeching and whining about how terrible it is that people think you’re anti-Semetic–own your words. If you don’t think we understand your argument, then state it clearly. And don’t complain if people don’t agree or still think it comes off as anti-Semetic. People won’t censor themselves for your comfort.

  49. 49
    Dan J says:

    From what I understand, when Muslims ruled Spain, the Jews who lived there flourished and were well-respected and all… but that was a very very long time ago.

    Also question to Ben G.: would you consider cartooning/comic books to fall within the realm of secular Jewish arts? Just curious, as there are a large number of prominent artists from the time of the early development of the form who were Jewish, and I’d always heard that the reason for that is that Jews were kept out of illustration and design careers, which were more lucrative and prestigious, due to discrimination.

  50. 50
    Ben G. says:

    Dan J,

    Sure Jewish comic book artists are a great example. But I’m no expert on Jewish secular art. I’m just saying that you can identify as Jewish through Jewish secular culture or through Jewish religious culture or through both. They’re not really so separate all the time. What makes Jewish art Jewish is sort of big and unwieldly in part because of all the different ways Jews construct their own identities. I would say that one interesting way of looking at art by Jews that is not overty Jewish in its content is to look at Jewish strategies of assimilation. Ever since the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment) and the promises of European liberalism, Jews have had a fantasy of passing that have been part of how some have expressed their Jewish identies.

  51. 51
    Carl says:

    Wanna see how a young guy from Poland fights for a green card to the USA?!

    Visit me: http://www.illy10.blogspot.com

    Please comment me:)

  52. 52
    Ranty says:

    What is interesting is that while Jews make up 2% of the population, 50% of the known neocon population is Jewish.

    I’ve never read anything which suggests Bremer/Franks are Jewish; even if they are, its irrelevant. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned Wolfowitz? Or Perle? Or that silly Perle/Frum book? I’ve read it; the call to protect Israel and crush Islam comes through loud and clear. Wolfowitz and Perle influence US foreign policy, not Bremer. Pat Buchanan (alas!) nailed it: criticizing Israel (and/or the neocons) results in being tattooed with the scarlet anti-semite letter.

  53. 53
    Ampersand says:

    What is interesting is that while Jews make up 2% of the population, 50% of the known neocon population is Jewish.

    Gee, and 50% of my elementary school in New York was Jewish! It must be a conspiracy!

    No, it’s not a conspiracy – it’s just that my school was drawing its population from a particular neighborhood, not from the general population of the United States.

    Jews may represent only 2% of the population, but we’re way above 2% of the intelligentsia – especially, I suspect, the over-40 intelligentsia. And it’s the intelligentsia – not the population in general – that groups like the neocons draw their leadership from.

  54. 54
    Quadratic says:

    “Gee, and 50% of my elementary school in New York was Jewish! It must be a conspiracy! ”

    Isn’t it just this kind of sarcastic defensiveness that prevents us from looking at issues regarding the intelligentsia with any kind of objectivity?

    “Jews may represent only 2% of the population, but we’re way above 2% of the intelligentsia – especially, I suspect, the over-40 intelligentsia. And it’s the intelligentsia – not the population in general – that groups like the neocons draw their leadership from.”

    Doesn’t this statement validate the issue raised by the author of the Adbusters column?

    I don’t remember reading anything having to do with suspected “Jewish conspiracies” either. Perhaps you are only offended because you want to be? Just a thought, not meant as a slight.

  55. 55
    Tom T. says:

    Quadratic: “Doesn’t this statement validate the issue raised by the author of the Adbusters column?”

    I don’t see how. What do you see as “the issue” raised by Adbusters? What is the issue that you see with the number of Jews among the neocons? What is it about their Jewishness that is relevant? Or, more to the point, what is it about their Jewishness that you find troublesome?

  56. Almost *all* of the people on the Adbusters list were men. It must be a male conspiracy.

    Frankly, the article negates its rather muddled point when it admits that the overwhelming majority of Jews are progressive, and that many of them are critical of Israel’s policies. But hey, why be rational and look at the facts objectively when you can use faulty logic? That way you can bleat about how unfair it is when you’re called on it, right?

  57. Quadratic said: “Doesn’t this statement validate the issue raised by the author of the Adbusters column?”

    No. The left also boasts a large number of members of the intelligensia, many of whom are Jewish and highly critical of Israel and US policy in the Middle East. (Noam Chomsky, anyone? Micheal Lerner?)

  58. 58
    julie says:

    Umm, while I was reading Mother Jones magazine today, specifically the article by Al Franken about his USO tour to Iraq and Afghanistan, I noticed that Al mentioned Paul Bremer as a fellow Jew. I remembered that there was much discussion on this message about whether he was or not, and whether it mattered or not, and thought I would toss it out there. You can dispute the validity, I don’t care, but it’s there in B&W in the March/April 2004 Mother Jones.

  59. 59
    John says:

    Please look up the term anti-semitism as many Jews are quick to use this political weapon to immediately brand any argument they can’t defend into a racist one. It’s a total cop-out and to someone who isn’t Jewish its really annoying, and tiresome and I feel it contributes to only more hatred.

    What is “anti-Semitism”? Its etymology is confusing as it does not mean “hatred of Semites”, which would also include most Arabs. Why has the term come to mean solely “hatred of Jews” and implies an irrational hatred, hatred due to their religious, ethnic or cultural differences?

    I encourage any one Jewish to please look up the term, because Arabs are just as much Semitic people as Jews are. So an anti-Arab comment is also considered anti-semitic!

  60. 60
    Quadratic says:

    John,

    Is there a point somewhere in your post on a long dead conversation? Go back to polishing your swastika… fuckwit.

  61. 61
    Raznor says:

    Swastikas are generally put on fabrics and can’t be polished. Still you’re right, Quad. John is a fuckwit.

    Actually, anti-semitism once meant just that – against semites. Originally anti-semitism mostly referred to Christians who went around Europe and converted these pure religions to this altogether foreign one that preached rather illogical things like protect the meek. Over the centuries, as Christianity took more a hold in cultures, anti-semitism evolved more into a specific hatred of Jews, hence the contemporary usage of the term.

    And no, John, Arabs aren’t “semites” but rather muslims are. It’s a term that encompasses Judeo-Christian theology. You dumbass.

  62. 62
    Charles says:

    By the by, and worth spreading where ever you go, some scum sucking anti-semites have been google bombing the word jew with great success (check the number one link for jew on google). It has been suggested that decent people everywhere should respond by re-google bombing the word Jew with a link to the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew (currently the third place entry).

    Personally, I think we should also google bomb the scum suckers as above (currently, there are no google entries for “scum sucking anti-semites,” so it wouldn’t be hard to do. Saner minds might feel that that was giving the scum suckers far too much attention.

    Back to the point at hand.

    Um, Raznor, before you go calling someone a dumbass, you might want to check what you are claiming:

    Dictionary definiton of Semite:
    1 A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
    2 A Jew.

    Malasian muslims are not semites. Indeed, neither are Pakistani or Iranian (Persian) muslims. However, Egyptian, Palestinian and Lebanese people, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, atheist or Buddhist are semites.

    Also, where on earth are you getting your history of the term anti-semitism? Your history is both confusing and halucinatory. Everything I have ever seen gives the term a 19th century origin: the OED gives a first citation from 1881. It means, and has always meant (as far as I can tell), hatred of the Jews or of Judaism. It has never meant (as you suggest) hatred of Christians (who, with some exceptions, are simply not Semites by any definition), nor has it ever meant (as John suggests) hatred of Arabs (except, presumably, for Arab Jews).

    Googling, I found a nice article on the idiocy that John commits (the error of the etymolgical defintion) and its fundamental dishonesty. So, by all means, fuckwit, but not so much dumbass.

  63. 63
    Raznor says:

    Very well, I stand corrected as to the definition of “semite”. However, I tentatively stand by my explanation of the origins of anti-semitism, although I need to recheck my source. This came up in my history class, and was the result of a study of origins of anti-semitism in Germany (or since we’re talking a few centuries ago, in the various nations and principalities that later became Germany). Mind you, the first Semites that Germanic people would see influence their culture would be Christian missionaries from the Arab penninsula, and I need to check sources here as to when Christian missionaries first arrived in northern Europe in great numbers, but it could have been at a time when there really wasn’t that much considered religious separation between Christianity and Judaism. But once again, I’ll have to recheck the source on this and get back to you.

  64. 64
    Raznor says:

    Checking that, I’m probably being mixed up with considered origins of anti-semitism in Germany as opposed to original use of the word. Once again, I need to recheck this.

  65. 65
    Charles says:

    Okay, it makes far more sense as an origin of actual Germanic anti-semitism than as an origin of the term. I’m still interested to see more details though.

    Charles

  66. 66
    Ben G. says:

    I don’t have access to the appropriate reference books here at my in-laws over Passover. However, I will assert that though Semite has a more generic definition in reference to people who come from a particular area in the Middle East, it also has a history of usage in specific reference to Jews. Anti-semitism is originally a European ideology that views Jews as an inferior race. It was certainly adopted in Germany, but it has had broad currency in many west European countries since sometime in the 19th century. Take, for example, Matthew Arnold’s famous “Hebraism and Hellenism” chapter in his book Culture and Anarchy, which was first published in 1869:

    Science has now made visible to everybody the great and pregnant elements of difference which lie in race, and in how signal a manner they make the genius and history of an Indo-European people vary from those of a Semitic people. Hellenism is of Indo-European growth, Hebraism is of Semitic growth; and we English, a nation of Indo- European stock, seem to belong naturally to the movement of Hellenism. (162, 1869 edition)

    Arnold makes a more complicated argument about a broader, negative influence of Hebraic culture amongst the American Puritans; but the main point here is that the term “Semite” has a history of usage in reference to Jews in the disgusting science of race—a usage that had wide appeal in Europe for at least a half century before the rise of Nazism.

  67. 67
    Ben G. says:

    I don’t have access to the appropriate reference books here at my in-laws over Passover. However, I will assert that though Semite has a more generic definition in reference to people who come from a particular area in the Middle East, it also has a history of usage in specific reference to Jews. Anti-semitism is originally a European ideology that views Jews as an inferior race. It was certainly adopted in Germany, but it has had broad currency in many west European countries since sometime in the 19th century. Take, for example, Matthew Arnold’s famous “Hebraism and Hellenism” chapter in his book Culture and Anarchy, which was first published in 1869:

    Science has now made visible to everybody the great and pregnant elements of difference which lie in race, and in how signal a manner they make the genius and history of an Indo-European people vary from those of a Semitic people. Hellenism is of Indo-European growth, Hebraism is of Semitic growth; and we English, a nation of Indo- European stock, seem to belong naturally to the movement of Hellenism. (162, 1869 edition)

    Arnold makes a more complicated argument about a broader, negative influence of Hebraic culture amongst the American Puritans; but the main point here is that the term “Semite” has a history of usage in reference to Jews in the disgusting science of race literature—a usage that had wide application in Europe for at least a half century before the rise of Nazism.

  68. 68
    Brenda says:

    I don’t know if anyone saw this, but Kalle Lasn responded to his critics. Summary: I’m NOT anti-semitic! I’m not, okay! Stop saying I am! All those guys ARE Jewish! I’m just saying!

    Also, a Toronto independent weekly that probably no one here had any reason to see, published an article about the fallout. Apparently Lasn’s editorial attracted a lot of people who don’t agree with Adbusters’ stances on environmentalism, culture jamming, or capitalism, but who do hate Jews an awful lot.

    Also, some responses from Adbusters readers. They…vary.

  69. 69
    Amy S. says:

    This is only sort related to the discussion at hand, but I’m wondering if anyone has read the book by Earl Shorris that’s excerpted at the very top of this particular link:

    Jews Without Mercy

    Mostly I’m wondering because it would seem to give the lie to the notion that liberal or Left-Leaning Jews need the likes of Adbusters to inform them that there’s a large number of Jewish neocons out there. The book in question is over twenty years old. Adbusters is behind the curve, it would seem.

    This whole thing has had me so creeped out since it hit Amp’s blog that I was only able to read this thread and the related links in small doses over time. I was particularly nauseated by the people who wanted to give props to the author of the original article for “having the guts to speak THE TRUTH” or whatever. Well, golly. I really think that pointing out how many neocons are Jewish without pointing out how many are not IS pretty disturbing. It leaves a Gentile background as “the default” background. Even if the author means no malice, he’d do well to understand why so many people consider his act to have malevolent implications. :(

  70. 70
    Amy S. says:

    D’oh ! Sorry. It’s a little further down than I thought. Here’s the reference:

    …It can come as no surprise that leftists have replied in kind, typically
    dismissing Podhoretz as a hypocrite and an opportunistic sellout. Jews on
    the left have in particular reviled him as a betrayer of central Jewish
    traditions; he is a “Jew without mercy.” That phrase was adopted by Earl
    Shorris as the title of his 1982 book attacking the neo-conservatives.3
    He
    charged that these “new” Jews were finally not real Jews because they no
    longer identified with the oppressed. By “making it,” Podhoretz became for
    his detractors the Sammy Glick of the intellectual set, driven by raw
    ambition, sucking up to those in power, and in effect shouting “to hell
    with rachmones; the poor should get off their duffs already!”

  71. 71
    John Q says:

    The US is no longer an honest broker of peace and now maybe some of you anti-arabs will admit the obvious that the Jewish neo-cons which were highlited in Adbsuters have now and always controlled The White House Mid-East policy. Maybe Adbusters should do a study on Jewish editors, jorunalists and overall media domination and the you all can put two and two together.

    Sept. 11 will forever be a tragic day but no conutry has benefited more than Israel. “Terrorism” and national security has been front page news since 9/11, and Israel
    policy makers love it.

    Another I can’t figure out about the American media is their reluctance to call their own terrorists. Tim McVeigh was never called one and neither was the “DC Sniper”. Is it because they are not suicide bombers?

    By denying Palestinians their birthright land this conflict will never end. Maybe the UN should step in, but according to Bush and Sharon they don’t matter.

  72. 72
    lucia says:

    Another I can’t figure out about the American media is their reluctance to call their own terrorists. Tim McVeigh was never called one and neither was the “DC Sniper”. Is it because they are not suicide bombers?
    I don’t think it has anything to do with suicide. Irish terrorists did not commit suicide.

    It seems to me that journalist apply the word “terrorism” when all the following apply:

    1) The act is intended as an act of war or protest.

    2) The act is primarily designed to instill terror and and horror rather than achieve some other military objective. (Example, the terrorists weren’t trying to capture NY city or repel hordes of angry New Yorkers intent on capturing Kabul.)

    3) The people who commit the act are part of a significantly larger fairly well organized group intent on continued use of terror to advance their cause.

    4) The larger well organized group was definitely linked to the specific act of terror and helped organize it.

    McVeigh and his buddies qualify on 1 and 2. Despite ties to white supremist groups, many journalist may not believe he qualifies on 3 and 4. There may be some difference of opinion because I have occasionally heard the Oklahoma city bombing referred to as terrorism.

    Number 2 applies to Muhammad and Malvo. The terrorized people; that seems to have been their motive.

    One of the reaasons suicide bombers are often labled terrorists is the clearly qualify on 3 and 4. They expect their political cause to be advanced by the larger group, which exists even after they die!

  73. 73
    lucia says:

    Another I can’t figure out about the American media is their reluctance to call their own terrorists. Tim McVeigh was never called one and neither was the “DC Sniper”. Is it because they are not suicide bombers?
    I don’t think it has anything to do with suicide. Irish terrorists did not commit suicide.

    It seems to me that journalist apply the word “terrorism” when all the following apply:

    1) The act is intended as an act of war or protest.

    2) The act is primarily designed to instill terror and and horror rather than achieve some other military objective. (Example, the terrorists weren’t trying to capture NY city or repel hordes of angry New Yorkers intent on capturing Kabul.)

    3) The people who commit the act are part of a significantly larger fairly well organized group intent on continued use of terror to advance their cause.

    4) The larger well organized group was definitely linked to the specific act of terror and helped organize it.

    McVeigh and his buddies qualify on 1 and 2. Despite ties to white supremist groups, many journalist may not believe he qualifies on 3 and 4. There may be some difference of opinion because I have occasionally heard the Oklahoma city bombing referred to as terrorism.

    Number 2 applies to Muhammad and Malvo. The terrorized people; that seems to have been their motive.

    One of the reaasons suicide bombers are often labled terrorists is the clearly qualify on 3 and 4. They expect their political cause to be advanced by the larger group, which exists even after they die!

  74. 74
    Amy S. says:

    I guess in John Q’s parallel universe, the Jews on the Left are only pretending to be either Leftists or Jews. Yep, it’s all part of our grandiose scheme to… uhhhh… whatever.

    Considering how many Israelis and Palestinians continue to die while their leaders behave like spoiled, stupid children, I rather think that the average Israeli hasn’t benefitted all that much from 9-11 at all. Darn. I guess it was stupid of us Jews to engineer that as well. Thank NOTA that John ran out of steam before he got around to recycling that stupid canard about all the Israelis/Jews who didn’t go into their Manhattan offices that day because… [censored by the Worldwide Zionist conspiracy] not to mention [censored by the Worldwide Zionist conspiracy].

    Hey, John, as for which foreign nation benefitted the most from that horror –or at least its leaders did, two words: Saudi Arabia.

    Take a walk, John. At least until you become a better listener. It’s obvious you’ve paid little attention to those who’ve written volumes now about why Adbusters’ little list is so willfully ignorant and so very insulting. You see what you want to see. You and they deserve each other.

  75. 75
    lucia says:

    Dan J:
    fundamentalist Christians looking to hasten the return of Christ by doing something (I’m not a Christian , so I don’t know what the theology is here exactly) in Israel. This might just be paranoid rambling on the part of my fellow Jews, but the going theory is that

    As I am culturally Roman Catholic, I can tell you at least two things about the theology:

    a) Whatever these people think they are doing, it is based on their interpretation of The Book of Revelations. (New Testament)

    b) No one really understands that book! (More precisely, some people think they understand the book, but no one understand their explanations.)

    You can read a little here. The discussion begins with The most enigmatic book in the New Testament is the book of Revelation, which consists of

    One of the most quoted passages from this book is:
    ” Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”

    Do a google search on “666″, adding “Revelations” or “beast” as you wish, and see the various odd pages you find.

  76. 76
    Raznor says:

    When we read Revelation for HUM110 freshman year, it seems that the academic interpretation is it’s a symbolic call to arms against the Romans, told in such a way that Romans wouldn’t understand it but those in Judea would. So much of the New Testament seems so anti-Roman revolutionary.

  77. 77
    lucia says:

    Hmmm.. “much” of the New Testament is anti-Roman revolutionary? I’ve never gotten that impression.

    It may be that ancient Judeans understood the symbols of the four beasts, and so on and so forth. It would be sensible to think it really was written an anti-Roman call to arms by some group of Zealots. But, Jesus of the Gospels doesn’t sound like a real “Let’s take to the street and overthrow the government” kind of guy. So, that HUM110 idea can cause a certain number of Christian’s cognitive-dissonance.

    You really need to read stuff like this:
    http://www.thebookofrevelations.cc/ (do a find on Israel)

    http://www.onesalt.com/p0000059.htm (Do a find on revelations.)

    http://www.telusplanet.net/thegoodnews/last3.htm (Find on Jewish nation)

    There is a group of people who believe that Revelations describes the events before the second coming of Christ which will occur when the Jews rule in Israel and rebuild the temple.

    So, as far as I can determine the “Christian theology” for wanting to establish the state of Israel is to bring about the destruction of the world. But that’s a good thing.

    I did a “find” on Isreal. Whatever else the book says, this particular person interpreting the book believe that “when it all happens” (“it” may be the second coming)

    Rev. 11:1+2 We see by these verses, that Israel will be a nation during the tribulation and that the temple will be rebuilt, by the Jewish people.
    Rev. 11:3 Here we see two witnesses that will be testifing in Israel, during the tribulation. These two men must be christians because verse 8 ends with “where their Lord was crucified” and verse 4 says “that they stand before the lord of the earth”.

  78. 78
    Raznor says:

    By “seems” like anti-Roman revolutionary, I didn’t mean “is”, but “can be interpreted as”. It’s been a while, but besides the four beasts there’s the seven hills of Rome being referenced, and the sign of the beast being derived from Nero.

  79. 79
    lucia says:

    Oh.Raz I know what you mean. I’m not trying to say you are wrong… I’m just trying to provide the answer to the “theology” for why some fundametalists think it’s necessary to promote Isreal. Basically, my “explanation” is to provide context for this speculation by Dan J:
    fundamentalist Christians looking to hasten the return of Christ by doing something (I’m not a Christian , so I don’t know what the theology is here exactly) in Israel. This might just be paranoid rambling on the part of my fellow Jews, but the going theory is that

    Even though your explanation of meaning of Revelatiions is reasonable historically and can be said to make some sort of coherent sense.. it’s got problems for certain groups of Christians. Specifically, If you interpret it that way, then.. uhmmm.. maybe every single word in the bible isn’t correct because.. uhmmm… Jesus didn’t come back and help anyone vanquish the Romans… and …

    You can see this would be a problem for people who also want to promote “intelligent design” rather than evolution?)

    So, there are a number of other explanations.

  80. 80
    lucia says:

    Oopps.. and I should have added, when I was commenting that the New Testament doesn’t seem to be an Anti-Roman tract, I thought you meant to say that as a whole the New Testament was an Anti-roman tract. That doesn’t seem likely to me.

    If you mean Revelations, that’s plausible. ( However, people who want to establish the state of Isreal to bring on the second coming of Jesus don’t see Revelations as an Anti-roman tract. But, if you visit those links, you can get the flavor of the interpretation!)

  81. 81
    Raznor says:

    Yeah, but people who think the state of Israel will bring Jesus back are the same people who made Left Behind such a popular series. They’re not quite using logic.

  82. 82
    Raznor says:

    Which I don’t mean to be a blanket hatred of fundies. I had a very intelligent friend in high school who held a lot of fundamentalist beliefs. But the fact that intelligent people might be fundamentalist doesn’t make fundamentalism something that has any backing in reason.

  83. 83
    lucia says:

    They’re not quite using logic.
    I would not disagree…..

    Dan J speculated that the idea that the state of Isreal should be established to hasten the arrival of Christ ” might just be paranoid rambling on the part of my fellow Jews”

    The idea is not the speculative ramblings on the part of Jews The idea is out there big time! (Logical or not!)

    This idea “based on” Revelations is sometimes buttressed by the predictions of Nostradamus. I can’t begin to explain why or how. (I have never read Nostradamus, I just know that sometimes people spew forth both.)

    I also know a number of rational fundamentalists. Many are also nice people. A number support estabilising the state of Isreal for reasons entirely unrelated to the book of Revelations.

    (I am. btw, a culturally Catholic non-believer.)

  84. Pingback: yesh omrim

  85. Pingback: yesh omrim

  86. Pingback: ++ relapsed catholic ++ religion politics culture blog

  87. AdBusters wussed out and took that story down, no doubt from the pressure of big Jewish money and big Jewish advertising…it’s still available though:

    http://canadiancoalition.com/adbusters01/