Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Flack from port

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Flack from port
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I probably shouldn't post this since I'm leaving town in a few hours and will be unavailable to respond to replies until next week, but here goes anyway.

NY Observer Article discussing the political reality that Jews are coming under attack more frequently from the left. Admittedly, from the fringe left, but I remember back in my liberal lockstep days (the 80's) that Jews were universally viewed as an aggreived party to be sheltered and protected along with other minorities.

I've noticed the shift described in the article over the last few years and have been puzzled by it. What changed? Does Brookhiser have his finger on the pulse of the issue or is he (and I) totally out of whack?

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By 'under attack' are we talking verbal attack? Policy disagreement? Physical assault?

This article rambles a lot, but doesn't make any sort of case of 'Jews' being 'under attack' by the 'left'.

LetterRip

[ September 30, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Think of the word “neocon” and its current usage. The actual neocons were Jewish intellectuals who began thinking outside the Great Society box in the 70’s. Some of them—Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz—became conservative Republicans. Others—Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer—remained liberal Democrats. Pat Moynihan allowed the neocons to say that they weren’t all Jewish. But none of that is what “neocon” now means. “Neocon” now means hook-nosed Nosferatu-the-vampire warmongers who plotted the invasion of Iraq, and the dumb goyim they manipulate.
Wow.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But none of that is what “neocon” now means. “Neocon” now means hook-nosed Nosferatu-the-vampire warmongers who plotted the invasion of Iraq, and the dumb goyim they manipulate.
Wow. David Brooks tried the "Criticism of the NeoCons = antisemitism!" canard about a year ago and had to take it back.

I mean, there's certainly antisemitism on the left, but I think it's cheap to try and insulate neoconservatives from criticism this way.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This article rambles a lot, but doesn't make any sort of case of 'Jews' being 'under attack' by the 'left'"

In Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Peace he makes the case better then this article does.

He posits that the shift is due to seeing "The Jew" as warrior, because of israel, and warriors generally aren't regarded, by the far left, as fuzzy cuddlies to be protected, but beasts to be reviled.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“Neocon” now means hook-nosed Nosferatu-the-vampire warmongers who plotted the invasion of Iraq, and the dumb goyim they manipulate.
I had no idea Condoleeza Rice was Jewish.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing I noticed about the article is that he equates anti-Israeli sentiment with anti-Jewish sentiment. You can be pro-Jewish (or even Jewish) and still not like everything Israel does.

And where does he get the hook-nosed vampires who manipulate the dumb goyim (I supposed he refers to G.W.B. in D.G. category [Smile] ) defintion of neocon?? Just because another group used the name a few years ago does not mean it still applies to that group. Or does "gay" still apply to everyone who is happy? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One thing I noticed about the article is that he equates anti-Israeli sentiment with anti-Jewish sentiment. You can be pro-Jewish (or even Jewish) and still not like everything Israel does."

Yeah, seriously... for a much better analysis, read Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, and The Case for Peace. He makes the point, and I think its a good one, that if you single out Israel for criticism that you do not level at other nations who are open to the same criticism, or harsher criticism in the same area, then you are being anti-jewish (to avoid anti-semitic, since richard will otherwise blow a gasket).

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard....not entirely accurate.

I would rephrase it as "If you single out Israel for criticism that you do not level at other First World Democracies which also tout human rights and a desire for peace"

See, you just can't level an accusation of hypocracy at a warlord in a failed state who says "I kill who I want because I have the power to do so".

In addition, and it's an important element to bear in mind, just because someone levels harsh criticism against Israel in a conversation *about* Israel, doesn't mean they don't have even harsher criticism to level against other nations should the topic come up.

That, of course, doesn't excuse "commentators" on the world at large who make criticism of Israel their bread and butter while failing to mention things like Turkeys massacres of ethnic minorities, or Indonesias naked agression against and repression of it's immediate neighbors. I agree with you. That IS, at the very least, anti-jewish.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I would rephrase it as "If you single out Israel for criticism that you do not level at other First World Democracies which also tout human rights and a desire for peace""

Well, POSSIBLY. Depends on the particular criticism. I would contend that most of the criticism leveled at israel that is not leveled at, for example, saudi arabia, has nothing to do with hypocrisy. And much of the criticism directed at israel that doesn't have to do with hypocrisy that is not directed at saudi arabia, has to do with specific policies that simply aren't applicable to saudi arabia. But, I will grant you the hypocrisy charges. But if you talk about israel as a violator of human rights for doing something, and then don't talk about saudi arabia doing the same thing, you're probably being anti-jewish.

"In addition, and it's an important element to bear in mind, just because someone levels harsh criticism against Israel in a conversation *about* Israel, doesn't mean they don't have even harsher criticism to level against other nations should the topic come up."

I agree.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, Israeli Arabs recieve much more just and humane treatment from Israel than Arab Saudi Arabians recieve from The House of Saud...but the criticisms leveled against Israel have little to do with how the nation treats it's own people.

If you wanted a direct comparision, you'd have to look at how other occupiers behave in their occupied territories...and, I really believe this, Israel over-all has been the most morally responsible long term occupier of continously hostile territory...ever.

That doesn't justify said occupation, and there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, some treatment of ones fellow human beings can't be justified by saying that other people are even worse.

I digress...a lot...but anyway, I guess my point is that those who attack Israel in a manner which tries to make them out to be "one of the worst human rights violators" are either completely ignorant about the issue and have no broader sense of context or are anti-jewish.

"I expect better from a Nation so capable of doing better" is another thing entirely.

If someone chose to focus on the U.S. treatment of blacks in the 1950's rather than South Africas treatment of blacks in the 1950's, it doesn't mean they were anti-American. It probably means they had more hope for the U.S.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1