Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Purging the Neocons
Sobran Column ^ | 01-06-03 | Sobran, Joseph

Posted on 01/20/2004 9:24:58 AM PST by Theodore R.

Purging the Neocons

January 6, 2004 Did you know that the word neoconservative — often shortened to neocon — is an ethnic slur? Neither did I, but some, er, conservative pundits have set me straight.

David Brooks of the New York Times says of “the people labeled neocons” that “con is short for ‘conservative’ and neo is short for ‘Jewish.’” So when other people call these people “neocons,” you see, they’re really calling them Jews, which for some reason is anti-Semitic.

This must come as a surprise to Irving Kristol, who long ago cheerfully, indeed proudly, accepted the term. Though Jewish himself, he never suggested that you had to be Jewish to be a neocon. His Irish friend Daniel Patrick Moynihan was also called a neocon in those days, as are a number of other notable non-Jews today.

Kristol is still known as “the godfather of neoconservatism” and in a famous bon mot defined a neoconservative as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” The neocons were known for a qualified skepticism about the welfare state, though, unlike traditional conservatives, they accepted it in principle. Kristol wanted to ditch a lot of conservative baggage about limited government, the free market, and the U.S. Constitution. Nothing particularly Jewish about all that. (Kristol’s son William, by the way, is also a leading neocon.)

So what’s the problem? Well, the neocons broadly agreed with conservatives about foreign policy. They were anti-Communist and wanted an activist, some would say aggressive, U.S. foreign policy. And a lot of them, many of whom happened to be Jewish, especially wanted the United States to fight Israel’s enemies. In the last few years, neocon has become synonymous with these particular neocons, though it’s perfectly possible to adopt the neocon philosophy in principle without being either Jewish or pro-Israel.

In the real world, people can’t help noticing that a pro-Israel faction has come to dominate the neocon movement. To say this, however, is to court the charge of bigotry. I like to define a bigot as “one who practices sociology without a license.” There are certain social realities which it behooves one to discuss in euphemisms and circumlocutions. To talk about them bluntly is bigotry; to talk about them in academic lingo may be permissible.

Raising alarms about neocon influence is sometimes also called “a new form of McCarthyism.” But of course lots of things — hundreds, would be a safe estimate — have been branded “a new form of McCarthyism,” including any observation that communists and their sympathizers actually did infiltrate the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.

The real Joe McCarthy rose to prominence by affirming, none too academically, not only that there were Reds under the bed, but that a lot of them were in the bed with their pinko friends. This forced liberals to make sure that they kept a careful distance from Stalin’s little helpers, who had infiltrated the liberal movement and often hid behind liberal “fronts.” The Reds often found liberal causes handy for their own purposes.

Is there a lesson here for the neocons? I think so. Like the liberals of yore, they have carelessly allowed their movement to be infiltrated by Zionist partisans and agents who have brought suspicion on all of them. And just as the liberals of McCarthy’s day had to purge Communists from their ranks in order to preserve their good name, it’s up to patriotic American neocons — surely the great majority — to weed out the Israel-firsters among them.

At stake is the good name of the neoconservative philosophy. It would be a disaster to its principles for the general public to get the false impression that those principles are nothing but a “front” for agents of a foreign power who want to trick us into wars against our own interests.

Any genuine political philosophy can stand on its own feet. It must never be reduced to any particular interest if it is to have a broad appeal to ordinary people. The exposure of people calling themselves “neocons” (or taking shelter behind the label) as chums of the Israeli Likud threatens to discredit all the truly principled neoconservatives, who must now show that they represent a universal creed, not a narrow sect.

Otherwise, neoconservatives may find themselves once again mugged by reality.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: billkristol; davidbrooks; irvingkristol; israel; jews; josephmccarthy; mccarthyism; moynihan; neoconservatives; sobran; welfarestate; zionism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 01/20/2004 9:25:05 AM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Froma man who lies about Judaism, slanders Jewish law, and recycles classical antisemitism.
2 posted on 01/20/2004 9:26:37 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
At stake is the good name of the neoconservative philosophy. It would be a disaster to its principles for the general public to get the false impression that those principles are nothing but a “front” for agents of a foreign power who want to trick us into wars against our own interests.

See? He's just looking out for neoconservatism. LOL.

3 posted on 01/20/2004 9:30:03 AM PST by Huck (Was that offensive? I hope that wasn't offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
if you want to make the far left squeal like a pig, just point out that the word NAZI is an acronym for the national socialist party of old germany.

the truth is like a red hot poker in the eye, or better yet salt on a slug.
4 posted on 01/20/2004 9:31:05 AM PST by cripplecreek (.50 cal border fence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; mhking; hchutch
This needs an "Aw geez" graphic.
5 posted on 01/20/2004 9:31:25 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

neo is short for ‘Jewish.’

When did Neo become Jewish? He doesn't look Jewish.

6 posted on 01/20/2004 9:31:39 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Sobran also gives public addresses to The Institute for Historical Studies, one of the most blatant Holocaust revisionist outfits around.
7 posted on 01/20/2004 9:34:11 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Yep...thanks for reminding people of his clear agenda of hate.
8 posted on 01/20/2004 9:36:17 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Real interesting crowds the paleos hang out with.
9 posted on 01/20/2004 9:36:55 AM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
And how would Sobran separate Israeli-Firsters from American-First Jewish neo-cons?
10 posted on 01/20/2004 9:37:27 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Did Cheney, Will, Gaffney, Thomas, and Barnes convert?
11 posted on 01/20/2004 9:37:27 AM PST by ex-snook (Where is the patriotism in the war on American jobs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
And how would Sobran separate Israeli-Firsters from American-First Jewish neo-cons?

He'd insist that the latter do not exist.

12 posted on 01/20/2004 9:38:34 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You're probably right about that.
13 posted on 01/20/2004 9:58:28 AM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
And a lot of them, many of whom happened to be Jewish, especially wanted the United States to fight Israel’s enemies. In the last few years, neocon has become synonymous with these particular neocons, though it’s perfectly possible to adopt the neocon philosophy in principle without being either Jewish or pro-Israel.

Whether they all can be considered neocons or not, there is a good % of conservatives who seem to believe that American and Israeli interests are one and the same in the mideast. People like Frum seem to enjoy smearing those conservatives who question this policy as being anti-semites, so I understand where Sobran is coming from on this. Quite frankly I can't think of a single conservative off hand who has been critical of Israel who hasn't been smeared in this fashion at one time or another. In some peoples minds, any criticism of Israel = anti-semitism, whether deserved or not.

14 posted on 01/20/2004 10:19:36 AM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
????

I thought that "Neo" was translated "New".

Also, I think I'm a neocon...but I am a White, Christian Evangelical.

I guess that makes me either a Caucacon or a Chrevacon.

:o)

ChakaKhan!
15 posted on 01/20/2004 10:32:06 AM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
"there is a good % of conservatives who seem to believe that American and Israeli interests are one and the same in the mideast."

I'd be one of those.

16 posted on 01/20/2004 10:33:34 AM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
The problem is that in te case of Sobran, it isdeserved.
He lies about Jewish law, slanders Israel, and speaks at Holocaust Revion/Denial conferences.
17 posted on 01/20/2004 10:33:42 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; All
Sobran: My Obsession with Jews
Joe's an anti-Semite.
18 posted on 01/20/2004 10:37:18 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Victoria Delsoul; harpseal; Travis McGee; dennisw; veronica; glock rocks; ...
Is there a lesson here for the neocons? I think so. Like the liberals of yore, they have carelessly allowed their movement to be infiltrated by Zionist partisans and agents who have brought suspicion on all of them. And just as the liberals of McCarthy’s day had to purge Communists from their ranks in order to preserve their good name, it’s up to patriotic American neocons — surely the great majority — to weed out the Israel-firsters among them.

The writer should change his name to Joseph Pogrom.

Hey Joe... Jordan is Palestine. Does that make me a Jooo?


19 posted on 01/20/2004 10:38:21 AM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4



I think I'm a neocon...but I am a White, Christian Evangelical.

I guess that makes me either a Caucacon or a Chrevacon.

Honkeycon? Crackercon?


20 posted on 01/20/2004 10:41:19 AM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
In Sobran's case it could be that he feels that he has been unfairly persecuted as an anti-semite so out of resentment he throws out the ocassional dig. During the cold war he was an ardent supporter of Israel, so I would question those who would jump to that conclusion. BTW, are you able to name even one conservative pundit who has been critical of Israel that hasn't been branded an anti-semite at one time or another? Even Bob Novak who is of jewish ancestry has been suspected of that himself.
21 posted on 01/20/2004 10:45:29 AM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
So what’s the problem?

The problem, Joe, is that the term "neocon" is so sloppy and ill-defined that for some people it probably does mean "Jewish." It has become stylish for pundits all across the political spectrum to berate the "neocons" for sins from stock market manipulation to warmongering, but each of them seems to mean a different group of people. It's a term that ought to be dropped off at the retirement home for useless, feel-good neologisms.

22 posted on 01/20/2004 10:46:40 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth

LOL...


No, too 60/70s'ish.
23 posted on 01/20/2004 10:47:00 AM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The purge I like is the one where William F. Buckley PURGED Joe Sobran from National Review. :))
24 posted on 01/20/2004 10:51:20 AM PST by veronica ("Clinton happens"....F. Lee Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
>>>"David Brooks of the New York Times says of “the people labeled neocons” that “con is short for ‘conservative’ and neo is short for ‘Jewish.’"

This is an interesting new thought, but I think Brooks has the causality all wrong.

There are many neocons who are Christian and fully support Israel. In fact, in terms of quantity, the Christians are probably a large majority of the neocons.

But where he is close is that many Jews have a libertarian view of immigration - the more the merrier. They also prefer a weak defense - except in the case of Israel.

I guess I am what you call a paleo-conservative. Yet, I strongly support the defense of Israel. I just don't support the heavy non-defense subsidizing of a socialist nation.

All Jews are not neocons. All neocons are not Jewish. Not even a majority of neocons are Jewish. Just a tiny minority of Jews are neocons. So Brooks is off base with this divisive remark.

Although I've talked to quite a few Jews who support the Palestinians (quite chic in the younger ages), I think we can say that most Jews support the defense of Israel (they were given the territory by the British, and they defeated the Palestinians so many times I've lost count). But this doesn't make them neocons.

But we could say that some of the leaders and thinkers of the neocons are Jewish. But that should not, and is not, a brush that paints the whole group. I think of Rockefeller, a RINO, as the ideal neo-con. If he wants to link them to Jewishness then he should just call them kibitzers.

I dislike the neocons because of their position on immigration but I never thought of them as Jews. Nor did I think the term as an ethnic slur. In this age of hyper political correctness I guess everyone wants to be a victim. If Brooks wants to be a victim then each year he should parade himself around New York and beat himself with a stick like the Shite Moslems do.

Hoppy
25 posted on 01/20/2004 10:54:59 AM PST by Hop A Long Cassidy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
If "neo" means Jewish, what is a neo-nazi?
26 posted on 01/20/2004 11:08:29 AM PST by bayourod ( Dean's anti-terrorism plan: "treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect"12/1/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
I liked that one, too. :)
27 posted on 01/20/2004 11:09:42 AM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hop A Long Cassidy
All Jews are not neocons. All neocons are not Jewish. Not even a majority of neocons are Jewish. Just a tiny minority of Jews are neocons. So Brooks is off base with this divisive remark.

I would agree. I recently came across a poll showing tha slightly more than 50% of American Jews were against the war in Iraq, a war that ostensibly indirectly benefits Israel. It stands to reason that the vast majority of those who identify themselves as neocons would be non-Jews.

28 posted on 01/20/2004 11:13:59 AM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
I recently came across a poll showing tha slightly more than 50% of American Jews were against the war in Iraq

Where did you come across this poll?

What is really showed what that 50% of the people self-identifying as "Jews" who were selected to participate in this poll were against the war in Iraq.

It does not in any way represent the opinions of "50%" of American Jews since 100% of American Jews did not participate in this poll.

29 posted on 01/20/2004 11:22:01 AM PST by Alouette (Proud parent of an IDF recruit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
I don't recall where I came across the poll, tho I can't say that I was particularly surprised by it since most American Jews tend to be liberal and don't care for Bush or his policies.
30 posted on 01/20/2004 11:31:22 AM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
In Sobran's case it could be that he feels that he has been unfairly persecuted as an anti-semite so out of resentment he throws out the ocassional dig. During the cold war he was an ardent supporter of Israel, so I would question those who would jump to that conclusion
Bill Buckley for one. Buckley fired Sobran from NR over anti-Semitism.

This is not about Israel. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is not neccesarily anti-Semitism.
However, read Sobran's own words http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011360/posts
Sobran lies about Jewish law, recycling Medieval lies aboutthe Talmud andJewish customs.http://sitelevel.whatuseek.com/query.go?crid=37ea11aa0a7ab219&query=talmud
Sobran speaksfor Holocaust Revisionist groups.
He opposes a Jewish state. He opposes Jews defending themselves. Sobran minimizes theHolocaust. Finally Sobran lies about Judaism. How is he NOT an Anti-Semite!

As for Bob Novak, being of Jewish ancestry is irrelevent. Torqemada was 1/2 Jewish. Novak converted from Judaism and ishostile to Israel. Res ipsa locquator.
On the other hand, Bill Buckley has opposed man Israeli policies. I don't recall him being called an anti-Semite.
31 posted on 01/20/2004 11:46:36 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: westerfield; hchutch
In Sobran's case it could be that he feels that he has been unfairly persecuted as an anti-semite so out of resentment he throws out the ocassional dig.

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Hang out with Holocaust deniers, get people to believe you're an anti-semite.

32 posted on 01/20/2004 11:48:57 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hop A Long Cassidy
Neo conservatism is not Jewish and paleoconservatism is not anti-Jewish.
There are Jewish and philosemitic Christian paleocons. In fact, if you do not consider foreign policy to be the determining factor in paleoconservatism, there are Zionist paleocons, including myself.

Most Paleos are traditionally very sympathetic to the Palestinians.This is a function of the knee-jerk antipathy towards anything neocons support. Other are Arabists because they want to appease the Arabs/Muslims and.or view Israel as the cause of our problems in the region. On the otherhand, virtually all paleos who believe that defending Western civilization trumps the isolationist impulse are pro-Israel. Some go so far as to support transfer as the solution for the Palestinian problem. My friend Robert Locke was banned from TAC over this issue. Other Zionist paleos include Lawrence Auster (and most people posting on his blog, ), John Derbyshire, and John O'Sullivan. There are even Jewish Zionist paleos including Don Feder and Ilana Mercer.

33 posted on 01/20/2004 11:50:59 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hop A Long Cassidy
RINO's are not neocons.
Rockefeller's foriegn polices was a mixture of neo-realism and corporatism. This was the antithesis of neocon foreign policy.
While neocons are not as wary of big government as other conservatives, they do not support government intrusion the same way RINO's do. RINO's are slow liberals. Neocons understand the inherent problem of unintended consequences.
34 posted on 01/20/2004 11:53:51 AM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
That last paragraph was as delusional bit of rambling that could possibly be written.
35 posted on 01/20/2004 12:00:06 PM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: junta
What exactly was delusional?
Do you want to get past name calling?
36 posted on 01/20/2004 12:05:37 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
At stake is the good name of the neoconservative philosophy. It would be a disaster to its principles for the general public to get the false impression that those principles are nothing but a “front” for agents of a foreign power who want to trick us into wars against our own interests.

Any genuine political philosophy can stand on its own feet. It must never be reduced to any particular interest if it is to have a broad appeal to ordinary people.

Sobran is just plain wrong. The word "neoconservatism" is used in two rather different senses.

"Neoconservatism" as an ideology will be around for a while. It refers first to to the to the disillusionment of former liberals with liberal social experiments, second to the efforts of conservatives to adapt to changing circumstances, most particularly to the modern "mixed economy," and third to a more realistic view of foreign affairs. "Neoconservatism" in this sense does have a broader appeal, and has influenced people who would never claim to be neocons, even people who hate neocons.

The word is also used in less "philosophical" contexts to refer to the foreign policies (and much less often domestic policies) advocated by a given circle of thinkers and activists most commonly known as neocons. One can draw on or adhere to the philosophy without advocating the specific policy recommendations of these thinkers.

It may be that neoconservative foreign policy will decay or collapse. No foreign policy line lasts forever, and there have been real problems with the neocon point of view. But such a decline or fall isn't going to throw everyone into Sobran's political camp -- not by a long shot.

37 posted on 01/20/2004 12:17:25 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
You wrote "transfer" with no doubt a straight face. A good many of your neocon friend excoriate America along with their lefty friends for its high crimes of "racism" (the never ending show trial, the need for never ending aversion therapy) so keep it up with that "transfer" non-sense and see where it leads. Or would you and your Manhattan flunkie friends like Frum like to "transfer" me somewhere where I cannot be pesky to you.
38 posted on 01/20/2004 12:18:10 PM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: x
"Disillusionment" you must be kidding me, Liberalism is the sugar in the Neo-con's Kool-Aid. It is damn near impossible to find a neo-con who cannot write an essay without using the liberal hate word of "Racism" when it comes to critiqueing other conservatives.
39 posted on 01/20/2004 12:23:14 PM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Sobran lies about Jewish law, recycling Medieval lies aboutthe Talmud andJewish customs.

Following your link, it does appear that Sobran quotes Shahak concerning unflattering depictions of gentiles in the Talmud. It is my understanding that the Torah is the main text of Judaism and the Talmud is merely a collection of Rabbi opinion, so I wouldn't necessarily be surprised that some un-pc stuff got in there, but that doesn't make Sobran a liar - just someone with perhaps a bit of a jewish obsession. Here is a link to an authoritative jewish source that pretty much concedes that what Sobran says about the Talmud is essentially true. http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html

As far as Buckley getting a pass on his critisizing of Israel, I assume people cut him a break because he did after all dump Sobran and basically called Pat Buchanan an anti-semite. What seems to occur in these cases is that somebody starts out dissing Israel, then the attacks and name calling set in, until finally the person who has been set up thusly becomes even more hostile and obsessed with Jews. Kind of a vicious cycle.

40 posted on 01/20/2004 12:24:02 PM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Here's how I see it.

Bob Novak > Pat Buchanan > Joe Sobran > David Duke
41 posted on 01/20/2004 12:24:44 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

National Socialist German Workers Party.

Just to really get their hackles up.
42 posted on 01/20/2004 12:31:50 PM PST by BJClinton (Vote Democrat, it's easier than thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Bob Novak > Pat Buchanan > Joe Sobran > David Duke

LOL, but where would Charley Reese fit in there?

43 posted on 01/20/2004 12:34:17 PM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: junta
It is damn near impossible to find a neo-con who cannot write an essay without using the liberal hate word of "Racism" when it comes to critiqueing other conservatives.

I think Frum and a few of the other neocons learned their debating tactics from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

44 posted on 01/20/2004 12:38:46 PM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: junta
You wrote "transfer" with no doubt a straight face. A good many of your neocon friend excoriate America along with their lefty friends for its high crimes of "racism" (the never ending show trial, the need for never ending aversion therapy) so keep it up with that "transfer" non-sense and see where it leads. Or would you and your Manhattan flunkie friends like Frum like to "transfer" me somewhere where I cannot be pesky to you.
1. Neocons do not support "transfer" because it is inherently racial. It is at odds with their universalist delusions.
2. I am not a neocon. Think outside of the paleo delusion of persecution.
45 posted on 01/20/2004 12:43:47 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
Following your link, it does appear that Sobran quotes Shahak concerning unflattering depictions of gentiles in the Talmud.
Shahak is a liar, who many anti-Zionists do not trust.

It is my understanding that the Torah is the main text of Judaism and the Talmud is merely a collection of Rabbi opinion, so I wouldn't necessarily be surprised that some un-pc stuff got in there, but that doesn't make Sobran a liar - just someone with perhaps a bit of a jewish obsession. Here is a link to an authoritative jewish source that pretty much concedes that what Sobran says about the Talmud is essentially true. http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html
The Talmud is a collection of customs, debates, and rulings.
There are plenty of unPC things there. However, Sobran contiues with lies. He lies about Jewish writtings on Jesus. Sobran and Shahak quote parts of rulings or even losing arguements as authoritative and use selective mistranslations.

If you want a collection of Shahak's lies,
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/israel_shahak.htm
http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
http://www.meforum.org/article/87
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp.html
http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf
http://www.wquercus.com/talmud_attacks.doc

As far as Buckley getting a pass on his critisizing of Israel, I assume people cut him a break because he did after all dump Sobran and basically called Pat Buchanan an anti-semite. What seems to occur in these cases is that somebody starts out dissing Israel, then the attacks and name calling set in, until finally the person who has been set up thusly becomes even more hostile and obsessed with Jews. Kind of a vicious cycle.
Yes, their is a cycle, but only if there is truth behind the initial claim.

46 posted on 01/20/2004 1:01:46 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
You sure they didn't learn it from those calling them "Israel-firsters"?
The neocon-paleocon debate has degraded into self-righteous name calling and claims of oppression on all sides. No one is without blame.
A pox on both their houses.
47 posted on 01/20/2004 1:03:52 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
You know, I thought of Charley. I'd put him between Buchanan and Sobran. What do you thinK?
48 posted on 01/20/2004 1:07:03 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Between Buchanan and Sobran? Yeah, that seems reasonable.
49 posted on 01/20/2004 1:19:27 PM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
The neocon-paleocon debate has degraded into self-righteous name calling and claims of oppression on all sides. No one is without blame.

I'll go along with that...the petty bickering did kind of degenerate into immature name-calling on both sides, tho it does point to some very real differences among conservatives when it comes to our relationship with Israel. While the vast majority of conservatives support Israel, the question of finacially subsidizing Israel rankles many, and whether it is appropriate for us to have a "special relationship" with what many consider just to be another ally is also a point of contention. Much of it seems to break down over one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), tho certainly not exclusively.

50 posted on 01/20/2004 1:35:16 PM PST by westerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson