J'Accuse, Sort Of [A liberal Jew's interesting take on anti-Semitism]

Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia, already a locally famous foot-in-mouther, went national last week by declaring at an anti-war rally that "if it was not for the strong support of the Jewish community," the war against Iraq would not be happening. He said that Jewish "leaders" are "influential enough" to reverse the policy "and I think they should."

The thunderous rush of politicians of all stripes to denounce Moran's remarks as complete nonsense might suggest to the suspicious mind that they are not complete nonsense. Moran himself almost immediately denounced his own words as "insensitive." He said he was using the term "Jewish community" as a shorthand for all "organizations in this country," which would certainly be a first if it were at all plausible.

As others have noted, Moran's words are less alarming for their own direct meaning than for their historic association with some of the classic themes of anti-Semitism: the image of Jews as a monolithic group suffering from "dual loyalty" and wielding nefarious influence behind the scenes. When someone touches even lightly on these themes in public, it's only natural to wonder whether his or her actual views are a lot darker.

Nevertheless, Moran is not the only one publicly exaggerating the power and influence of the Zionist lobby these days. It is my sad duty to report that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most prominent and respected—one might even say influential—organizations in Washington. This organization claims that "America's pro-Israel lobby"—and we all know what "pro-Israel" is a euphemism for—has tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site, this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist "agenda" is curbing the power of Saddam Hussein. The Web site also contains a shocking collection of Moran-type remarks from leading American politicians.

Did you know, for example, that former President Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as "stunningly effective" and "better than anyone else lobbying this town"? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone even further (as is his wont), labeling the Zionists "the most effective general interest group … across the entire planet." (Gingrich added ominously that if the Zionist lobby "did not exist, we would have to invent" it.) House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is quoted saying that if it weren't for the Zionist lobby "fighting on a daily basis," the close relationship between America and Israel "would not be." Sen. John McCain has said that this lobby "has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role" in protecting the interests of Israel with the U.S. government. There is a string of quotes from leading Israeli politicians making the same point.

According to this Web site, the Zionist lobby is, like most political conspiracies, a set of concentric circles within circles. The two innermost circles are known as the "President's Cabinet" and the "Chairman's Council." Members allegedly "take part in special events with members of Congress in elegant Washington locations," "participate in private conference calls," and attend an annual "national summit." In the past members of these groups have met "in a private setting" with President Clinton, with Vice President Gore, and with the president of Turkey, among others. If this Web site is to be believed, these Zionist-lobby insiders have even enjoyed "a luncheon with renowned author and commentator George Will."

And who is behind this Web site? Who is spreading the anti-Semitic canard that Jews and Zionists influence American policy in the Middle East, including Iraq? It is a group calling itself the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and claiming to be "pro-Israel." They all claim that, of course. But in this case, AIPAC actually is considered to be the institutional expression of the amorphous Zionist lobby. All the foregoing quotes and assertions about the huge Zionist influence with the U.S. government and the lengths to which Zionists go to protect and expand it actually refer to AIPAC itself.

This doesn't make it all true, of course. AIPAC, like any organization, has an institutional interest in exaggerating its own importance. This is especially true of any organization that must raise money to support itself. The "President's Club" and "Chairman's Council" are both fund-raising gimmicks, intended to give donors the feeling that they are in the thick of government policy-making. It's more about being able to say, "As I was saying to Colin Powell" than about trying to say anything in particular to Colin Powell. Another element in AIPAC's braggadocio is rivalry with other Jewish organizations. The American Jewish Committee also has a page of quotes on its Web site about how influential it is. ("We know that yours is the most important and powerful Jewish organization in the United States," says President Jacques Chirac. Maybe it sounds more like a compliment in French.) This evident rivalry undermines any notion of a unified Jewish conspiracy.

Just as African-Americans can use the "n" word when joshing among themselves and it sounds a lot different than when used by a white person, talk about the political influence of organized Jewry sounds different when it comes from Jewish organizations themselves. Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence.

Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence.

And he's not hysterical? He converts the issue about racist accusations about secret, total control to one about lobbyists bragging about influence so to raise more money. No different than the dairy lobby, the arab lobby, etc. etc. Well, maybe the airline lobby is in total control.

And who is the "you" he complains about? A bit of a collective punishment on the Jews, no? Is the group "AIPAC" complaining about Moran? He doesn't say so. This collective "you" undermines the diversity of view line he strains to make us believe he believes. And where did that "n word" thing come from? He's got a lot of anger.

For America on a whole and the conservatism in particular there is a much needed debate which I see being squelched by charges of anti-Semitism just as Jesse Jackson says anyone who questions his finances is a racist.

The following is not meant as a defense of Buchanan but merely to use him as an obvious example - During the last presidential campaign when Buchanan discussed foreign policy he mentioned Wolfowitz and his writings/vision for America and the world because Wolfowitz was a important figure with plans that Buchanan did not agree with. So the neocons used this as an example of Buchanan's anti-semitism. Wolfowitz is code for Jew, you know. Well no sooner did Bush get elected then who finds a major position of influence in the new administration? - Wolfowitz. Buchanan was right and his distracters were quite frankly dishonest.

The neo conservative ideology needs to be examined and debated for the implementation of it will reshape this country and indeed the world, we are living in monumental times. The fact of the matter is this ideology has founders and some current leaders who are Jewish but that does not mean it is a solely owned and operated Jewish movement and that any disagreement with its tenets equals anti-Semitism. Neoconservatism could be roughly compared to Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, the 12 apostles were Jews, its leading missionary - Paul was a Jew but the largest segment of devotees are gentile. To criticize neoconservatism would be no more anti-semtic than criticizing Christianity is. The charge is false and is intended to cause people to react emotionally and not logically. It is designed to stifle debate.

There is absolutely no doubt that some Jews and large segments of Christians (social conservatives) have a strong affection for the nation of Israel but I do not believe the protection of Israel is the lone or driving factor in this war on Iraq or our mid-east policy but it is one factor out of many. Perhaps some neocons have a dual loyalty. Perhaps some have one loyalty - to Israel. Who can say? Who can absolutely judge another man's heart and motives? We can only weigh evidence and speculate. Personally I do not think the hierarchy of the neoconservative movement is driven by loyalty to Israel foremost or even to America. I believe they are driven by a messianic world revolutionary megalomania. Their loyalty is to their vision of remaking society on a global level and they mask it as American national defense. Neoconservatism has now taken over main stream conservatism but I do not believe the majority of the rank and file have either fully appreciate the dreams of the leadership or have not thought through the ramifications.

The neocon charges of anti-semetism is to paint traditional conservatism as so far beyond the pale that their arguments are never considered and the neo-cons are never questioned. Politics is a blood sport. The neocons trace their heritage to the communist party - the commies who were ruthless fighters who knew well how to manipulate debate, perceptions and public opinion. They understood the human herd mentality and how to start stampedes. Funny how those who see anti-Semitism everywhere, to those who the mere mention of the word neocon is now code for anti-Semitism (a word they themselves coined for their own self description), the same people who never cease to conjure up images of Hitler in their opponents, to these folks who rail against the evils of racism in America's past are the very same ones who lead the charge with inceasent vitriol against the entire French race. To the communist consistency or hypocrisy never mattered, only winning mattered. That trait seems to be genetic..

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.