Personally, I think he can be faulted for two things, in an otherwise thoughtful article. He does tend to stereotype to some extent, by suggesting that American Jews fall into three categories. While his three categories may, and probably do account for substantial numbers, they are by no means exclusive, and do not describe substantial other numbers. However, I do not think this is in anyway malicious. Indeed, on balance, he says more favorable things about American Jews than negative.
His other fault, in my estimation, is in disclosing an apparently private conversation with Bill Buckley. That seems unfair, in this sort of public format. (And I do not think that Buckley can be accused of being obsessed with Israeli interests. I remember his article at the time of the Eichmann Trial "Israel Against The Jews," which was very critical of the way that whole matter was handled--and that was the major news event involving Israel between the 1956 and 1967 Wars. Although granted that is more than a generation ago, and I have not followed Buckley that closely in the past twenty years.)
I do not have a clue as to the religious background of most of those posting, here, and do not really have a clue as to whether most of those posting on Israeli subjects are Jews or Gentiles--probably a decent mix. But there is, frankly, a disproportionate emphasis on Israeli themes as opposed to those involving other foreign lands--with the exception of Mexican themes (almost all of the latter being negative) and Iraqi (where we are more immediately involved). Whether this reflects an "obsession" with the modern secular State of Israel, or one with the scenes of the Bible, or a combination of the two, I do not know. But anyone who doubts that assessment, might just scan the subjects posted over an average month.
I have one other comment, and it is one that goes alike to both Sobran, his supporters and his detractors. All of them keep referring to the "Holocaust," when they are actually writing about a methodical, systematic, cold-blooded slaughter, involving considerable organization and planning, extending over a three year period. Packaging that vicious procedure under a catchy packaging term is as ridiculous as the current practice of packaging deviant asexuality under the term "Gay." It discourages actual understanding. And it is actual understanding that is needed to realize how totally ridiculous some posters are being, who would suggest that Sobran is advocating anything of the sort.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I can't speak for Joe's supporters, but Joe begs off the question, he's not knowledgeable enough to determine if what you describe as a methodical, systematic, cold-blooded slaughter, involving considerable organization and planning, extending over a three year period actually happened.
Actually, unless you're a chemist, fluent in German, with substantial logistical experience in mass murder, he'd say you can't determine if it happened either. From his speach to the 2002 Institute of Historical Review Conference.
Even if the Holocaust had really happened, as I assumed, maybe it should be studied with a critical rationality most of its believers obviously lacked… I am not, heaven forbid, a “Holocaust denier.” I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don’t read German, so I can’t assess the documentary evidence; I don’t know chemistry, so I can’t discuss Zyklon-B; I don’t understand the logistics of exterminating millions of people in small spaces…. Of course those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities… Besides, “Holocaust denial” is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that’s proof enough. ...I’m also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I’ve become what might be called a “Holocaust stipulator.”