“. . . Nancy Pelosi has finally weighed in on the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments made there.”

I would really like to know from Mr. Baer what anti-Semitic comments were made at the hearings the other day. I don’t know much about this, other than what I’ve read on this site. But from what I’ve read it seems that someone suggested that the US-Israeli alliance was one of multiple factors that account for the invasion of Iraq.

Now, I don’t know if the US-Israeli alliance did or did not play a role in creating the conditions for the war. But to suggest that it did doesn’t quite sound the same as “blaming Israel” any more than suggesting that oil played a role in our Iraqi policy is the same as blaming oil companies. But whatever the statement is, and regardless of whether it is a valid argument or not, it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination an anti-Semitic remark.

Anyone who cares deeply about reasoned and informed discussion must attack with rigor the attempt to smear any mildly critical comment of Israel (although, I repeat, to suggest that the US-Israel alliance played a role in creating the conditions for war isn’t anti-Israel per se) with the accusation of anti-Semitism.  

According to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=860517) --

"A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday. "

In addition,  the testimony included --

"One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned. "

No word on exactly what was in that literature.  But if US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East was NOT one of the motivations for our Iraq adventure, I'd sure as hell love to know what was.

I assume ABC News would have mentioned, say, quotes from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", if that had been cited in the "anti-Semitic" literature.  I suspect that it merely pointed out the painful reality that America's been carrying Israel's water long enough that the costs have long since exceeded any benefits.  But we can't afford to upset any precious New York or Florida votes, can we?  Ergo the hysterical charges of "anti-Semitism".  One more example of how utterly neurotic American political life has become.....

That's a good point -- about how we ought to spend more time discussing what we believe and analyzing political developments critically instead of worrying so much about what to say to win power. That's not our role. I was trying to make this point a few days ago in a discussion post at the Democrats table, which didn't get quite the replies I was expecting.

With regards to the issue at hand, it is obvious to most that one can not automatically equate any comment about Israel as a comment about Jews, or to suggest that any criticism of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism. To say or suggest otherwise is pure thuggery. 

We should defend, robustly, the value of reasoned inquiry and debate against such McCarthyite slanders.

Let me offer this, Cranky. The neocon=Jew line has some truth to it. Undoubtedly the old righties used it that way, and as anyone who has read the origins of the neocons knows, a good chunk of them were New York Jewish intellectual leftist radicals. The roots of Jewish liberalism are still an important part of neocon theory, especially because there is some truth to them.

Though I am tempermentally a conservative, I recognize that progress must occur, the humanity of all people of the world is vital to making progress. The old right has a hard time abiding this.

The old righties would rather that the USA simply disengage from Israel politically, and regard it as just any other foreign country. It's possible that will happen, but it wouldn't be the right thing. Progress will happen when people of the USA engage with people of all foreign countries as individuals of equal moral worth. 

This I think is where the neocons have failed, and returned to the Leninist principles of breaking some eggs to make an omelette. God knows it's easy to do when the eggs are foreigners. Who hasn't done this at least in thought?

I return at this point to Christian theology, where Jesus commands me to love my enemy. To be presumptuous, I don't see such a course being set by Jewish peace groups in the USA or Israel, which seem to be content with "tolerate thy enemy". I see a connection between that attitude and a general failure of "comfort liberalism" in the USA.

The Israeli version organized falafel exchanges with liberal Palestinians, while the people with the guns, who were ready to kill over property rights, were left out. This is where the old righties have a superior understanding of the motivations of the Arabs.

In addition the old righties have a superior economic model, wherein the Israelis/USA would benefit from engagement with a free modern middle class Arab world. (Which leads to the obvious conclusion that free prosperous Arabs would get the biggest weapons they could to defend their land from us in the current political scene.) 

I don't know what the answer is. I would be interested to hear if there is a theological basis in Judaism for true engagement with the enemy, my guess has always been that as a non-prosletyzing religion, it's not emphasized. 

Ha! I guess I jumped ahead. Ray McGovern and the other antiwar righties have a lot to contribute and as a critical community, are about a year ahead of the antiwar lefties.

But their solution is not a good way forward, and the best way to avoid anti-semitism charges is to maintain a course that this can work out for the benefit of Israelis and Arabs and the USA, rather than washing our hands of the whole situation.