TPMCafe
« Actually, Homeowner Relief Should Be About Fairness | Home | My Debate with McCain's No-Show Economic Adviser »

Do They Think Jews Are Disloyal Or Just Racist?

user-pic

(This is my edited for TPM IPF Friday piece from this morning. It bears considerable resemblance to Jo-Ann Mort's terrific piece but is different enough -- I'm more vicious and I focus more on the nauseating pandering to Israel on general --that I'm posting it),

I have been looking to see if the Jewish "defense organizations" put out statements condemning the vicious attacks on Professor Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian-American academic.

I looked in vain. But then, these Jewish organizations tend not to get overly excited when the targets of bigotry are Palestinian or even Palestinian-American. And some of these organizations themselves play the "guilt by [Palestinian] association" game so they are in no position to criticize it.

Fortunately, the Washington Post (which happens to be a bastion of neo-conservatism) published a terrific editorial today that points out that Khalidi is nothing more, or less, than a respected Palestinian-American academic who holds views that are "unsurprising" although "complex."

What are those views? He supports the two-state solution. He opposes terrorism. And he is strongly critical (like at least half of Israel's population) of the occupation of the West Bank). He is neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Israeli. And he's an American.

But even if he was a strident critic of Israel's policies, so what? Is policy toward Israel the only issue about which an American is not allowed to hold opinions? Is it possible that it is acceptable to oppose, the US war in Iraq, President Bush and everything he stands for, and, say, social security, but you cannot oppose Israel's policies in the West Bank? If it is, Walt, Mearsheimer, and Carter are not just right but guilty of understatement.

Actually, the whole Khalidi issue matters less than the general smearing of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians that has been a staple of this presidential campaign all year.

Candidates of both parties have consistently tried to appeal to Jewish voters by accusing their opponent of being tainted by association with Arabs and Muslims. No matter if the Muslim or Palestinian in question is foreign or American. No matter if, as Colin Powell reminded us, they died in this country's service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

No. To the political operatives launching these campaigns, there is no good Arab or Muslim. Or, to put it more precisely, they want Jews to think that their candidate honestly believes that there are no good Arabs. And that Israel, unlike even our own country, is the only country in the world that is never ever wrong about anything.

Of course, the candidates don't really believe that.

Nor do any of the candidates indulging in these racist smears actually believe them. I happen to know that the very same candidates who smear their opponents for having an Arab or Muslim friend or colleague have such friends themselves. I don't know about Palin (who is new to national politics), but I do know that the other candidates who have resorted to the guilt by association smear bear no animus to Palestinians, not even to Rashid Khalidi who they know and respect.

The only reason they engage in Arab or Muslim baiting is because they believe that Jewish donors and voters want to hear this stuff and will vote--based not on their perception of American interests--but on bigotry, racism, and hate.

In fact, the people who should most be insulted by these racist smear campaigns are Jews.

It is as if these candidates do not know that Jewish attitudes (according to polls) are the least racist and most liberal of any white American group. And that includes their attitudes not only to African-Americans, but also Muslims, Palestinians, and Arab-Americans.

True, some not-very-bright Jews fall for these libels. And true, some Jewish political operatives (including pseudo-journalist poseur Matt Drudge) are all too willing to put this junk out; not because they care about Jews or Israel, but because they will say or do anything to elect their candidate.

Nonetheless, it is time for Jews to demand that it stop. This constant (and nauseating) pandering on Israel coupled with invoking the Holocaust and bashing Arabs is insulting to us.

Not that long ago, Jews were killed by the millions because they were scapegoated. To think that the way to get our support is by scapegoating Palestinians, African -Americans, Muslims, or Arabs is about as ugly as anything I've seen in politics. It disrespects us. It desecrates the memory of the Holocaust. It drives dangerous wedges between Jews and the non-Jewish majority in this country. And it tells us how little regard these campaigns really have for us.

It is as if they don't view us as real Americans who care about the same issues as our neighbors, but rather as bigots. Stupid bigots.

In short, this whole episode is deeply and profoundly offensive . . . to Jews. It is our community that should put an end to it.


38 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

The best way to put an end to this slime is for Obama to win about 95% of the votes of Jews. And, in exit polling for most of them to say they were so highly offended by the slime sent to them, believing they would read and believe it, that they had no choice at all but to vote for Obama.

Politicians will use techniques that work, not those that are total failures - well, Democrats used to be wedded to failed techniques, but this year we seem to have broken that habit. So, if this slime technique is demonstrated to have utterly backfired it may not again be used. At least we have a chance that it will never again be used.

Facebook

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!

Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube downloader

Facebook

This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.

user-pic

hoppy,

good post, especially the first paragraph.

user-pic

Well said.

As I put it: I am tired of having the murder of much of my family in the holocaust hijacked and perverted by right wing [of all stripes], but particularly by right wing Zionists and AIPAC apologists.

Sensible Jewish voices are denied access or ignored by corporate media outlets, leaving the intended impression that the right wingers speak for Jews. It's long past time that impression were challenged ahnd changed.

user-pic

Why would you expect the Jewish Defense Leagues to defend a man who was a spokesman for the PLO, who dealt directly with Arafat, a well known terrorist turned statesman, turned terrorist organizer? Have you ever seen ANYTHING regarding DEFENSE from the PLO regarding the Jews? I really don't understand you people...you don't give what you expect.

user-pic

Weird. The Jewish Defense League? They were banned in Israel two decades ago as a terrorist hate organization.
Israel is engaged in negotiations with the PLO. The United States and Israel both recognize it. It is not a terrorist organization.
Yes, Arafat had a terrorist history. So did Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin.

user-pic

It is NOT, and I repeat, it is NOT that Khalidi or Ayres or Davis or Rezko has any other opinion...THEY are not running for President. The problem is that a man who wants to be PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES may very well have subversive ideas and he wants to run our country.

In THIS nation we are permitted to discuss ANYTHING...as evidenced by the fact that AYRES is a professor in a college teaching our children his ideas. That's a scary thought for me too.

But we DON'T expect the leader of our free nation to have ideas or affiliations with terrorists or either middle eastern or domestic. Neither do we expect our President to have ties to possible criminals or Communists.

Mr. Obama has given no one satisfactory answers as to why there are so MANY of these type people in his background. And as the American people he is asking to lead, we have a right to know. Since his handlers have decided that he should not answer our questions, we have no choice but to assume that some of his "HANDLERS" may very well be these people.

For these reasons, many Americans have paid to have new ads run, showing our fellow Americans what we have realized. Mr. McCain did not agree...this is not coming from him.

user-pic

Baffling.

user-pic

Not a bit baffling, actually. If Yahweh himself appeared before people such as this one and told him that Obama was (pick one)


-- The second coming of Jesus Christ or
-- The Messiah or
-- The new Mohammed or
-- Buddha's latest reincarnation or
-- You get the idea

and that John McCain was (pick one)

-- The Anti-Christ or
-- Hitler's loyal grandson or
-- The offspring of a dog mating with a pig or
-- Mara or
-- You get this idea, too

If that happened, this person would go right on making long-invalided arguments, just as Rush has insisted in his latest broadcast.

user-pic

It isn't just sprytling. Many of us dislike your Marxist leader and his friends. Glossing over Obama and his relationships with those who kill others for their beliefs do not last, even if elected....

user-pic

Ok, let's go over this sloooowly;

Q: Who met with a Dictator without preconditions?

A: McCain met with Chilean Dictator Agusto Pinochet in 1985

At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates for an act of terrorism in Washington DC, the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dinges/mccain-meets-a-bloody-dic_b_137422.html

Q: Who is friends with terrorists who are convicted felons?

A: McCain is close friends with G. Gordon Liddy, convicted and unrepentant Watergate felon. William Ayers was never charged or sent to prison.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810170018

//

Too bad many more of us dislike your fascist favorites. Good luck with your state's 3 electoral votes, against my state's 55!

user-pic


It's Halloween, all the kooks are out!

user-pic

OldSarg,

in your words, tell us what a Marxist is.

user-pic

OldSarg, in your words, tell us what a Marxist is.

No fair, John. Rush hasn't given him that information yet.

user-pic

Tankard,

A Historian and an Economist were sitting on the porch having tea at the nudist colony.

The Historian asked the Economist:

"Have you read Marx?"

The Economist answered: "Yes, I think its the wicker furniture."

:-)

user-pic

He's a marxian, not a Marxist.

user-pic

Obama may have "subversive ideas" because he has spoken with, and maybe even has a good opinion of, Khalidi?

Heaven forbid that someone running for president actually took the time to talk in a genuinely inquisitive way with someone whose views might be different, even very different, from his own. Because, you know, she or he might actually gain some insight or understanding which might lead to better, more effective decisions if and when they are elected. And that's pretty dangerous.

For the purpose of trying to gain some better understanding of how people who have different views than you think, have you ever spoken with such people? I mean "spoken", not yelled at, or picked a fight with, or gotten into a shouting match with. Just had a talk, to try to understand how they look at the world and a little bit of why, and maybe share a little of how you think about the world, and why.

If your answer is no, I genuinely pity you, for you live an intellectually insular and stunted life.

I would never want an individual who is intellectually insular or stunted to be our president. For the past 8 years we have suffered one dreadful decision after another made by an intellectually lazy, uncurious president. I'm not interested in more of the same.

Likewise I am disappointed that none of the Jewish organizations has spoken out against this garbage. It leaves me feeling as though, on a matter as basic and important as this, none of them reflects my view of the matter as a Jewish American.

M.J., you've disappointed me at times with uncalled-for insults which in too many cases have also been based on incorrect assumptions. I still have hopes you will make a sincere and heartfelt apology to you-know-who and try to do better going forward. With columns such as this, you earn my respect. The only part I am uncomfortable with is any sort of assertion that Jewish Americans have less discriminatory attitudes than other Americans towards minorities, even if there are studies which appear to lend some credence to this claim in your view. I see no good that can come of making claims such as this and much potential harm.

user-pic

I should have made it clear that the first five paragraphs of my 8:41 pm comment above were a reply to sprytling and the next-to-last one was in agreement with rationalcauses. I sometimes find it hard to tell who is responding to whom when there are comments in between a reply and the comment replied to.

user-pic

Actually, AD, it's a fact. We voted 65% for McGovern and only African-Americans were with us! I like that fact but I'm sorry if it comes over as ethnic pride or something like that.
I hate ethnic chauvinism.

The main reason I say it is to drive rightwing Jews crazy! They hate being reminded of how aberrant their views.

user-pic


You think you hold the center of what is America but you don't. You insist that YOU hold the center but you don't. Not anymore. You call Obama a "subversive" we call him a reformer. You say he is Un-American, we say that the past 8 years of Bush & Co. was UN-American. You simply don't hold the center anymore. You lost it. And on Tuesday, there will be a smooth transition to another way to look at the world and our place in it.

MJ says
The only reason they engage in Arab or Muslim baiting is because they believe that Jewish donors and voters want to hear this stuff and will vote--based not on their perception of American interests--but on bigotry, racism, and hate.

And he is right that that's what they are aiming at. I personally think he is wrong on how susceptible Jewish people are to such race baiting and fear mongering. It seems to work just fine with every other ethnic/religious/racial group, why should not such tactics work with Jews?

I had my differences with MJ and at one point I suspected he was pushing for a McCain presidency when he was an early supporter of Obama against Hillary. I was a Hillary supporter who thought that Obama was too vulnerable to such racist attacks as we are witnessing this late in the game. I was wrong. MJ was right. He had the better instinct about Obama than I did. Obama is going to win despite the handicap, because he is just that good.

user-pic

I am very disappointed that the ADL is not saying anything - or am I wrong here and just missed it?

user-pic

I would welcome statements by AIPAC, ADL, AJ Congress and AJ Committee one by or the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that Khaladi is not a supporter of terroris and that Obama was not wrong to have him as a friend, but that Khaladi is plainly wrong in his views on the best way to achieve an enduring peace, and that the organization accepts Obama's staement that Khaladi will have no role in setting U.S. policy in an Obama administration.
None of those wished-for statements will happen, alas, so Sen. Obama neeeds to emphasize every hour between now and Tuesday the last two points, as well as the fact that the group of which McCain was chair gave over half a illion dollars to Khaladi's groups.

user-pic

apacmember, you wrote: "None of those wished-for statements will happen"

Each to their own, free country and all, but this is one reason why this Jewish American will not be joining any of these organizations and, beyond that, why I have at most limited respect for some of them (ADL), and much less than that for others (AIPAC, which most surely does not speak for me).

Their abject failure to speak out on this matter speaks volumes, and displays a moral vision which is too parochial and narrowly selective to have even the slightest appeal to me.

user-pic

I am so sick and tired of the smear campaign being run by the hysterical right-wing Jewish organizations that I am near coming to the conclusion that the only way to put an end to it is for the USA to cut all its ties with Israel and let them either make it or break it in the region on their own. The distinct impression that is being given is that members of these organizations are not loyal to this country but only to Israel, and that makes me very, very dubious of their concerns about the future of America and this country's future.

user-pic

Prysmith, No! Were it not for the support of the United States, millions of Arab fanatics will tear all Israelis, who are the only remaining true Jews limb from limb, and then they will come for us!

user-pic

I applaud your thoughtful perspective Mr. Rosenberg.

user-pic

Way to bite the hand that feeds you, guys! Not a good idea. Why don't you just let those people who are working in yours and Israel's interest do their job.

The Republicans are the only ones who appreciate and consider what Israel really needs to survive and prevail. The are aware of and can provide the resources and political conditions for Israel's eventual victory.
Obama may remove, in some wise, the complete immunity and impunity with which Israel operates. That would be the end of Israel. Is that what you want?

The people in the orgamisations you mention are expert at looking to Israel's interests, her true interests. You are attempting to attach some kind of ethical and humanitarian ethos to Zionism which is counterproductive. And embarrassing, frankly, to a nation which commands atomic weapons. If that was the way to go, AIPAC would already be doing it.

user-pic

Mooser,
"Millions of Arab fanatics?" Your unwarranted racist presumption is consistent with the Republican administraton's attempts to dehumanize Arabs in order to justify wars of aggression against them. If you were able to look at the issues objectively, you would see there are at least two sides with legitimate points of view. The presumption that Israel can do no wrong is rejected by most Jews, including the "only remaining true Jews."

user-pic

In case anyone is wondering what motivates Rosenberg's impassioned defense of Khalidi, good old Rashid was press spokesman for Yasser Arafat, the most prolific Jew killer since Hitler.

And yes, MJ, it is accurate to view you as being a stupid bigot. Your hatred of Jews is pathological. You are Joseph Goebbels without the literary flair.

Still waiting for that indignant condemnation of Palestinians who murder Jewish children, Rosenberg.

Talk about waiting in vain. There is a better chance that David Duke will issue such a condemnation.

user-pic

The envelope, please...and...this thread's award for Top Non-Sequitur on I-P goes to Bob Lane, who evidently believes that criticism of several, distinct US organizations for failing to condemn the McCain/Palin campaign's scummy smear campaign against a non-hater like Rashid Khalidi = "hatred of Jews" = David Dukism.

user-pic

Wow. Talk about bigotry. Maybe some of you Arab-bashers should actually study some history about the founding of Israel instead using the wrongs done to Europoean Jews as a rationalization for oppressing Palestineans. Regardless of what you thought of Arafat, Palestineans have had legitimate grievances that, in the interests of justice, should be addressed.

user-pic

Wow. As far as I can parse it, Mooser seems to be saying that only by pursuing some kind of final solution to the palestinian problem (and abandoning such weaknesses as humanitarian and ethical attitudes) can Israel achieve "victory".

With supporters like that, who the heck needs enemies?

Facebook

religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat

Facebook

Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat

Facebook

Are you good until this issue thanks admin.
Chat | chat

Facebook

This informayion is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v best practices, iscsi initiator for windows 7

Facebook

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability clustering

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address