Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52643)	7/3/2004 12:51:10 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793729

Nadine, I think whenever an image is used (such as the one on the back-cover of The Nation) that has been commonly used as an anti-Semitic caricature, or whenever language is used in which the pejorative of the day could be replaced with the word 'Jew' and it could have been from the 1930's - then it is a new form of anti-Semitism. This is particularly true when it involves a 'cabal' of advisors where only the ones with Jewish names are mentioned. The intellectuals of Europe, England included, were very anti-Semitic in the '30's (and appear so still). Ours have simply reached a level of European decadence. John

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52643)	7/3/2004 12:54:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793729

There is another important difference between Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld other than religion (I assume that Rumsfeld isn't Jewish, although I don't know that for sure.) Wolfowitz is an intellectual who publishes a lot of essays setting forth his ideas about things. In contrast, Rumsfeld rarely does, and more often keeps his ideas close to his vest. I suppose some would say that Wolfowitz is a neocon while Rumsfeld is not, but I don't think the word "neocon" has much useful purpose other than as a way to say "Jew" without using that word.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52643)	7/3/2004 1:13:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793729

Karen, on what evidence is Wolfowitz being accused of putting Israel's interests before America's? I would call the assumption, even the suspicion, that any American Jew would put Israels's interests over America's anti-semitism. I think that whole neocon cabal thing reeks of anti-semitism. An accusation that does not seem to dog his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, btw. There is another difference, though, that I don't think can be ignored. Wolfowitz was one of the intellectuals that "founded" the neocon movement. He has a certain ownership for it along with the rest of that group of intellectuals. Unless I'm very mistaken, Rumsfeld had no leadership role in that.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52643)	7/7/2004 10:00:18 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793729

I've been away from my computer for a few days--July 4th and all that and return to try to catch up. And find an intense debate, angels on the head of a pin kind of debate, as to whether Juan Cole's calling Wolfowitz a "Lukidnik" is anti-semitic. About as inconsequential a debate as one can imagine. Save that the historically important term, anti-semitism, has been pretty much vetted of its power by these kinds of charges. For my money, it's like opponents of affirmative action calling affirmative action racist. The term "racism" loses much if not all of its important historical meaning. We have a right wing in this country that thought it could denude the left of some of its language by invoking the PC label. Unfortunately, it was more successful than it should have been. It drew on excesses, which is the standard operating mode of the anti-PC crowd, to condemn all instances. Thus, it found it self championing the use of serious racial slurs as counter to PC. Somewhat the same is now happening to anti-semitic. Criticisms, I repeat, of the Sharon administration's policies get labeled anti-Israeli and then, one slight step further, anti-semitic. It's comparable to criticisms of the Bush administration's foreign policy being labeled anti-American, then one step further, as John Ashcroft so publicly did, being labeled giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I liked John McCain's bit of funning of the Bush administration yesterday in which he said of himself, he was a uniter not a divider because he was featured in campaign ads for both campaigns.