Unfortunately this view of Jews as being the epicenter of global economic and political trends isn't limited to the M.E.

Rosner's latest piece in Ha'aretz proposes that Israel may well be a focal point of an election contest between McCain and Obama (I hope not) - the comment thread is already poisonous with conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and of course, baloney about AIPAC running the election.

I truly fear that we are seeing a resurgence of the kind of antisemitism that created pogroms in the not-so-distant past. The libel, that Israel drove America to war in Iraq, is one of the ugliest of all time I think. And the corresponding attitude: that Jews in the US must all express the same opinion - is similarly nasty. For example Wolfie and Perle are "bad" Jews but at the same time, as "bad" Jews they have come to represent ALL Jews and, get this, Israel. The term "neocon" is actually code for Jew on the Left - of course this is baloney and it also serves to destroy any nuanced understanding of neoconservative political philosophy.

By the same token most of the people in Congress supported Bush when he wanted to go to war in Iraq but it was Lieberman, the Jewish senator, who has been the object of real hate on the Left and also an attempt to take his seat. This was a nationally driven effort, people who by no means are residents of his state had no problem interfering in Connecticut politics - yet they are the same people who will decry Israel for supposedly "running" American politics.

Tom Lantos, who recently died, and who by all accounts was a warrior on behalf of human rights, has been viciously attacked by the Left.

Of course we must also confront the Mearscheimer/Walt assault from the Right - the whole argument that Israel "isn't in America's interests", and strangely this right wing "realism", which is utterly ammoral - finds support on - THE LEFT - which is supposedly moral and "progressive" in its outlook.

As a Democrat I'm honestly confused. I have always believed that our party, and the Left in general, was supposed to stand against racism, in defense of minorities, and certainly in defense of people's democratic and human rights abroad. The last few years has been unsettling and I fear it's going to get worse.

"As a Democrat I'm honestly confused."

As a European I'm honestly worried about the person who is likely becoming the next president of the USA:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

I don't expect anything catastrophic to happen under Mrs. Clinton, but I think, if that arabian Obama becomes president, the world will suffer severely.

"The term "neocon" is actually code for Jew on the Left..."

Actually, "neocon" is a code word for Jews who used to be on the left, but then moved to the right. These new leftwingers are not so very rightwing on domestic policies, but on foreign policies they are far more interventionist than traditional conservatives. "Neocon" was never, ever used to signify Jews on the left. No one would call Noam Chomsky a "neocon."

A small distinction here, but one that's important to make.

Other than that, Sophia, I agree with you. Of course, the left isn't so against racism when it comes to Jews (although it formally forswears antisemitism) because Jews are seen as whites, indeed, whites who are oppressing people of color (Palestinians). Now Third World groups of just about every stripe (blacks in the US, Arabs, etc.) trump the Jews when it comes to sympathy from the left...and even when it comes to sympathy from some on the right.

Sorry, Joanne, my writing is unclear - I meant to say that neocon is a code name for Jews when it's used by some Left Wingers, not Jews who are Left Wing.

Whoops:)

Thanks for pointing that out.

PS, I totally hadn't realized that until I started visiting "progressive" sites - curiously enough because I was upset with - ahem - neocons - like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

GO FIGURE.

Jews control time too?

Sophia,

Actually, I also wrote unclearly. Where I said "These new leftwingers are not so very rightwing on domestic policies..." I meant to say "these new right-wingers..."

Regarding your statement that you "hadn't realized that until I started visiting 'progressive' sites because I was upset with neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld"...It seems as if you're in the same boat I am. If I'm right, you are philosophically left-of-center, you have little in common with right-wing conservatives, but you are alienated by the left's dogmatic stands on Israel, and by some of the left's dogmatism in general.

If I'm right about you, then you are suffering from the same problem I am, and that lots of people are (especially liberal and even some left-wing Jews). That is, you're fighting an ideological two-front war, against the right on some issues and against the left on others. It's not a comfortable place to be in. In fact, it's a feeling of constant frustration. Oh well. Welcome to the club. And fight on! :-)

Oops, one other thing about your statement on Cheney and Rumsfeld. Yes, I get your point...neither of them is Jewish. So much for the merging of "neo-con" and "Jew."

Joanne, you've got it - exactly - left of center person here - unable to find a comfort zone anywhere lately!

The racism of the anti-racists, as it's been described, is particularly upsetting to me. The fact that the Left can be both antisemitic and supportive of repressive right wing political/theocratic movements - it makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to me that feminists in the West can overlook the repression of women in the East. And look at Ms. Magazine lately - their bias against Israeli women leaders -

But on the Right, which seems to make more sense in some ways lately, there is still the huge problem of their economic philosophy vis a vis the poor, a lack of support for such amenities as universal health care - which is enjoyed even by countries we'd call "third world" - hello? - the sense that money makes a person de facto superior - there is still a residual and potent strain of racism there as well. And, on environmental matters, there seems to be short-sightedness - truly a tragedy considering the situation we are in (not propaganda - look at the species die off alone! We're not isolated, rich people share the same planet as the fish in the sea, why is this so hard to understand?)

So yes, fighting a two-front battle - and hoping to find others who can see, and who seek, a moderate path - and we can try and work across party and ideological lines - :)

Sophia (and anyone else),

In the same vein as your last comment, you might be interested in this article from Democratiya, a website devoted to book reviews. It says everything about left-wing antisemitism and anti-Zionism very well. And, for that reason, it's quite heartening:

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=110

BTW, I've seen my comfort zone diminishing since, oh, the early 1980s, maybe even before.

Wow - case in point, from Michael Young's article in Reason - thanks to Tony Badran for linking this - he's confused about the Left's support for Hezbollah:

snip

This behavior comes full circle especially for the revolutionary fringe on the left, which seems invariably to find its way back to violence. In the same way that Finkelstein can compare Hezbollah admiringly to the Soviet Red Army and the communist resistance during World War II ("it was brutal, it was ruthless"), he sees in resistance a quasi-religious act that brooks no challenge, even from its likely victims. What is so odd in Finkelstein and those like him is that the universalism and humanism at the heart of the left's view of itself has evaporated, to be replaced by categorical imperatives usually associated with the extreme right: blood; honor; solidarity; and the defense of near-hallowed land.

snip

Within the article, Young also links a brilliant piece by the (leftist) Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics, who is also confused by this phenomenon - both articles are highly recommended. They're very clear in laying out the problem - we seem to be seeing an overlap between far left and far right, and an utter and complete blurring of morals, a seeming rejection of Enlightenment values, let alone the possibility of finding humane, non-violent solutions for vexing problems.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125203.html

Sophia, note my last comment, just above your new one. It has another good link.