Friday, June 6, 2008
...Even the pro-Israel Brits often wind up only a hop and a skip away from the Jew baiters and conspiracy-theorists -- providing them, sometimes naively, sometimes callously, with more useful ammo for their belts.
Adam LeBor, writing at Harry's Place, is proud to announce he'll be posting at one of the internet's premier locale's for rampant Jew-hatred: The Guardian's Comment is Free: Commenting is free.
No anti-Israelite, he. LeBor was asked to write for CiF after they heard him on TV "opining on one of my perpetual themes: why the United Nations needs to start suspending and expelling member states who are guilty of the worst human rights abuses." Great! They need that at CiF.
So what's the object of attack in his first piece? Why, AIPAC, of course -- "a rather creepy organisation..." He should fit in at CiF rather well after all. You see this is the left's idea of being "pro-Israel.":
That just shows they're an effective organization -- in contrast to officials of the Israeli government itself who just can't seem to stop themselves from bragging about their latest PR efforts -- an awfully silly thing to do. LeBor relies on a quote from Israeli David Kimche, both in the Harry's Place post and in the comments, to support his assertion that AIPAC is no good for Israel. An appeal to authority on issues around which a great deal of divergent but well-informed opinion circulates is a sure sign that the author himself is not quite able to forward a position sufficiently well-informed to stand on its own. A David Kimche quote -- just another opinion among many -- buys you nothing.
LeBor's idea? Encourage the British left to lay off the boycotts and support J-Street instead. There's a poetry to that somehow. Somewhere between his attacks on the extremism of AIPAC, someone may want to remind him that J-Street is brought to us by some of the same people who brought us the Geneva Accord -- so in tune with political streams of thought it was DOA in both Israel and America.
May he have all the success in his efforts to influence the American lobbying scene as The Guardian itself had in trying to influence the voters in Ohio last time out. Remember? Dear Limey assholes
Bravo, Sol. Thank you for picking up on this, and for your succinct comments.
It amazes me that AIPAC should be thus characterized, with all the overtones of slithery slimey sneaky octopi that "rather creepy" conjures - particularly in regard to an organization having something to do with Jews.
This is supposed to be supportive? It is, if nothing else, breathtakingly insensitive.
It doesn't matter whether AIPAC does or does not espouse a particular political position, left or right.
What matters is the fact that such a characterization adds another irrational layer to an already difficult political scene, in which American Jews and others who support Israel are portrayed as manipulative, disloyal, and of course sneaky. All one has to do is search Solomonia's archives for disturbingly antisemitic cartoons, signs, and articles indicating that global judenhass is growing again, and paranoia concerning Iraq, 9/11, and the ridiculously over-inflated power of "The Lobby" fill the blogosphere as well as "legitimate" media outlets and academic venues.
American citizens have a right to form groups, to express opinions, to try and influence the high and mighty - and should not be made to feel ashamed of doing so.
Otherwise "the people" would be so many powerless splinters. Imagine - what if White Rose had had an effective PAC?
Without the peoples' ability to assemble and freely speak, governments have complete and total control of their citizens. Such peaceful, legal means of communication should not be portrayed as sinister.
Second - do I hear the Black Caucus or the Hispanic or Greek or Irish or any other political action group being described as "creepy"? OF COURSE NOT. No progressive would even consider making such a characterization of another minority group. But, on CIF, and in the British media in general, Israel is routinely excoriated and misojudaic comments are not unusual. This is particularly in view of the bloodcurdling threats from Iran, the frequently cited "Protocols" and the incitement of children to violence and blind hatred - but does the progressive community address these issues? Sadly - it seems not.
So - should AIPAC be described as "rather creepy" by people in Britain, where Israelis are portrayed as Goyaesque monsters eating babies?
http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001282.html
Indeed, and particularly in view of the Karsenty case in France, the general insecurity of Jews globally, antisemitism even in the UN and the increasingly irrational view of Israel, one would think the European MSM in particular might want to do a little soul-searching. It's not as if there's no history involved!
I meant to say:
This is particularly unsettling in view of the bloodcurdling threats from Iran, the frequently cited "Protocols" and the incitement of children to violence and blind hatred - but does the progressive community address these issues? Sadly - it seems not.