« Previous Entry |
Back to Blissful Knowledge
| Next Entry »
February 21, 2003
IN SEARCH OF ANTI-SEMITISM
I hope to write a longish post about the "Likudnik" theme that Mickey Kaus is beating into the ground. Until I have the time to do so, I instead refer you to this chilling David Brooks piece:
I occasionally get reports about conversations at sophisticated Washington dinner parties that turn into gripe sessions about the Israeli agents who have grabbed control of President Bush's brain. Accusing Jews of twisting U.S. policy to suit Israel is the same as accusing Catholics of taking orders from the Pope. It's also logically absurd, since Israelis are far more concerned about Iran and Syria than Iraq. But it's become commonplace nonetheless.
Not long ago I was chatting with a prominent Washington figure in a green room. "You people have infested everywhere," he said in what I thought was a clumsy but good-hearted manner. He listed a few of "us": "Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle." I've never met Doug Feith in my life and Wolfowitz and Perle I've barely met. Yet he assumed we were tight as thieves. After a few minutes of jibing I finally pointed out that there were many non-Jews who support the president's policy against Iraq. I mentioned Bob Kerry. "He's a shabbas goy. He's got a lot of Jewish money supporting that school" he shot back. Shabbas goys are Christians who perform tasks for observant Jews on Saturdays.
I am the last person who used to suspect people of anti-Semitism. I was never really conscious of it affecting my life until the last few weeks. But now I wonder. I watched a town meeting in northern Virginia a few weeks ago. A Vietnam vet got up to rail against U.S. policy on Iraq, which he said was engineered by "Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pearl." He got the wrong Pearl. He accidentally mentioned somebody who was beheaded for being American and Jewish. But the crowd didn't seem to notice. They roared with approval and slapped him on the back as he made his way from microphone. Why didn't he say Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell were organizing the Bush administration policy? They're higher ranking officials than Wolfowitz and actually members of the administration, unlike Perle. Would the crowd have roared as wildly if he'd mentioned Rice and Powell, I wondered, or did the words Wolfowitz and Perle somehow get their juices flowing?
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Dr. Manhattan at 2:11 PM | Permalink
Comments
See here's the problem with labelling any criticism of a person of Jewish Heritage as "anti-semitic". Rather than do some research into Wolfowitz and Perle to see what the 'nam-vet was talking about, you hold out that he might be 'anti-semitic'.
The Vet was probably referring to the fact that under Bush the First, Wolfowitz(who was part of Bush First's administration) was the author of "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". As part of this manifesto, which established not only an agenda for National Security but the agenda for Foreign Policy as well, Wolfowitz authored that America's position with Iraq should be more about pre-emption than containment. Meaning, he was a proponent for taking out Saddam violently - not necessarily with reason - as opposed to keeping a vigilant eye on him.
This is a position that polarized Bush 1's cabinet and inner group. Powell, chief of staff at the time, was the most vocal opponent of this strategy.
After the first Gulf War, nothing much came of the manifesto (new administration, etc).
Under W, Wolfowitz is deputy Defense Sec and many believe that W inherited this manifesto and was expected, by the senior cab officials from bush 1's admin, to incorporate the manifesto into his agenda.
The 'Nam-Vet wrongly mentioned Daniel Perle instead of Richard Perle (the latter of which was one of the signatures on the original Wolfowitz manifesto).
Hopefully this helps explain why the Vet called this Wolf's and Perle's war. If someone wants to slam Jews, there are many other, easily recognizeable names to use, than second-tire administration officials.
Obviously the guy has a point.
Posted by: fatrabbit | February 22, 2003 2:21 PM
You know, I'm not Jewish, but I'm concerned as well about the anti-semitism rising of late. The first comment is typical of the diversionary tactics used to defend it: find the part of the comment that is not blatantly anti-semitic and hammer on it. Ignore references to "you people" or the Jewish conspiracy theories. It used to be "Jews control Hollywood"; now it's "Jews control D.C.".
Posted by: Larry | April 2, 2003 11:57 AM
Did anyone stop to think: All of America's high level leaders are either Jewish... or fanatical Christians.
Those of us who read history know that Christianity has Jewish origins and is the most similar doctrine to Jewish belief.
For this reason, I side with Nietzsche on the anti-Semite issue: don't JUST blame the Jews. Realize that all things Jewish, including Christianity and liberalism, are sick and anti-natural.
Posted by: S.R. Prozak | December 14, 2003 5:33 PM