re: #68 BradFriedman

Hadn’t read it before (thanks for linking to it), but appreciate both their rather gutsy attempt to have the conversation (the last two grafs seem to be key) and your response in rebutting it and/or condemning it. Democracy ‘n’ stuff. :-)

How is it gutsy to say “Look at all these Jews who are neo-cons”?

And yes, I do think that many neo-cons — Jewish or otherwise (I’ve often argued with relatives that many Christian supporters of Israel have no love at all for the Jews, and do so only because they hate A-rabs even more) often put Israel’s interests, for whatever reason, over the good of this nation.

How was it in Israel’s interests for the US to invade Iraq?

Really? You’re troubled my use of the word “happy” there? Allow me to amend, so as not to trouble you: I am very pleased, very happy, in fact, to live in a country where folks can say whatever they wish, no matter how offensive it may be to me or you or anybody else. The alternative REALLY sucks. Is that better?

Yes. Do you realize that those are entirely different things? Being happy at the generalized first amendment is cool. Being happy that someone is saying a particular thing may or may not be cool, depending on what that thing is. So when criticism for something that was said comes in, it makes no sense to say “I like the first amendment”. I’m not criticizing their right to say these things, but what they actually said.

Um, yeah, that’s pretty much what it says. Literally: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Right. But it doesn’t mean we actually have to approve of or like whatever the hell anyone says, or to give them a platform to say it. Finklestein has said loads of odious crap. Do I want him prevented for saying it? No. Do I want him criticized, and for decent people not to use him as a reference because of the terrible shit he’s said? Yes.

Also, given Adbusters initial call for folks to come to OWS, and nothing much since then, as I understand it, it seems particularly thin gruel to use in somehow making the case that OWS, which is pretty clear about what it actually stands for, is some kind of mask for anti-Semitism.

Do you understand that I’m not saying it is, nor, I think, is anyone else here? The main concern is that Occupy is going to attract anti-semites, both of the Paulian version and the “Jews are Nazis”— like Finklestein— type.

The anti-war movement, which overlaps to a degree with Occupy, had a lot of anti-semitic groups and behavior in it, which were tolerated to an unsettling degree. I’ve been happy to point out the pushback against anti-semitism at Occupy, but the open nature of the gathering makes policing groups difficult and demonstrating that intolerance will not be tolerated even more difficult. It is the form, as much as the substance, of Occupy that makes me concerned about antisemitism there.

It really, for me, in your article was mainly naming AIPAC and ECI as the “U.S. Israel Lobby”, instead of two examples— in your headline and opening paragraph— that threw up red flags for me. I fully think ECI should go jump in a river with an anvil tied to its head, and I do think that Obama has been wrongly criticized for being weak on Israel when he is not, in any way, and in some ways is actually a better supporter than Bush was.