[Imc-radio] Anti-Semitism Program

[David Green]

David Green's response to radio program:

     Although I haven't heard the program yet, Al told
me about it in specific terms. I certainly learned a
thing or two about preparing for an interview and
understanding the goals of the interviewer. But I
still think that it was worth doing, however
imperfect, and however much it needs to be corrected
by continued debate at the IMC.

     Morton Brussel recently expressed the view that
current charges of anti-Semitism are a "ruse." The
dictionary defines this as "an action to confuse or
mislead; wily deception." The fact that this
definition evokes an anti-Semitic stereotype does not
lessen its validity, but only adds another level of
irony to the many that have proliferated from this
disourse. At bottom, of course, is the fact that the
pro-Israel lobby uses Nazi-style propaganda tactics to
pursue its ends in their support of the brutal
occupation and the war against Iraq.

     Another level of irony is added by Alan Potash,
who calls for "dialogue" while publishing a recent
letter in the Daily Illini requesting that they no
longer publish my letters in the Daily Illini.
Needless to say, Potash has never invited me to
particpate in a public dialogue or forum about these
issues, an opportunity to which I would look forward
if, as Al Kagan states, we could get beyond the usual
banalities about "supporting Israel," and acknowledge
just what that means to those who use it as they level
their charges of anti-Semitism or disloyalty.

     With the advent of war, this debate has gone
completely off the deep end, as evidenced by an
article in Sunday's Tribune, preceded by my response
to it as an addendum to this message.

     Although I suppose one has to engage this debate,
it is also--besides being a ruse--a waste of time,
which of course is what the anti-Semitism
self-pitiers/Arab victimizers want. God forbid we
should take a serious look at the history of European
anti-Semitism and its very interesting and complicated
relationship to the Zionist movement, aspects of which
were quite comfortable with anti-Semitic assumptions
and later fascist ideologies--to the point of
collaborating with the Nazis. God forbid we look at
the anti-Semitism of the current Christian
fundamentalist right, the Christian Zionists. And
let's never take a serious look at the real history of
Sephardic Jews, the reasons for their emigration, and
their role as the "human material" (David Ben-Gurion)
of the Ashkenazi Zionist project. And of course we
can't take an honest look at the origins of current
Arab anti-Semitism, because it requires taking an
honest look at the behavior of Israel, which provoked
it in its current virulent form. And anything to avoid
discussing the real current issues: Why are we
(Americans and Jews) at war with both Iraq and the
Palestinians? And why has official Jewish-American
culture sold its soul to the neoconservative
warmongers among us, Jew and Gentile? Ultimately, many
Jews are not comfortable in the antiwar movement
because they are simply afraid to go against their
institutional leaders, who actively or passively
support the war.

______________________________
Editor:

	Ron Grossman (Perspective, 3/23) doth protest too
much in his criticism of those who question Israel’s
role in the war against Iraq. Nobody on the antiwar
left is blaming Israel or Jews for starting this war.
They are suggesting that among many factors driving us
to war has been the support of the Israel Lobby, which
includes millions of fundamentalist Christians
(ironically, with markedly anti-Semitic ideas). They
have also been impolite enough to observe that some of
President Bush’s most influential advisors—Richard
Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith--have strong
ties to the Likud Party, which for its own
well-documented reasons has long advocated a U.S.-led
war against Iraq.

     While the Israeli tail is not wagging the U.S.
dog, the geopolitical interests of its leaders have
never been more aligned with those of an American
administration. Grossman dismisses those who note this
obvious reality as being conspiracy theorists. This is
his way of avoiding uncomfortable realities about
American motives for this war, Israel’s oppression of
the Palestinians, and the manner in which both
understandably incite anger and hatred in the Arab and
Muslim worlds--emotions which we discount at our own
peril.

David Green

___________________

Article from Chicago Tribune

War theories have anti-Semitism stench
Columnists, television hosts, Internet scribes and
even a congressman are fueling the notion that Jewish
influence is behind the Iraqi conflict

By Ron Grossman
Ron Grossman is a Tribune staff reporter
Published March 23, 2003

No one knows for sure who forged the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion," purportedly the diabolical plot of a
power-hungry Jewish cabal. Some think it a crude
attempt by Russian officials to deflect criticism of
the czar's failing regime by inflaming the
anti-Semitism of the masses.

But that is only an educated guess, which makes it all
the more fascinating to have a ringside seat as the
sequel is being created.

Ever since George W. Bush drew a bead on Saddam
Hussein, skeptics have searched for an ulterior
motive. The president has himself to blame; he offered
too many explanations.

Sometimes, it is the Iraqi dictator's "weapons of mass
destruction." Sometimes it is because he has cuddled
up to Al Qaeda. We're told that our GIs will bring
stability to a volatile Middle East. Or plant seeds of
democracy there.

Logically, one rationale doesn't exclude another.
History and hindsight show that nations rarely go to
war for a straightforward reason. More usually the
causes are plural.

Yet the human psyche has limited tolerance for
complexity. We want to see the world in black and
white.

Accordingly, some critics suggest that Bush is after
Hussein's oil. Others point to filial piety driving
the president to finish a job his father left undone.
Truly committed cynics argue that Bush figures war
presidents get higher poll ratings than peace
presidents.

Then there is the one-size-fits-all explanation. For
2,000 years, it has been a tried-and-true crutch for
the perplexed to lean quandaries upon. So why should
now be any different?

In polite circles, it's whispered. The less inhibited
come right out and say it.

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish
community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing
this," James Moran, a Democratic congressman from
Virginia, recently said.

Pundits know how to put the matter more a bit more
subtly. That is why they're called pundits.

More security for Israel

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd sees Bush's
position on Iraq driven by foreign policy advisers
looking for a "domino effect to give Israel more
security." The Washington Post's Robert Kaiser says
the administration's Middle East experts "don't hide
their friendships and connections, or their loyalty to
strong positions in support of Israel."

On a "Meet the Press" show about Iraq, host Tim Russet
asked a Pentagon adviser: "And what would be the link
in terms of Israel?"

Alexander Cockburn, the left-wing Web site guru,
pretends to have sympathy for Bush, a man trapped by a
poor choice of allies. "The instant he decides not to
go to war against Iraq, the Israeli lobby will bring
him down."

Other commentators point to a common denominator of
evangelical Christians: They support Bush. They
support Israel. Ergo, Bush is going to war as
political payback for the Bible-thumper votes that put
him in office.

The original "Protocols" claimed that the Freemasons
were partners to the Elders of Zion scheme.

A century later, it's an unholy plot of Southern
Baptists and Jews that loyal Americans need fear.

Now, membership in the chattering classes requires
nimbleness of pen and foot. Op-ed writers and
television talking heads will drop the Jewish
connection, if American forces win big and quick in
Iraq. They would have moved on to something else if
Bush's bellicosity would have backed Hussein down and
into exile without a shot fired.

The new "Protocols" would then be forgotten by all but
hard-core adepts of conspiracy theories, just as its
predecessors were. Who now remembers that otherwise
sane folks once entertained the idea that Sam
Giancana, Fidel Castro and the CIA got together to put
a hit order on Jack Kennedy?

But consider the other possibility. Suppose the war
doesn't go well, that our casualties are high and our
victories few. What if we get pinned down in the
crossfire of ancient tribal feuds?

Then a lot of Americans will be asking why in the
world we ever went into Iraq.

A facile answer is posted on the Internet, even now
awaiting the question.

You can take your pick of several versions, some put
up by seemingly respectable cyberspace hosts. Others
have the seductive smell of kookiness about them.

In common, they offer future generations a prewritten
version of the history of our times--by posting a
rogues' gallery of Bush's advisers:

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense
Policy Board. He is Jewish.

Richard Hass, the State Department's director of
policy planning. He is one too.

Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman. So is he.

Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary. His sister
lives in Israel.

Edward Luttwak, member of the National Security Study
Group. He taught in Israel.

Dov Zakheim, undersecretary of defense. He is an
ordained rabbi.

On some sites, the list goes on and on: Mark
Weinberger, Lincoln Bloomfield, Jay Lefkowitz,
Christopher Gersten, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams,
even that poor old cold warrior Henry Kissinger.

All of them are reportedly players or intellectual
coaches to the Bush administration--and thus, it is
intimated, they constitute the New Elders of Zion.

Once launched, such theories can be long-lived and
virtually immune to the test of truth. Henry Ford
published his own edition of the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion." Though Ford himself finally had to
admit it was a forgery, the book still was being
touted by some black militant groups a few years ago.

Opportunity taken

Hitler was a firm believer in the underlying idea of
"The Elders." The history of his times offered him an
opportunity to cash in on it. Because a prominent
member of the government that threw in the towel at
the end of World War I was Jewish, the Nazi dictator
could preach an easily digestible version of why
Germany lost: The Jews sold us out.

And that was before the computer revolution offered a
whole new medium to nurture the idea. Forevermore, the
New Elders of Zion will be out there in cyberspace,
awaiting all who hunger for shortcut answers to tough
questions.

For those seeking solace for life's injuries, the
Internet will offer an explanation: We've been headed
for hell in a handcart ever since those people led
America astray for the sake of Israel, their real
homeland.

For some, that kind of thinking is compelling
precisely because it is illogical. Consider the final
proof of the New Elders of Zion theory: The ringleader
is Colin Powell.

What, you object? The Secretary of State doesn't look
Jewish?

Don't be taken in by appearances. There is an answer
for that, too, our Web site tutors explain.

"He grew up in a heavily Jewish-populated neighborhood
in New York," they report. "And speaks Yiddish."

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune 





__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com