Ed and The British Jews

Now, you would think that a group of people who declared that they believed a civilized nation should hold itself to higher standards than extremist terrorists, should observe human rights for others who aren't terrorists and not expect a stance of "my country right or wrong" from it's freedom-loving and democratic people would generally be cheered by the inhabitants of the free world.

Well, this happened yesterday:

A group of prominent British Jews will today declare independence from the country's Jewish establishment, arguing that it puts support for Israel above the human rights of Palestinians.

...Among the more than 130 signatories are Stephen Fry, Harold Pinter, Mike Leigh, Jenny Diski and Nicole Farhi, as well as leading academics such as Eric Hobsbawm and Susie Orbach.

"We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole," the letter says. Jewish leaders in Britain, it argues "put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people" in conflict with Jewish principles of justice and compassion.

...A parallel struggle is under way in the US where the American Jewish Committee published an article accusing liberal Jews such as the historian Tony Judt of fuelling anti-Semitism by questioning Israel's right to exist. The essay by Alvin Rosenfeld said that "one of the most distressing features of the new anti-Semitism" was "the participation of Jews alongside it".

Prof Judt told the New York Times: "The link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created." He feared the two would become so conflated that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust would be seen as "just a political defence of Israeli policy".

Neocon blogger Ed "Captain Ed" Morrissey (who as far as I am aware is not Jewish but even if he were is still talking outright nonsense on the subject) is quick to call the dissenters anti-semites.

It's not difficult to see where the sympathies of this group lies. One of the members proposed to the board of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research that they demand the creation of a single state, eliminating the right of Jews to return to the new non-Israel and rejecting the Jewish nature of the nation. This isn't just a declaration of specific criticisms against Israeli policy; it's a rejection of Israel's right to exist.

I would agree that some critics of Israeli policies get unfairly labeled as anti-Semites. However, those who want to destroy the state of Israel can't complain about earning that label, no matter their own religion or ethnicity.

Which is exactly the kind of tawdry rubbish passing as logical thought that Prof Judt is warning against - calling for Israel to enfranchise its non-Jewish inhabitants, integrate them into the nation as a whole and drop the establishmentarian insistence on a single state religion isn't the same as calling for the destruction of Israel nor is it anti-semitic, although it is anti-zionist. Indeed, on the face of it, being a devout Jew and anti-semitic is as ridiculous as being a devout Christian and anti-Christian or a devout Moslem and anti-Moslem. The only kind of folks who accuse people of belonging to either of those latter categories are, simply, fanatics.

Still, one has to ask why the fanatical Ed is so fired up about this.

Avedon Carol has the answer. Referring to a recent post by Glenn Greenwald, she writes.

according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of "influential" donors is a key part of the "ATM for American politicians"; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates -- such as Clinton and Edwards -- are embracing AIPAC's anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.

If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). But this is what the New York Sun reported on Thursday.

So, although anyone who doesn't support continuing and expanding our aggression in the Middle-East is excoriated as an antisemite for saying so, a right-wing paper freely points out that our legislators seem to be in thrall to a moneyed Jewish lobby that is pushing that aggressive, militaristic agenda.

Yet, as Glenn points out, this agenda is not supported by most Jews in America and is highly controversial in Israel itself. Its most vociferous proponents are not Jews, but greedy oil men who want control of the Middle-East's oil, and antisemitic Christianist Zionists who want a world-ending conflagration to take place in the Middle-East.

"Captain" Ed is a neocon blogger for the Heritage Foundation and one of the foremost cheerleaders for war with Iran. It seems obvious that his fear that this idea will take root here in the U.S. and damage his personal hunt for an apocalyptic war is all the motive he needs for hypocrisy and illogical insults.