The anti-Semitism card

For months, it has been fairly obvious that Sen. Joseph [tag]Lieberman[/tag] doesn’t fully appreciate the factors that have led to the disconnect between him and his party. But for him to even consider the idea that his Democratic critics are [tag]anti-Semitic[/tag] suggests the senator’s campaign is losing touch with reality.

The New York Observer reported yesterday that it asked Lieberman directly if he believed his religion or his support for Israel had anything to do with opponents on the left. The correct answer would have been, “Of course not.” Instead, Lieberman reportedly paused before saying, “That’s too big a question to answer on one foot. We should come back to answer that one.”

Some of Lieberman’s supporters, however, are addressing the question freely.

[S]ome of the most outspokenly Zionist Democrats have suggested that the current political climate has made Mr. Lieberman, as a prominent Jewish hawk, vulnerable to blog-driven criticism.

“We do have a problem with progressives and those in the blogosphere, because the Palestinian position seems to be perfect for the Internet world of pithy back-and-forth and 30-second You Tube tapes, where the Zionist position is more at home in a seven-page New York Review of Books article,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, a pro-Israel hawk who opposes the war in Iraq. […]

[Dan [tag]Gerstein[/tag], a political consultant and informal advisor to the Lieberman campaign] says he has detected what he calls a “growing strain of anti-Semitism on the far [tag]left[/tag],” which he believes is in part fueling the strident opposition to Mr. Lieberman.

It’s terribly disappointing to see these kinds of arguments surface, particularly in public. The very idea that Lieberman’s critics are motivated by bigotry is not only outlandish, it’s offensive. Lieberman and his allies have to know better.

In some ways, it’s just the latest example of Lieberman following the GOP playbook. In recent years, Republicans have argued that to oppose a Catholic judicial nominee makes you, automatically, anti-Catholic. To oppose a woman nominee makes you a sexist. To oppose an African-American nominee makes you racist. It’s painfully stupid demagoguery that congressional Republicans have used repeatedly — and now Lieberman’s campaign seems to be moving in a similar direction.

As for the substance, the idea is easily debunked. If Gerstein is right, and there’s a “growing strain of anti-Semitism on the far left,” why is Russ Feingold a favorite among the netroots? If this is a Jewish vs. Gentile fight, why is Lieberman trailing among Jewish Democrats in Connecticut?

To be fair, Lieberman himself has not, as far as I can tell, made this argument publicly. He hesitated when asked about it, which suggests he may think there’s some merit behind the idea, but Lieberman has not literally accused his progressive critics of [tag]anti-Semitism[/tag].

But one of his top advisors did and, at least so far, the Lieberman campaign has not said anything publicly to repudiate the sentiment.

It’s more than a little disconcerting to see the campaign go in this direction.

For what little one voice matters, let me state publicly and clearly that I stand as living disproof of this offensive new theory:

I am vehemently pro-Israel and am absolutely hawkish on Israel’s ability to protect itself even to the point of agreement with disproportionate response to Hamas and Hezbollah aggression. I am also among those “netroots” who, albeit not from Conn., for national party reasons would much prefer Lamont beats Lieberman. I am not anti-Semitic. I am very anti-BushCo-enablers/apologists.

  • “Lieberman and his allies have to know better.” – CB

    Actually, I think they are all self-delusional, particularly Joe. Since they don’t want to admit that it is their own actions that have made them unpopular with their electorate and the progressives in America as well, they have to come up with some explanation.

  • Don’t forget the way Bush accuses opponents of his Iraq policy of racism. For example:

    Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing and free.

    And another:

    There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren’t necessarily — are a different color than white can self-govern.

    Note “people whose skin color may not be the same as ours”, which indicates he thinks he’s only talking to white people.

    People on the right like to accuse the left of constantly making accusations of racism, but it seems those on the right are the ones doing it nowadays.

  • I’m just so sick of the whole Israel/Palestinian/Middle East mess that I think we should build something like the Great Wall of China around the whole region and let them fight it out. Either that, or after the wall is built, pump either the Mediterranean or Black Sea in and drown the whole misbegotten whelp of religious fanatics from both sides.

    It really makes me glad that I’m an atheistic-leaning agnostic Taoist. It’s just disgusting what religion has done to the modern world.

    (NOTE: above comments made [at least partly] in jest/contempt/disgust)

  • If I were pro-Semitic I’d still be offended and embarrassed by that whiny, kow-towing excuse for a Democrat, Boltin’ Joe LIEberman.

  • “Don’t forget the way Bush accuses opponents of his Iraq policy of racism. For example: ‘Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing and free.’ ” – KCinDC

    You have to remember, KC, because Boy George II never talks to liberals and progressives, the ‘people’ he is refering to there is the racist conservative wing of his own party, the Republican’ts. And when you know that, you find it easy to believe that Boy George II hears things like this, probably every week, from Rumsfeld and Cheney.

    CB likes to call these strawmen, but in fact, Boy George II would be embarrased to actually name the people he is refering to.

  • There’s no greater proof of where his allegiance really is than by transparently adopting the tactics of his leash-holders.

    Ok, getting a wet sloppy kiss from King George on the floor of the Senate is really at the top of the pile, but besides that.

  • While I am not anti-semetic, perhaps sometimes anti-semantic, I don’t share Zeitgeist’s support for Israel to the degree the Dems have. Remember, the UN took Palestine away from it’s native people, and inserted a foreign power. Until we address that simple fact, there will be a conflict there. Israel does NOT have the authority to respond with overwhelming force. If you support the current tactics they use, then you support our aggression in Iraq, the Viet-nam war, and to a further extent, our genocide of the Native Americans. I am bigger and meaner than you, therefore I win, now lick my boots.
    BS!!
    The far left of this country has had it with the religious zealots, be they Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Seik, whatever. Government by superstition don’t work!

    On an extreme note, how ’bout we nuke Rome, Mecca, and Jerusalem, and be done with these Morons.

  • It’s not anti-Semitic to be anti-Israel. After all, what we are seeing develop in the past couple of days- a military superpower destroying relatively helpless people around them on slim provocation (I hate to say it, but one soldier kidnapped- not even killed- is not a justification to kill hundreds of innocent civilians. Pin-point attack and hit the perpetrators? sure. Mass-bombing the entire region?…)- is almost exactly what many people have been decrying the U.S. for in Iraq.

    Funny, you would think that a nation with the collective memory of being on the receiving end of so much would be more responsive to the plight of the down-trodden. Israel makes me sick (and no, it’s not because of the religion of the people. it’s the politics that does it).

  • Senator Lieberman is not merely a very strong supporter of Israel and Israel’s right to exist (a.k.a. – Zionist), and that alone is no sin. But, I would describe Joe Lieberman as an uber-Zionist, which means he believes that Israel can do no wrong, or as an “Israel first-er,” which means Israel’s concerns are more important than the concerns of the United States. Holding Mr. Lieberman in such a regard is not anti-Semitic.

    Senator Schumer of New York is also a strong supporter of Israel–and Jewish–like Joe Lieberman, but only Mr. Lieberman has been a neo-con cheerleader for Bush’s Iraq War, earning him the status of George W. Bush’s favorite Democrat.

    Some in the blogoshere are so angry at Lieberman’s support of the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies, that they have used slurs and invective to denounce Mr. Lieberman. Such comments are ill-tempered and unwise because they undercut any rational argument to oppose Senator Lieberman and his misguided and erroneous pro-Bush positions.

    Until Joe Lieberman admits that he was wrong to be a Bush cheerleader, he will be held in certain quarters with disdain.

  • Well, as long as the issue is up, I have to say I think I fall somewhere between Zeitgeist and Mssrs. Tross and Troy. Blind support of Isreal, and particularly warping our foreign policy to align with theirs is not a good thing for America. In fact, I have my suspicions that the drive by Neo-cons to attack Iraq rather than finish al Qaeda in Afghanistan may well have sprung from such a source.

    But really, where else in this world are you going to put the Jewish people if not in their own Holy Land. There were Jews living there before 1948, and that has always been their national aspiration to return there. Al talks about the Palestinans as the native people of Palestine. If true, they are the descendants of Christianized and Islamized Jews and Samaritans, and Samaritans are just the Jews not dragged off into the Babylonian Captivity who were rejected (as Jews*) when the Jewish people got back. If the Palestinians are not ‘the native people of Palestine’, then they are Arab invaders who have no more right to the land than the Jews have. One thousand years of occupation may not seem like much to a people with a four thousand year memory.

    If the Jews have a right to live in Isreal, than they damn well have a right to protect the last few millions of themselves from genocide by a billion Muslims. They have a right to expect the ‘governments’ that surround them to be accountable for their own people. Lebanon doesn’t seem able or willing to keep Hezbolah in control, and the Palestinian Authority never seems willing to control militant groups. So Isreal attacks the ‘governments’ that have failed to control their own populaces. I think it is probably a failing policy that causes more long range harm than good, but has bargining for the lives of their soldiers with prisoner releases been an effective policy either?

    In the end, it’s not Isreal that makes me sick, it’s the Arab and Iranian governments that got rid of their own Jewish populations, but refuse to resettle an equal number of Palestinians in their countries. Palestinians are the MOST hated of all Arabs by other Arabs. They have no place other than Gaza and the West Bank because they aren’t allowed to leave Islam’s front line with Judism were they can die while Saudi princes send their families ‘martyrdom’ pensions.

    * Read Isaac Asimov’s book on the Old Testiment

  • I would have thought by now we’d have abandoned this black and white, for or against, dualistic thinking. It is possible to be critical of Israel’s policies, without being anti-Semetic, just as it’s possible to love America and hate this U.S. in Iraq insanity. The worst type of allegience is blind, unconditional support, and I think we see too much of that — whether it’s support for the Israeli or our own government.

    Of course, none of this has to do with Lieberman. He’d be a shoe-in except for his position on Iraq and blind support of Bush when he should have known Bush couldn’t be trusted.

  • Lance- check out Israel’s moves to ensure, despite their being a ‘democracy’, that the Jewish population doesn’t become out-numbered by Muslims. The biggest opposition to a ‘one-state’ solution (incorporating all of Palestine) is Israel, because that would make Israel a majority-muslim state.

    It’s Israel who doesn’t want to move beyond religion, to a solution which might have made peace a long time ago. They are too in love with power.

    And, when you mention the re-settling of Jews to Israel, remember that they settled there on land that was NOT unoccupied. They stole land from the Palestinians who had lived there (with the support of the U.S. and Britain, neither of whom wanted to absorb the Jewish migrants). What better way to set up conflict?

    Interesting side historical note- prior to the resettlement of massive Jewish populations to Palestine, there were Jews and Muslims living in Jerusalem, side by side and peacefully. It’s not an impossible act. (Heck, in Saddam’s Iraq, there were Jews living peacefully in Baghdad)

  • Castor Troy – ” It’s not anti-Semitic to be anti-Israel. ” True. It is not Anti-Israel to suggest they should not launch full scale military assaults on their neighboring countries when militant groups kidnap their soldiers. Their position is that the government of these countries need to control their militants, fine. If people agree with that statement then they sould have no problem understanding why Al Queda attacked the US. Israel has started many wars in the region in the past 50 years and every action has received the full backing of the US government.

    Quiz: If Israel = Hezbolah then America = ????
    a. Rock & Roll Superstars
    b. Lebanon
    c. Freedom
    d. Jesus
    e. All of the above except 2

    I am sick and tired of this whole issue. The only way to solve it is to slap these groups back into reality and tell them they will play nice or Wal-Mart will buy the holy land and build a new flagshhip store!

  • “Lance- check out Israel’s moves to ensure, despite their being a ‘democracy’, that the Jewish population doesn’t become out-numbered by Muslims. The biggest opposition to a ‘one-state’ solution (incorporating all of Palestine) is Israel, because that would make Israel a majority-muslim state.”

    I’m fully aware of it, and I totally support a two state solution.

    Consider this. In what two countries in the Middle East do Arabs have the most democratic rights?

    Answer, Isreal and Iran. Somehow, Jews and Persians treat Arabs as better citizens than any ‘Arab’ country does.

  • Just to be clear, Lance (#11), I do not “blindly support Israel.” I think much of the settlement building, various provcations involving locations in Jerusalem sacred to Islam etc have been misguided, immoral and simply bad policy.

    That said, Modern Israel was an imperfect solution to a serious problem, imposed by many other states acting in concert (and the same people who decry Israel’s right to exist are often those who say the US should show more respect to decisions and processes of the United Nations). It is hard to say there was no historical basis for placing Israel in that location; history didn’t begin in the 1940s. Moreover, it was not initially the displaced Palestinians who warred with Israel — it was the neighboring Arab countries that did so almost solely on reasons of religious hatred.

    In 1967, a full generation after the founding of Modern Israel, those Arab states still could not abide the presence of Israel, and attempted a nice, fair, “proportionate” (since that seems to be important to people) 4-against-1attack on Israel, massing troops and equipment on the Israeli borders. Surely no one would actually claim that Israel had no right to defend itself? That it happened to win that war, convincingly, and push the surrounding troops back is also hardly something to hold against Israel. What entitlement should those states have to get Israel back to its pre-1967 borders? They sparked the border change by massing troops in the now-Israeli claimed areas.

    Did the Palestinian people get screwed by the West to help assuage the West’s conscience? Absolutely. Should the West feel some obligation to help solve the problems in the Middle East and to raise the livingstandards of Palestinians? You bet. Do Palestinians have a right to be angry at the world community at large? Sure. But does it make any sense for anyone to condone Arab states and militias refusing to accept Israel nearly three generations after the fact? No.

    The Palestinians continually shoot themselves in the foot: Israel didn’t make the Palestinian leadership corrupt; Israel didn’t make Palestine (like Saudi Arbaia and Egypt) foment a radical subculture for purposes of internal political control which they later became unable to contain.

    Proportionality seems to be a very, very modern notion in violent contests (literally within the past 30 years), and I have trouble seeing its merits. Moshe Dayan took a distinctly non-proportionalist view: never negotiate with someone holding a hostage, but be unequivocal that if the hostage dies, revenge will be a hundred-fold, without regard to whether they are combatants or civilians. The hostage taking all but stopped for much of the time he was Defense Minister in the early 70s. Proportionality actually encourages and prolongs the dispute.

    I reject the idea that this means I am or should be for the Iraq war. Preemptive war and disproportionate response to violence are far, far from the same thing. The difference is, essentially, “i dont start fights, but i do finish them.”

  • “Just to be clear, Lance (#11), I do not “blindly support Israel.” I think much of the settlement building, various provcations involving locations in Jerusalem sacred to Islam etc have been misguided, immoral and simply bad policy.” – Zeitgeist

    I’m willing to accept that. But then, no American admits to ‘blindly supporting Isreal’. We all believe our support is thoughtful and nuanced. I certainly do. But somehow, I suspect there are people who would consider me a blinded American Zionist, even if I just thought Isreal should retain its 1948 borders. Caster Troy, perhaps, who seems to support a ‘one-state solution’ which would make the Jews a minority, AGAIN, in their own homeland.

  • Quick query: Were or were not the Israeli soldiers IN LEBANON when abducted? Are there any uniformed solders of foreign nations wandering around with impunity in Israel?

    Another query: How much control does the government in Beirut have over Hezbollah?

    Third query: How long before some Katsa, “agreeing” with what he SAYS I am arguing, comes on this forum and says “I agree with him, let’s kill all the zionists.” Campus Watch is forever busy with such tactics, offering a telling parallel to the emerging Lieberman ploy. Faux skinheads are at tthe ready, awaiting the word from Abe Foxamn.

    These are interesting times. In the past it was easy to be and ardent zionist and still put America’s interests first. Now, with half the duly elected Palestainian Paliament in Israeli jails, and the IAF bombing the Beriut airport, it won’t be so easy.

  • Is anyone going to change their mind because they think old Joe is being discriminated against ? It might work for cabinet positions simply because there is an actual confirmation hearing and playing that card can keep your opponents quite.

    In a political race the game is different and I for one hate when that card is played unless it’s obviously true. I think a seasoned Senator whining about anti-Semitism is going to hurt him in the long run. People are tired of it, and since he has been elected by those same people time and time again, it truly is insulting.

    BYT, can anyone tell me why Semitism is capitalized ?

  • Can someone point to any Democratic-oriented blog, where anybody, other than thread-hijackers in the comments, spends any significant time talking about Lieberman’s political trouble in terms of his support of Israel? Joe has always been 1) Jewish, and 2) an uber-Zionist. And the people of Connecticut have never seemed to mind. As been discussed everywhere, except by thread-jackers with agendas in comments, the problems with Lieberman lie completely elsewhere – his approval of anti-progressive bills such as the bankruptcy bill, his coziness with big insurance and big pharma, his willingness to support Bush regardless, his unwillingness to abide by the Democratic primary and his sense of self-righteous self-entitlement.

    There’s plenty of *political* reasons for many CT Democrats to be unhappy with and to oppose Lieberman without dragging the whole Israel thing in – it only acts as a smokescreen and gives those with agendas (anti-Semetic and otherwise) a platform. It’s tiring and distracting and gets needlessly ugly. One would think that Karl Rove is behind the scenes whispering “Lieberman’s a Jew. Lieberman’s a Zionist” and, as usual, everybody gets distracted into a frenzy that ignores the actual issue at hand. Is the point of Carpetbaggers post that Lieberman himself is encouraging this because it distracts from all the other issues?

  • He’s running scared. Why doesn’t he just run in the Republican primary and be done with it. He would probably get elected.

    Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat before he ran for mayor of NY. The party didn’t want him so he ran on the Republican ticket. I am a far-left Democrat and I think he’s a great mayor.

  • It’s that mistake people make in thinking that the issue that is important to them is the one that everyone else cares about most, too.

    I doubt there is a significant growing trend among Dems to be concerned about which side of this issue he is on.

  • ATS- yes, today in the news, the two soldiers captured from the tank were apparently in Lebanon (at least from what I can get out of rather confusingly reports). Which helps to make the whole thing a lot more complicated. Is Israel really responding to some hostage-taking, or is Israel provoking a major war (and the evidence suggests the latter. The response- invading two countries- is clearly disproportionate to any response likely from any other power. I would not be wholly surprised to find that the Israelis did the ‘kidnappings’ with their own sleeper agents)

  • That’s too big a question to answer on one foot.”

    It would be awesome if Lieberman actually shifted to stand on one foot before he said that.

  • Lieberman is taking the Republican victimhood page from their playbook to demonize his opposition. Anti-semitism is a sham cover for why people despise him. End of story.

    The Bush Administration is the real anti-semitic group, having completely dropped the mid-east peace process in favor of waging a war with another nation in the region. Bush is not interested in a solution to Isreal’s problems. Isreal’s problems help him galvanize support from his base to further his own personal agendas.

  • Lieberman and his ilk sound scared. First it’s the anti-war crowd, now anti-semites. Everyone is out to get poor Joe! Boo freakin’ hoo.

    Poor Joe doesn’t realize it’s not people who are against him, it’s people who are for Connecticut and for the US.

    He wants to boil it down into narrow, divisive issues. He’s becoming more like a Bush on a daily basis.

    It’s not because he’s a hawk, or Jewish, or because he reminds me of that guy who played Willie on ALF. It’s because he’s a neocon, plain and simple and having that in the party makes it weaker.

  • I guess if you question Israel’s foreign policy, or wonder how much influence AIPAC had in the run up to the Iraq war, or wonder why Joe Lieberman continues to insist the war in Iraq is a success even while it costs him his Senate seat, I guess if you do all these things, you’re anti-Semitic.

    I guess that, even if you think all religions are kind of dumb, and don’t know the difference between a Jew and a Zionist (or care), but think the world spends too much time worrying about the a four thousand year fight between the sons of Abraham and Isaac (or something like that), that you’re anti-Semitic.

    I guess if you don’t give a shit what happens to Israel, just like you don’t give a shit what happens to the Palestinians, the Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghanis – just leave us the hell alone – I guess you’re anti-Semitic.

    All I know is that this country can’t take too much more caring about the Middle East. Does that make me an anti-Semite?

    Hey, some of by best friends are Jews 😉

  • Comments are closed.