Conservative Heritage Times

We have no control over the banner ads that run at this site. They are just generated I assume by some algorithm based on the content of the site. So I guess since our site is labeled conservative some program assumed our readers would be interested in “stopping” Iran.

So when I surfed to CHT today, the ad that greated me was as the title above, without the question marks of course. I couldn’t resist commenting. Isn’t that ad a microcosm of what is wrong with our foreign policy? It is assumed that I am supposed to want to “stop” Iran because I have some particular affinity for Israel. Ugh! There is no need for further comment. The commentary writes itself.

6 Comments »

Hardly. As I’ve previously argued (see here and here), I see Rand Paul as yet another deceptive politician who intends to save the Empire by nullifying its critics. He mouths the words that attract critics of militarism, but turns around and pledges support for even more military adventures. Here’s one admirer who supports Rand Paul for just that reason:

While Sen. Paul has fought to de-authorize the War on Terror and explicitly delink sanctions from war as a response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he also voted yes on the sanctions. While he repeated Ron Paul’s position about ending foreign aid to Israel, he has prioritized ending foreign aid and military sales to Israel’s enemies first and even declared in January that an attack on the Jewish state should be treated as an attack on the United States. In a major foreign policy address in February, he made clear he was not a carbon copy of his father. “There are definite differences,” he declared.

When Neocons and faux libertarians make love eyes at the same politician, something’s up.

15 Comments »

Apparently Rand has felt enough heat for his recent statement that he felt compelled to have his team do some damage control. The clarification helps a little.

Doug Stafford, Sen. Paul’s Chief of Staff, recently clarified the remarks in an e-mailed statement.

“The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel.  In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state,” explained Stafford. “Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.”

Stafford notes that Sen. Paul’s views on the matter are consistent with the approach he has taken during his tenure in the Senate, noting, “He was not discussing any offensive or preemptive war, nor was he describing the skirmishes that come up from time to time in that region. He was discussing a hypothetical all-out attack on Israel by her neighbors.”

He explained that Sen. Paul believes that approval to go to declare or engage in war only “lies with Congress,” noting that making such a strong statement “is likely to lead to a smaller chance of such attack ever taking place.” Stafford also noted that Sen. Paul “never has war as a goal or a preferred policy, only as a last resort.”

First of all, the best part of this is that he felt the need to clarify his statement at all. That means there is at least a small counter balance developing. If you’re someone in the Paulist orbit you can’t just make shameless pledges of fidelity to Israel without there being some pushback. (Hopefully Ted Cruz will get some pushback for his shameless grandstanding at the Hagel hearing.)

That said, this clarification is only slightly helpful. I don’t think anyone believed that Paul was pledging US help if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah. So clarifying that he was only talking about a major attack doesn’t really help. The problem of the security guarantee still remains. Ideally, America would consider Israel a friendly nation, no less “special” but no more “special” than any other. We shouldn’t offer Israel a security guarantee unless we offer every friendly country a security guarantee, which would be a bad idea and totally unworkable. We must change the presumption of the “special relationship.” This doesn’t do that.

16 Comments »

The confirmation of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense maybe the toughest vote Rand Paul will have taken so far as a U.S. Senator.

Paul has made no secret of his Presidential ambitions and in case there was any doubt his recent trip to Israel with several Christian Zionists in tow. He’s also been having private, unpublicized meeting with prominent neocons like Dan Senor. The reason for this is transparently political. Paul wants to, at the very least, reduce the intensity of opposition to him, such groups showed his father Ron Paul when he ran for President in 2008 and 2012.

But will Rand’s new friends influence the way he will ultimately vote on Hagel? Someone who his father probably would not have had trouble voting for if he was a Senator given the similarity of their foreign policy views and their views on the defense budget. Indeed, Rand himself has called for similar reductions in the Pentagon budget,

Some necons are calling this vote a “litmus test”. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul feels the same way as far as 2016 is concern.

14 Comments »

Recently Bill Kristol was crowing about how he purged the “Arabists” from the Republican Party.

I first became aware of this story from Mondoweiss. Sorry but I don’t recall how I was directed there. I must have been though because I don’t generally surf to Mondoweiss.

I am still reeling from seeing Bill Kristol hold forth at a debate at Bnai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side last Tuesday [a short portion of which is above]. He came off as what he is, a Republican Party warlord; and he was treated like royalty. The rabbi said he was proud to host Kristol, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street said he wanted to take Kristol with him to the West Bank, and moderator Jane Eisner of the Forward was very respectful, though she got in a jab at Kristol’s “smear” tactics at the Emergency Committee for Israel.

When Kristol gave the self-congratulatory riff from which I’ve gotten my headline—about how all the elements hostile to Israel inside the Republican Party were purged over the last 30 years – no one dared to question the power of the Israel lobby.

An incidental run in with Kristol occasioned this Buchanan editorial on the smarmy Kristol’s claims.

“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel… .”

That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged.

“At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”

“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed — really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”

Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.

Here are a couple of other mentions of this story that I got from a yahoo search.

The Kansas Citian

The Southern Nationalist

When some people say … HA…HA…HAAA… SAVROLACHEWWWW………!!!! Oh, excuse me … that paleos spend too much times nursing old grudges, I’ll tell them to read this story and tell me it doesn’t make their blood boil. If Kristol still gets to crow about 15 give or take year old purges, then I claim the right to still grouse about them.

The feisty intellectual pugilist in me tells me that the way to respond to such pompous crowing is with defiance. He may have purged the Republican party (this claim is largely true), but he didn’t purge real conservatism, and he sure as heck didn’t purge me. For our paleo critics, what do you suggest?

Of course the sweatest revenge would be to take the Party back, but that is not within my power. Shouting from the rooftops is.

2 Comments »

Here’s Ron Paul, speaking on the House floor:

While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation – should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.

Of course the people of Israel have the right to protect their culture – that’s the soul of their nation; keeping that alive means the country they fought for will live into the future. Every people has that right.

But the cultural preservation of a foreign nation is not any of our business. Worse, the entire debate takes on a bizarre aspect when you recall that the official policy of the US is to depose its own majority culture.

Think I’m exaggerating? Check out this “anti-racist” screed:

What is racism? Racism is more than individual prejudice based on race. Racism is the power of a dominant group, through its systems and institutions, to enforce the dominant culture’s history, values, practices and beliefs. It advantages those in the dominant group and disadvantages those who are not. It results in disparities.

I’ve racked my brain, and can imagine nothing more insane than a government that openly undermines the traditional culture at home while upholding the culture of a foreign nation.

Nothing.

32 Comments »

Pandering to different groups is a standard operating practice of most politicians. Mitt Romney is as good as anyone at doing this which is why he is one of the top candidates in polls. But even Mitt’s pandering reached the level of pornographic when he stated in an interview in an Israeli newspaper that Israel should be the one to dictate what U.S. policy should be towards it.

So if Mitt becomes Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful nation, one which for years has subsidized Israel’s economy and its military machine, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel will not be based on mutual interests, which is usually how foreign policy is made between nations, but one in which Israel itself determines what the relation ship is and how it should be conducted. Romney is proposing to give away U.S. control of its own policy to that of a foreign nation. So much for “American Exceptionalism” We give them money and they tell us what to do. That’s a strange policy.

Granted Romney is employing a fair number of neocons to his campaign team but I wonder if even they would say things so outlandish and outrageous about U.S.-Israeli relations (even if they believe the same in their hearts).  It makes one wonder who Romney is trying to impress but it also shows the desperate depths he’ll sink to in order to do so. Some Conservatives, who may well have been resigned to a Romney nomination, are beginning to wonder if just giving it to the next guy in line is such a good idea.

3 Comments »

Jeffery Lord‘s ridiculous piece in the American Spectator cannot be taken seriously as an intellectual argument.  Using an early 1980s term which once described Democrats like Gary Hart and Paul Tsongas  and which came to fruition in the Clinton/Blair era to try and make Ron Paul be the “other”, as it were in our modern politics, has nothing to do with trying to make people think. But Lord knows this as well as anyone because it is not his intention to make a cohesive argument for opinion makers. Instead he is making a political argument with a specific purpose in mind. He is trying to discourage the presumably conservative readers of the magazine and others who will read the article online from even considering Paul as a second or third choice among many, but to rule him out completely. And he is doing so with similar tactics one finds by reading SPLC manifestos or listening to Cultural Marxian critics within the academe.

Then again, being “politically correct” has never been the sole discretion of Left. It is a tactic which can be employed by any ideologue of any persuasion wishing to damage a political opponent or cause or movement by separating the candidate or activists as individuals and making them part of something bigger, more sinister in its design by either the company they keep, intentional or not; by what they’ve written, even if out of context or long ago (or in the case of Ron Paul not at all) and by their supposed place in history and what they connect back to. Lord employed the entire arsenal in order to go after Paul and no doubt the people who published this article thought they were getting “In Search of Anti-Semitism II” referring back to infamous essay written by National Review founder and editor William F. Buckley whose basic design, like Lord’s, was to forever connect Buchanan with fever swamps of anti-Jewish conspiracy mongers regardless that Buchanan, the so-called extremist, worked for two Presidents, had a syndicated column and was a pundit for many media shows.

Buckley’s smears did not keep Buchanan from the mainstream (although that wasn’t true for Joe Sobran)  anymore than Lord’s load of filth will affect Ron Paul’s impact on politics. But having insulted the Lord’s piece from being anything worth reading, I wish to dwell upon it if only to marvel at the obsession those within the “conservative establishment” (or as I have called it “Conservative INC.“) with anything which has to deal with the state Israel and or anti-Semitism. Like the Left when it comes to race, those who would call themselves conservatives seem to have their ears more wide open on this topic than anything else.

Continue Reading »

5 Comments »

Bachmann is, what should be called a “Curser” (to go along with Birthers and Truthers). That’s a person who believes that U.S. foreign policy should be based around the old line in Genesis where God says to Abraham “I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you.” So the U.S. must support Israel not just because is it in our foreign policy interest but because if we don’t God will curse us.

Now I wouldn’t say this is exactly Dispensationalism because her religion is Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which is a very fundamentalist Protestant sect (they believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ) but is made up largely of conservative German Lutherans (the Bachmann clan is originally from Wisconsin in a little German-dominated farming village called Waumundee in Buffalo County). They’re not the kinds of people who buy into the flights of fantasy of Dispensationalism (they’re Lutherans after all). Dispensationalism is a British import from dissenter sects which fits more in with the more charismatic Scots-Irish than the more reserved German or Scandinavian Lutheran sects

But you can see the evangelical influence given their born-again conversion in the mid-1970s. If she and her husband Marcus had done nothing they still would have been fairly conservative by the tenants of their faith. Being born-again however, transformed them down more activist and more millenarian paths as anyone who was “born again” during this period of time would have been whether they watching the movie How Should We Live Then? or reading the book The Late Great Planet Earth. The Jesus Freaks like Marcus and Michele were looking for something more punchy than “Eine grossen berg ist ein Gott.” Being born again in the 1960s and 70s and early to mid-80s was statement of rejection against the conventional, mainstream religion of that time. It was their own counter-cultural rebellion.

Because she expresses the “Curser” rhetoric, she already has the Dispensationalist market-cornered. Thus, attacking Iran is consistent with her viewpoints which are religiously orientated. Iran threatens Israel, ergo Iran must be dealt with. Libya on the other hand, is no threat to Israel nor is Afghanistan so it’s easy for her to say bring the troops home because neither has anything to do with Israel’s security which would be the centerpoint of her foreign policy.

So to sum it up, a Bachmann Presidency would akin to electing Netanyahu as President. Hordes of neocons and other hawks will be called back from exile to staff the Pentagon and this time the State Department (John Bolton for Secretary of State anyone?) Will we attack Iran if Bachmann becomes President? In two words: hell yes.

42 Comments »

From Steve Sailer:

A reader sends photos of Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama as young men, with the implication that these might shed light on why the head of a country of 6 million treated the head of a country of 300 million like his personal dogwalker.

If only we had a leader like Bibi Netanyahu — one who actually cares for the welfare of his own people.  Imagine that.

Steve Sailer’s open letter to Bibi:

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Congratulations on your triumphal tour of Washington D.C. You have emerged as the de facto leader of anti-Obama sentiment in America.

In return for all that America has done for you, may I ask, in all seriousness, that you do a favor for America?

Namely, please come to America again and deliver a high profile speech and slide show explaining the rapid construction and strong success of Israel’s border security fence. Point out that a properly made border fence has been shown to deter not only drug smugglers and illegal immigrants, but even suicide bombers. Then, compare Israel’s success at rapidly securing its borders to the American government’s dithering and ineffectualness at constructing its own border security fence. Please point out that this kind of defeatism and corruption is unworthy of Israel’s ally. You could conclude by offering to send Israeli experts to the American border to advise Americans on how to build the American fence.

Thank you very much.

Steve Sailer

16 Comments »

This categorization, by Ellison Lodge,  may be a little unfair to Buchanan and perhaps a little too generous to Michael Savage, but it succinctly captures the mixed positions on nationalism in Israel and the West:

If one were to try to sort out views on nationalism in Israel and the West, it could be neatly split into four categories:

1) Those who support ethno-politics for Israel but not for Europeans and the West. (neoliberals and neoconservatives like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Kristol et al.)
2) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel and the West (Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal et al.) [and politically correct libertarians]
3) Those who support ethno-politics in the West and in Israel (Lawrence Auster, Diana West, Michael Savage)
4) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel but support it for the West (Pat Buchanan, Kevin MacDonald)

Like the author, I would include myself in category #3. I have no problem with Israel promoting ethno-nationalist policies or taking a hardline stance on immigration (these are things any sane nation should do), but I think Israel should have to do these things on its own dime, and we don’t need overseas partisans of Israel (e.g. Bill Kristol or Joseph Lieberman) trying to prevent Western nations from pursuing much-needed immigration enforcement and reduction.  That said, unlike Larry Auster, I don’t think one’s position on Israel should be the deciding factor in assessing his political views.  Frankly, I don’t care whether another Westerner is pro- or anti-Israel; I do, however, care whether he’s pro-Western.  Lodge says it best:

The idea that the fate of European or American Civilization is somehow tied up in Israel, as Geert Wilders & Co. often claim, has absolutely no basis in reality; the same goes for the ahistorical, made-up term “Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Read the rest of Ellison Lodge’s article here.

23 Comments »

For those who thought Haley Barbour might be different, he’s not.

He’s headed to Israel to kiss the rin… err… I mean speak with Netanyahu.

The blurb also informs us that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have already met with Netanyahu. Check.

But I’m sure this is just because Barbour wants to meet a lot of different foreign leaders in preparation for a potential run for President. I’m sure we will soon be hearing about his plans to travel abroad to meet with the leaders of Moldova and Burkina Faso as well, no doubt accompanied by the Republican Moldovan Coalition and the Republican Burkina Faso Coalition respectively. I anxiously await reports of these subsequent trips in Town Hall.

11 Comments »

The cabinet on Sunday apppointed a committee to determine criteria for the estbalishment of an “open detention center” for infiltrators who entered Israel illegally through Egypt. The government stated that the committee would complete its work within 60 days and that the facility would be built within six months.

Ministers Benny Begin (Likud), Avishay Braverman (Labor) and Yitzhak Ahronovitch (Yisrael Beiteinu) voted against the decision. The latter said, “I don’t know what an open facility means,’ adding that the government should invest resources in enforcement, legislation and the immediate construction of a barrier on the Israel-Egypt border. He also suggested stationing additional Border Guard officers on the borderline.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained why he supports the idea. “There is a growing wave threatening Israeli’s workplaces, a wave of illegal infiltrators which we must stop due to the harsh implications on the State’s character,” he said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.

…

Addressing the necessity of the prison, which he defined as a facility, the prime minister said that “we must create a humane response of lodging, food and nursing services until the infiltrators are removed from the country. People have been talking for years about stopping the wave of illegal infiltrators. Now we are no longer talking – this government, as opposed to previous ones, is doing.”

Netanyahu said the State would discuss imposing large fines on employers hiring illegal workers. He said the suggested detention facility was similar to facilities in Holland, Italy and Spain.

The refugees will stay in the facility temporarily “and will be returned to their homelands and interim countries from there,” he said. He added that “this is a combined national plan which will change the direction of the mass entry.” ~ YNet News

Good news for Israel. I hope it works out.  Like any nation, Israel has the duty to defend its borders and deport unwanted immigrants.

If only we could have such determined leadership in opposition to the Third World invasion of the U.S.!

Sadly, we have the Obama regime which currently is working to ram through Congress the DREAM Act amnesty.  If you haven’t already, join NumbersUSA so you can send free faxes to oppose this amnesty.

24 Comments »

The Lizard King is revoking a totally worthless award his minions once gave to fellow loony tune John Bolton:

In 2006, LGF readers voted to give the Anti-Idiotarian Award to former UN ambassador John Bolton, largely because of his passionate support of the US and Israel in the frequently hostile environment of the United Nations.

I feel slightly sad to announce that today, as the proprietor of LGF, I’m revoking that award. And when I say “slightly sad,” I mean “very disgusted with John Bolton.”

It was bad enough that Bolton actually wrote the foreword for hate monger Pamela Geller’s anti-Obama “book.” But the final straw was the announcement by Geller that Bolton will be speaking at her anti-Muslim rally.

Notice CJ has no problem with Bolton’s current efforts to goad Israel into launching a war of aggression against Iran, an act that could spark World War III. But to cozy up to the number one name on CJ’s burgeoning enemies list is just too much.

3 Comments »

This guest submission comes to us from SARTRE at the website BATR:

The worse kept secret is the joint plans of Israel and their American stooges for a sneak attack on Iran. Succumbing to the militaristic legacy of imperial Japan, the joint chiefs of staff are ready to facilitate or even lead a stealth charge against purported WMD targets. So what is their rationale? Since the deadly weapon facilities could not be found in Iraq, maybe they will be found in Iran? If Iran was ready to develop nuclear weapons, how is that any different from Israel already deploying 200 plus warheads? Especially since the Zionist belligerent is poised to strike Iran in a repeat of their “Operation Opera” against the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. 

In the most delusional and warped minds of hardened Christian Zionist supporters of the ultimate terrorist state, Israel can do no wrong. How could such an act of undeclared war benefit the American nation? The neocon hijacking of an American First foreign policy is the demented legacy of the Bush presidencies. The Obama administration is no different. The War Party mindset remains the dominate force that defends the Zionist rogue regime that is bent upon an apocalyptic holocaust of their own making. 

Continue Reading »

14 Comments »

Here’s a classy political put-down: Anyone who doesn’t slavishly support whatever Israel does is a cross-dressing homosexual. Right.

Guess Americaneocon didn’t get the memo about his political bedfellows.

4 Comments »

Harrison Bergeron criticizes Israel and loses a link — and maybe more.

8 Comments »

The manufactured controversy over White House correspondent Helen Thomas’ comments regarding Israel is somewhat amusing. She’s certainly no stranger to controversy, but it’s very telling that these particular comments led to her “immediate retirement.” To offend the Israeli elite in America is to commit an unforgivable sin. This goes without saying. The press corps can’t afford to tolerate someone like Thomas.

While I believe it’s impossible to uproot Israel and reverse what happened in 1948, it is indeed refreshing to hear such a challenge to the Zionist orthodoxy in Washington. To even question history like this is to invite great wrath as we have seen with those who sympathize with the “Lost Cause” or the non-interventionist movements of both World Wars. Even contemporary observations of Israeli culture are off-limits.

Culturally speaking, the vast majority of Jews in Israel are essentially European. It’s not hard to imagine why their neighbors hate them when you consider that Israel is nothing more than a throwback to European colonialism. You will not find another nation in the Middle East where secular humanism is so embedded. All of this would likely surprise most Americans if they actually bothered to educate themselves.

Equally sad is how American Evangelicals have allowed themselves to be exploited by bad theology (i.e., dispensationalism) where they provide unwavering, knee-jerk support for the Israeli state. Having spent much of my youth in dispensationalist circles, these folks really believe that the Israelis are building the Kingdom of God on earth. I would say they are exploited in the same way that blacks are exploited by the Democratic Party.

22 Comments »

Recently Rand Paul released a statement outlining his position re. Israel. The statement is generating some controversy on the non-interventionist right.

If nothing else, the statement is clever. Read superficially it could easily be interpreted to mean that Rand Paul is “pro-Israel” and supports policies vis-à-vis Israel that are similar to those supported by “mainstream” movement conservatives. However, parsed more closely, he arguably says nothing that runs gravely afoul of non-interventionist dogma. He denounces foreign aid to Israel’s enemies. (But doesn’t denounce explicitly foreign aid to Israel. Meaning what?) He denounces American pressure on Israel regarding what actions they can take concerning Iran. He states he would never denounce Israel. He denounces subsidies to Israel’s enemies. Etc. This is all consistent with non-interventionism and differs not at all from the positions of his father. The only part that may run afoul of non-interventionism is his calls for greater “pressure” on Iran, although non-interventionists don’t denounce normal diplomacy so even that could be consistent. The tone and language regarding Iran are troubling to me, however, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that “pressure” does not mean more saber-rattling and chest-thumping. Also his approving use of the term “special relationship” is troubling.

But here is my biggest problem with the statement even if we give Rand the benefit of the doubt policy wise. The Good Book tells us that we are to “avoid the appearance of evil.” Well this statement does not “avoid the appearance of pandering.” In fact, it reeks of pandering. If an Israel Firster like the author of the post, Philip Klein, thinks it may concede enough, then it concedes too much. Perhaps I should appreciate the political acumen of Paul for being clever enough to make people think he is saying something he really is not, but in the current political climate, where everybody panders to Israel supporters, what is desperately needed is someone who will visibly stand up to and buck that trend. Here, I believe Paul concedes too much rhetorically if not actually.

As I have stated before, paleos and other non-interventionists have become so upset with the influence of the Israel Lobby that some have allowed themselves to become openly hostile to Israel and supportive of the Palestinians. This has not served us well. I am not arguing that Rand Paul should be openly hostile to Israel. I would not even argue that Paul not indicate his own personal support for Israel if he in fact feels that way. What I am arguing is that we need to foster an environment wherein what one thinks personally about Israel is of no more consequence than what one thinks about Cameroon. An environment in which Israel is just one of many other countries. (This is what I was getting at with my snide remark in the thread that I wonder when Paul is going to be releasing his statement on what he thinks regarding our policy toward Cameroon.) Paul’s statement does not foster that environment. It actually perpetuates the status quo. For this reason primarily I find the statement highly unfortunate.

30 Comments »

A long, long time ago, “anti-Semitism” meant hatred of Jews. These days, however, it’s a term of abuse for anyone who doesn’t support Israel’s militant foreign policy, even though that policy has alienated Israel’s former friends and allies, including Turkey.

Pat Buchanan is deemed anti-Semitic by this strange, new criterion. South African Judge Richard Goldstone, the author of a UN report that criticized the Israeli government for attacks on civilians in Gaza, is anti-Semitic, despite being a Jew.

And now Charles Johnson stands accused of being a “Jew hater.” Even the harmless drudge at the neglected Rebellion blog is a “hater” of Jews, according to esteemed political scientist Donald Douglas.

And Donald Douglas knows hate.

7 Comments »