There are certain predictable symptoms to watch when a widespread amorality begins to infect a postmodern society: cultural relativism, atheism, socialism, utopian pacifism. Another sign, of course, is fashionable anti-Semitism among the educated, or the idea that some imaginary cabal, or some stealthy agenda — certainly not our own weakness — is conspiring to threaten our good life.

Well apart from the spooky placards (stars of David juxtaposed with swastikas, posters calling for the West Bank to be expanded to "the sea") that we are accustomed to seeing at the marches of the supposedly ethical antiwar movement, we have also heard some examples of Jew-baiting and hissing in the last two weeks that had nothing to do with the old crazies. Indeed, such is the nature of the new anti-Semitism that everyone can now play at it — as long as it is cloaked in third-world chauvinism, progressive thinking, and identity politics.

The latest lunatic rantings from Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad are nothing new, and we should not be surprised by his mindless blabbering about Jews and his fourth-grade understanding of World War II and the present Middle East. But what was fascinating was the reaction to his madness: silence from the Arab intelligentsia, praise from Middle Eastern leaders ("A brilliant speech," gushed Iran's "president" Mohammad Khatami), and worry from France and Greece about an EU proclamation against the slander. Most American pundits were far more concerned about the private, over-the-top comments of Gen. Boykin than about the public viciousness of a head of state. Paul Krugman, for example, expressed the general mushiness of the Left when he wrote a column trying to put Mahathir Mohamad's hatred in a sympathetic context, something he would never do for a Christian zealot who slurred Muslims.

Much has been written about the usually circumspect Greg Easterbrook's bizarre ranting about "Jewish executives" who profit from Quentin Tarantino's latest bloody production. But, again, the problem is not so much the initial slips and slurs as it is the more calculated and measured "explanation." Easterbrook's mea culpa cited his prior criticism of Mel Gibson, as if the supposed hypocrisy of a devout and public Christian's having trafficked in filmed violence were commensurate with the dealings of two ordinary businessmen who do not publicly embrace religion. Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein simply happen to be movie executives, with no stake in producing Jewish movies or public-morality films, but — like most in Hollywood — with a stake in making money from films. That they are Jewish has absolutely no bearing on their purported lack of morality — unless, of course, one seeks to invent some wider pathology, evoking historical paranoia about profiteering, cabals, and "the Jews."

Recently, Joseph Lieberman was hissed by an Arab-American audience in Dearborn, Mich. when he briefly explained Israel's defensive wall in terms not unlike those used by Howard Dean and other candidates. What earned him the special public rebuke not accorded to others was apparently nothing other than being Jewish — the problem was not what he said, but who he was. No real apology followed, and the usually judicious and sober David Broder wrote an interesting column praising the new political acumen of the Arab-American community.

Tony Judt, writing in The New York Review of Books, has published one of the most valuable and revealing articles about the Middle East to appear in the last 20 years. There has always been the suspicion that European intellectuals favored the dismantling of Israel as we know it through the merging of this uniquely democratic and liberal state with West Bank neighbors who have a horrific record of human-rights abuses, autocracy, and mass murder. After all, for all too many Europeans, how else but with the end of present-day Israel will the messy Middle East and its attendant problems — oil, terrorism, anti-Semitism, worries over unassimilated Muslim populations in Europe, anti-Americanism, and postcolonial guilt — become less bothersome? Moreover, who now knows or cares much about what happened to Jews residing under Arab governments — the over half-million or so who, in the last half-century, have been ethnically cleansed from (and sometimes murdered in) Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, and almost every Jewish community in the Arab Middle East?

And what is the value of the only democratic government in a sea of autocracy if its existence butts up against notions of third-world victimhood and causes so much difficulty for the Western intelligentsia? Still, few intellectuals were silly enough to dress up that insane idea under the pretext of a serious argument (an unhinged Vidal, Chomsky, or Said does not count). Judt did, and now he has confirmed what most of us knew for years — namely, that there is an entrenched and ever-bolder school of European thought that favors the de facto elimination of what is now a democratic Jewish state.

What links all these people — a Muslim head of state, a rude crowd in Michigan, an experienced magazine contributor, and a European public intellectual — besides their having articulated a spreading anger against the "Jews"? Perhaps a growing unease with hard questions that won't go away and thus beg for easy, cheap answers.

A Malaysian official and his apologists must realize that gender apartheid, statism, tribalism, and the anti-democratic tendencies of the Middle East cause its poverty and frustration despite a plethora of natural resources (far more impressive assets than the non-petroleum-bearing rocks beneath parched Israel). But why call for introspection when the one-syllable slur "Jews" suffices instead?

And why would an Arab-American audience — itself composed of many who fled the tyranny and economic stagnation of Arab societies for the freedom and opportunity of a liberal United States — wish to hear a reasoned explanation of the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian war when it was so much easier to hiss and moan, especially when mainstream observers would ignore their anti-Semitism and be impressed instead with the cadre of candidates who flock to Michigan?

How do you explain to an audience that Quentin Tarantino appeals both to teens and to empty-headed critics precisely because something is terribly amiss in America, when affluent and leisured suburbanites are drawn to scenes of raw killing as long as it is dressed up with "art" and "meaning"?

How could a Tony Judt write a reasoned and balanced account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when to do so would either alienate or bore the literati?

So they all, whether by design or laxity, take the easier way out — especially when slurring "Israel" or "the Jews" involves none of the risks of incurring progressive odium that similarly clumsy attacks against blacks, women, Palestinians, or homosexuals might draw, requires no real thinking, and seems to find an increasingly receptive audience.

You see, in our mixed-up world those Jewish are not a "people of color." And if there really is such a mythical monolithic entity in America as the "Jews," they (much like the Cubans) are not easily stereotyped as impoverished victims needing largesse or condescension, and much less are they eligible under any of the current myriad of rubrics that count for public support. Israel is a successful Western state, not a failed third-world despotism. Against terrible oppression and overt anti-Semitism, the Jewish community here and abroad found success — proof that hard work, character, education, and personal discipline can trump both natural and human adversity. In short, the story of American Jewry and Israel resonates not at all with the heartstrings of a modern therapeutic society, which is quick to show envy for the successful and cheap concern for the struggling.

This fashionable anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism — especially among purported intellectuals of the Left — reveals a deep-seated, scary pathology that is growing geometrically both in and outside the West. For a Europe that is disarmed, plagued by a demographic nightmare of negative population growth and unsustainable entitlements, filled with unassimilated immigrants, and deeply angry about the power and presence of the United States, the Jews and their Israel provide momentary relief on the cheap. So expect that more crazy thoughts of Israel's destruction dressed up as peace plans will be as common as gravestone and synagogue smashing.

For the Muslim world that must confront the power of the patriarch, mullah, tribe, and autocrat if it is ever to share the freedom and prosperity of the rest of the world, the Jews offer a much easier target. So expect even more raving madness as the misery of Islamic society grows and its state-run media hunker down amid widespread unrest. Anticipate, also, more sick posters at C-SPAN broadcast marches, more slips by reasonable writers, and more anti-Israeli denunciations from the "liberals."

These are weird, weird times, and before we win this messy war against Islamic fascism and its sponsors, count on things to get even uglier. Don't expect any reasoned military analysis that puts the post-9/11 destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's evil regime, along with the liberation of 50 million at the cost of 300 American lives, in any sort of historical context. After all, in the current presidential race, a retired general now caricatures U.S. efforts in Iraq and quotes Al Sharpton.

Do not look for the Islamic community here to acknowledge that the United States, in little over a decade, freed Kuwait, saved most of the Bosnians and Kosovars, tried to feed Somalis, urged the Russians not to kill Chechnyans, belatedly ensured that no longer were Shiites and Kurds to be slaughtered in Iraq, spoke out against Kuwait's ethnic cleansing of a third of a million Palestinians — and now is spending billion to make Iraqis free.

That the Arab world would appreciate billions of dollars in past American aid to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, or thank America for its help in Kuwait and Kosovo, or be grateful to America for freeing Iraq — all this is about as plausible as the idea that Western Europeans would acknowledge their past salvation from Nazism and Soviet Communism, or be grateful for the role the United States plays to promote democracy in Panama, Haiti, the Balkans, or the Middle East.

No, in this depressing age, the real problem is apparently our support for democratic Israel and all those pesky Jews worldwide, who seem to crop up everywhere as sly war makers, grasping film executives, conspiratorial politicians, and greedy colonialists, and thus make life so difficult for the rest of us.

The Malaysian Prime Minister observes that most large media is controlled by Jewish People. This is true.

The Malaysian Prime Minister is accused of anti-semitism because he out a true statement.

Does this mean the truth is anti-semitic?

Cognitive Dissonance

Blah, blah, blah, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Now speak to the real issues: the Zionist aggression since the turn of the century, in actual historical instances, if you dare to turn to reality. I won't be holding my breath.

Point

Point:

Who elected you to be "The Real Point" monitor?

No one.

If you have nothing to say about the article, don't post here.

Start your own Jew-bashing thread and prove Hansens's point...further.

scientifically speaking,semites are all those past and present who speak a semitic language - jews and arabs alike.

so why does the term antisemitism refer only to jews?

racism maybe?

it's just like saying americans only for us inhabitants - thus obliterating from history all other peoples in the americas.

therefore antisemitism is a politically incorrect word - it ought to read antijewishness or antihebraism.

"the Zionist defense since the turn of the century,"

I think this is what you meant to say.

Like, who kicked off the war in 1967, man? Go back to your bong, boy.

>>Argument: "1967 - Israel had to strike pre-emptively to defend itself from an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (and perhaps by troops of other Arab countries)."

Israel attacked once again...

As to the imminency of an Arab attack, that is not what Israel's leaders thought:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

Le Monde, February 29, 1968

"In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"

-Prime Minister Menachem Begin

New York Times, August 21, 1982

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.' "

Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle." >>:

go back to your asylum,boy.

This is just the beginning, and the ending, of all "Jewish" excuses for Zionism. . . I will point you to more as you find it necessary.

http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/index.cfm

Point

Whenever I see a KPFK bumper sticker I think another simple minded self righteous ignorant monkey.

KPFK makes me think of the people selling left wing newspapers on campuses around here. Newspapers that promote life in Cuba for example. Ask one of the people at the tables if they have ever been to Cuba. Nope. Ask one of the people at the Revolutionary Worker tables if they have ever been to Nepal or Peru and seen what Sendero used to do, or seen what the "guerillas" in Nepal do. Nope. It is remarkable that the people staffing these tables and this the radio station HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THE PLACES THAT THEY ARE OBSESSED WTH. As for the people flogging the pro Arab line, or I should say, pro Islamic Fascist line , on this web site, ask a few of them, have you ever visitied Israel? Ever visited Egypt? Every visited Saudi?

Ask some of the other Arabs what they think of the Palestinians.

Ask any Arab what they think of Pakistanis. The Arabs generally loathe the Pakistanis who they think of as SUBHUMAN.

And a lot of misinformed or underinformed little twerps posting so called revolutionary garbage on this web site really do not know of what they speak.

"really do not know of what they speak. "

That, of course, is by definition, the hallmark of the far left.

It's absolutely neccessary to retain that mindset.

it's NOT jews versus arabs - it's rich pigs like sharon versus the poor - jews AND arabs.

sharon created hamas to keep on profiting from endless war.

just like bush's grandpsrents created hitler back then to profit from the holocaust.

the rest is jusy sand chucked into the people's eyes.

marx's superstructures if you will.

"it's rich pigs like sharon versus the poor - jews AND arabs. "

Sharon is not as wealthy as any of the top 15,000 princes/kings/shieks/dictators/cleptokrats of the Arab world.

supported propped up by the us to oppress their people..i see what you mean:

rich capitalist pigs versus the poor,as always.

""really do not know of what they speak. "

That, of course, is by definition, the hallmark of the far left.

It's absolutely neccessary to retain that mindset.







"JEWS IS A MYSTIFICATION

by adrian more Saturday November 01, 2003 05:45 AM

it's NOT jews versus arabs - it's rich pigs like sharon versus the poor - jews AND arabs.

sharon created hamas to keep on profiting from endless war.

just like bush's grandpsrents created hitler back then to profit from the holocaust.

the rest is jusy sand chucked into the people's eyes.

marx's superstructures if you will."



What did I tell you?

Notice that adrian has flat out stated that

A) Sharon CREATED Hamas

B) Bush's grandpsrents (sic) created hitler.

Could this clown be any more deluded?

Stunning in it's absurdity.

Best estimates are that Arafat could buy sharon and everything he owns around 500 times over.

Intersting eh?

adrian lowers the level of proof required to zero whenever it suits his adgenda.

Anyway statistically speaking

If you have an event (good or bad) it is most likely you can trace some contributing factor back to a large firm in the USA. (ie the firm supplied someone who was indirectly related or whatever). It is also likely that you can connect that company to a jewish person somehow.

It is a sort of an antisemetic 6 degrees of seperation thing going on here. Except with major events and big corporations it is more like 3 degrees.

Another interesting thing is how they leap from having some kind of connection to another group of people to "creating" the event or the organization.

it was us ambassador to israel dan kurtzer who stated in a 2001 haaretz interview that the israeli right had favored tolerated encouraged in every way the creation and development of hamas ever since the very beginning,as a fanatic counterpart to the secular nationalist PLO,in sabotage of all peaces.

I see none of you armchair Zionists care to delve into actual Judaism via the link to the Guardians of the City. . .One wouldn't want to actually LEARN something, would one? Naw, just beat your conceptual horses to death, that way you can keep your wheels in the same rut.

Point

the FBI funded hamas too as further evidence that hamas is nothing but a front for the us israeli wall street scum in sabotage of peace and for the perpetuation of dirty war biz:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/87406.php

Adrian

This is a little like the stalinist anarchist etc etc alliance that you have going on there on the left. Basically you are your own worst enemies for example the stlinists would beat up on the anarchists ifthey got power similarly for many of the other groups (islamo facists or whoever else) much worse than democracy does. And yet you march togetherbecause you think that democracy/capitalism is the immediate threat.

Now isnt it hypocracy for attacking israel for somthing you are doing?

>> I see none of you armchair Zionists care to delve into actual Judaism via the link to the Guardians of the City. .

- and why would that be relevant? I, at least, don't internalize the religious part of the debate.

anyway you are linking to nk.. you might as well link to david koresh for information on christianity.

...nor an anarchist.

i'm a communist,but in my own version.

i'm adrian more.

further evidence of the dirty state terrorist game that sharon been playin' with the blood of israel is the fact that whenever that pig wants to target-assassinate a hamas small or medium fish in sabotage of all peace processes,he never fails no matter the cost in innocent life.

whereas when it comes down to knocking off hamas' leaders yassin & rantisi,sharon has missed his mark 3 times this year alone...

just like bush not only never gets osama,his dear creature,but has stopped looking for him altogether...he needs his pet scarecrow too much...

$sql = "SELECT username, date_time, comment, thread_id, email, title FROM comments WHERE thread_id = '$thread_id' ";

$result = mysql_query($sql,$connection)


or die("Couldn't execute query.");




while($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) {



$username = $row['username'];

$date_time = $row['date_time'];

$time = $row['time'];

$comment = $row['comment'];

$thread_id = $row['thread_id'];

$title = $row['title'];

$email = $row['email'];



$displayblock .= "$title



$username


|| $date



$email

$comment

add a comment

";

}

>> i'm a communist,but in my own version.

Ha-ha that just makes your position less tenable.

and it was the judeonazi international herald tribune - which generally refries nyt or wp stuff - to reveal telltale details about the rantisi attack:

the first missile fired at rantisi's car in the alleged targeted assassination was wide off the mark and intended just as a warning - thereafter time was given to rantisi to flee virtually unscathed before the second missile was fired.

it is clear thar such a badly botched attempt was intentionally botched in order to sedate lingering doubts in the world as to why sharon never targets hamas' leadership.

just like the cruises fired at osama by clinton - dust chucked into the people's eyes.

If he kills one of them will you shut up?

"... no matter the cost in innocent life."

Yet we NEVER hear ONE WORD of condemnation from you regarding the barbaric practice of suicide bombing.

Is that because you don't think JOOOOS are innocent, adrian?

Whoopee... So you found a site written by a few Jewish uncle Tom's to reinforce your baseless point. Why don't you just come clean and admit your hatred against Jews? Remember, Hitler had self-hating Jews who went along with his policies, too. Israel is here to stay.

The Arabs are just wallowing in their own humiliation since they haven't evolved in 200 years. What have they contributed to the greater good of this world? Zero.