Lately, Huffington Post, a battleground for Progressive Except on Palestine forces (my side gets some play now and then) has published Israel lobby spokesmen Lanny Davis, Alan Dershowitz, and Mortimer Zuckerman. Still, CAMERA isn't happy. The pro-Israel media-monitor finds that the commenters are hung up on.... the Israel lobby and dual loyalty. Interesting analysis:
A tally of 236 sequential entries from a portion of the comment thread following the article on [Chas] Freeman’s resignation found that 73 percent condemned Israel or Jews. Most often this took the form of accusing Jews of controlling the government and being disloyal. About 19 percent applauded Freeman’s resignation and 8 percent were neutral. The most common topics raised by Israel’s critics in this sample of 236 entries are listed as follows:
55 contended that AIPAC or the "Jewish Lobby" control the US government.
35 raised the charge of dual loyalty by Jewish members of Congress.
11 focused on alleged Jewish control of the media..
14 fixated on allegations of Israeli brutality.
9 expressed outrage over disproportionate aid to Israel.
5 extolled Saudi Arabia as an excellent ally in comparison to Israel.
A number expressed support for any or all of the above.
And finally, 24 were more generalized anti-Semitic rants lacking any specificity.
Only a small portion of these responses offered coherent arguments in favor of Freeman’s appointment or critical of those opposed it. As indicated above, the most commonly expressed sentiment in the comments was a belief in excessive and corrosive Jewish influence in America.
Note that anyone concerned with allegations of Israeli brutality is not offering a coherent argument in favor of Chas Freeman...
What would an analysis of Jerusalem Post story comments look like?
Your side being PEI (Progressive Except for Israel)? Most thinking American Jews are progressive in all relations. Helpful more than critical. synnergestic more than zero-sum.
How about those former and current members of our diplomatic corps who signed a letter of protest, pointing out Freeman's excellent credentials? They don't count as their letter didn't specifically mention on-going Israeli brutality? They don't matter since the MSM ignored their protest?
Nope, sorry, (P)rince (E)dward (I)sland has been taken. May I suggest ASHY, Axis of Self-Hating Yids?
The aspect that I profoundly dislike about the "Israel Lobby" theory, is that it serves to dismiss comment on the basis of person, rather than on the basis of the merit of argument. A hero who makes periodically idiotic anti-Zionist comments is loved even when he/she lies or harms. And, an enemy who periodically makes insightful and respectable pro-Zionist comments is hated. The argument should convince, NOT the demonization.
Great observation. Ditto Ha'aretz. Ever glance at their rabid comments?
So what is CAMERA going to do with this analysis? Seek to muzzle Americans more? And who the hell does CAMERA think it is doing this for? Certainly not Americans who are allowed by their First Amendment to write any damn thing they want.
I am not surprised and expect Americans to take even more of an interest in Israeli doings in the US…..and in congress. Those who follow politics or foreign affairs …and even those who don't..but just hear brief mentions of events like Jane Harman and the "Israeli agent are naturally going to be ciritical all things Israeli in our goverment…patricularly when it come to information that makes them ask…".is that Harman woman in the senate working for Israel or the US?"… Most criticism I see of israel and of the zionist types involved is legitimate to me.
Note the sentence
And finally, 24 were more generalized anti-Semitic rants lacking any specificity.
Steven Stotsky's use of the adverb more implies that the other 212 comments were 'specific' anti-Semitic rants. Apparently in his mind all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. Good luck selling that talking point!
CAMERA thinks they can intimidate the American public into shutting up. Just like the anti semtic slurring and etc is employed to try and shush discussion. I went to the CAMERA site once, they had wanted posters on their site for various anti semities and self hating jews…a lot of academics and other intellectuals. No one escapes their wrath, high or low, they had a picture of a Duke Univ history professor I know up as an anti semite. I don't know are they dumb to keep doing this long after it's obvious it isn't working or is it they don't have a plan two to shut us up .
To annoy CAMERA is a patriotic duty.
I think Huff Post is reasonably good on the IP issue, mainly through their comments section. It does seem that if a blog ignores their commentators they are doomed to fail. It is true that they are giving the mindless zionist more columns than they deserve but it is also clear that the readership of that blog are in opposition. This has to be good in the long term.
From my perspective, the 'Israel Lobby theory' is that individuals act on behalf of another nation to influence governmental policy in a manner adverse to the interests of the people of the US. The actions are what Phil criticizes. So where do our perspectives differ, that you see this as demonization?
"Most often this took the form of accusing Jews of controlling the government and being disloyal" Well Mr. CAMERA, did you distinguish between comments which talked about individual Jews controlling (portions of) the government and/or being disloyal and comments which talked about Jews in general? If you didn't make this distinction, are you of the opinion that it's racist to talk about corrupt individuals if they're Jewish? If your answer is yes, you are a profound idiot.
55 contended that AIPAC or the "Jewish Lobby" control the US government. 35 raised the charge of dual loyalty by Jewish members of Congress. 11 focused on alleged Jewish control of the media.. 14 fixated on allegations of Israeli brutality. 9 expressed outrage over disproportionate aid to Israel. And the above are meant to be bad comments? How about choosing Chas Freeman because he's a realist and would have been good at the job? He's fluent in Chinese and speaks Arabic, which I assume would be useful. And he's probably not going to accept dodgy evidence as a pretext to going to war. And I also assume it'd be useful to have someone the Chinese like in a position like this – after all, they are holding $1 trillion is US Treasury bonds
The aspect that I profoundly dislike about the "anti-semitic" theory, is that it serves to dismiss comment on the basis of person, rather than on the basis of the merit of argument. A hero who makes periodically idiotic anti-anti-semite comments is loved even when he/she lies or harms. And, an enemy who periodically makes insightful and respectable anti-zionist comments is hated. The argument should convince, NOT the demonization.
Did anyone replace Chas Freeman yet? Who's on first?