The Emergency Committee For Israel Calls On Jewish Foundations To Defund Media Matters, CAP

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Emergency Committee for Israel called on Jewish charitable foundations to stop funneling money to two liberal groups that have offered criticisms of Israel.

A full-page ad in The New York Times by the right-wing pro-Israel group published Thursday highlights criticism by Jewish groups and opinion shapers of the Center for American Progress think tank and Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog.

CAP has taken steps in recent months to address some of the harsh rhetoric voiced by some of its staffers, and two of the three Jewish groups cited in the ad have since praised its efforts. The ad does not note the steps by CAP.

Media Matters has stood by a staffer who calls right-wing pro-Israel advocates "Israel firsters," a term that analysts have shown has its origins in anti-Semitic writings.

MORE...

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/03/01/3091910/eci-calls-on-feds-to-defund-cap-media-matters

[Hissyspit]

1. "'Israel-firsters,' a term that analysts have shown has its origins in anti-Semitic writings."

Really? That may be true but I'd like to see the evidence. What analysts? Seems to be me to be a fairly innocuous term - those who put the state of Israel's policies and considerations above any other considerations, which people do, as is their right. I could be wrong, I don't read a lot of anti-Semitic stuff, and there may be a history of bigoted negative connotation involved with the term, but that seems like propaganda on their part, and the call to defund Media Matters is an unacceptable response, regardless.

This seems like more perjoration of the term 'anti-Semitic,' and an excuse for the ECF to attack a website and news source they find inconvenient at times.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. It is a throwback to "Jews are more loyal to Israel."

If a person is "pro-Israel" it doesn't mean s/he is an "Israeli-firster." However, the term is mostly used with Jews. I have almost never seen it applied to someone like McCain, despite him have the same views as many of those who get called "Israeli-firster." It is the left's version to shut down conversation by implying the person is more loyal to Israel, thus putting the 'target' in a precarious situation. While there are most certainly those who many place Israel's needs above the US, they are rare. It is simply a way for some to use anti-Semitism to their advantage.

[MicaelS]

3. So tell us what is the acceptable term?

For someone who does not like the policies of the State of Israel and who thinks said policies are destructive to peace in the Middle East? Who is tired of America's support for the State of Israel?

Because an American, I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing constantly about Israel. Israel is not part of the United States. And I deeply resent how much time, effort, energy and money is spent in this country by our government supporting this one small country with a population of under 8,000,000 people. I resent how much the support of the State of Israel has cost this country in terms of money in terms of the cost of Oil since the first OPEC Oil Boycott.

[Hissyspit]

4. So they want to shut down conversation at Media Matters

over a possible ignorant (or possibly not so ignorant) use of the term by one person? Your points are taken (although I have seen the term used to describe non-Jews and to describe McCain), and I am sensitive to the subtleties involved in debates about U.S. and Israel policy issues and their historical exploitation by bigots, but I don't think the call for a boycott is useful. It seems over-the-top and serving of a right-wing ulterior motive.

[gratuitous]

5. Prepare to be shocked

Not all Jews in the U.S. and not all Israelis approve of everything the government of Israel does. In fact, some of them are as sick at heart watching the activities of the Israeli government as some Americans are in watching the activities of the U.S. government.

Toldja you'd be shocked.