Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor

[Shaktimaan]

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled “ ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”

The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?8dpc=&_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1170219894-xGVy8MXTZ3B631XCwJaNeg

[Tom Joad]

1. David Harris is engaging in an attack on Jewish people.

[bemildred]

2. There is no basic right to exist for countries.

They come and go. This is obvious. There is a conditional right to exist if they work well and behave themselves. That's all you get.

And I see no causative connection between "progressive Jews" criticising Israel or zionism and rising anti-semitism. If there is "rising anti-semitism", it is not just because of some Jews having the courage to criticize Israel or zionism.

[Shaktimaan]

5. I don't think they are implying a "causative connection" necessarily.

The interesting thing about this article to me is the interplay between a few different issues and the fact that it is all beginning to play out as a very emotional, very public debate. People have different ideas about what kind of special responsibilities one should hold solely by virtue of being Jewish as it relates to the subject of Zionism. No one thinks that criticism of Israel from Jews is directly causing a rise in anti-semitism. But since there is an undeniable rise happening some issues that are normally just academic have begun to carry more weight in the politics of the real world.

Here is what I see happening. Many non-Israeli Jews see themselves as having a special responsibility to be critical of policies that they ethically disagree with in regards to Zionism. Judaism puts a lot of weight on the idea of "right acting" and for many, doing what is right for humanity as a whole takes far greater precident over the preservation of Israel for its own sake. But there is also a newer, yet strong cultural taboo that comes into play when these Jewish critics become "apologists" by attributing the rise in anti-semitism to Zionism and recommend anti-zionist policies as a remedy. This is the strategy of the "diaspora Jew," the same, despised policy followed by those who allowed themselves to be "led like sheep to the slaughter." Now, no one is drawing a parallel between the holocaust and modern critics of zionism, don't get me wrong. But the idea of appeasement as a tactic brings up some highly charged emotions in some circles.

The argument ends up becoming about whether a critic is arguing for their actual beliefs, what they feel is really right vs. wrong. Or if they are trying to apply a failed strategy in an attempt to appease. The strategy, (it must be said) of both the self-hating Jew and the sheep. I think that we're going to see this argument happening more and more and it is going to get more and more heated. I find it interesting because it has a lot less to do with the actual conflict (in many ways) than it does to do with unending, internal cultural conflicts that flare up whenever the setting is right for it. Mark my words... this is gonna get nasty.

[bemildred]

8. Causation would seem to be what "feeding a rise in" implies.

Appeasement is a perfectly reasonable strategy, in the right circumstances, and it can work quite well, but I see no reason to think that that is what "progressive Jews" are up to. Frankly, all the talk about that sounds like projection to me. I think criticism of Israel is just what it looks like, criticism of Israeli policy based on it's merits, or lack or merit, and there is no need to introduce tortured explanations of it based on imaginary traits of the Jewish people etc. etc. The fact that people get all emotional over it, are taboo-ridden and superstitious, and lose their reasoning abilities when the subject comes up does not provide support for their point of view in any way, rather the opposite.

The notion that the Jews in the Holocaust were "led like sheep to the slaughter" is an unwarranted and unfair slur, and sounds more anti-semitic to me than anything Jimmy Carter has ever said.

[Shaktimaan]

9. invented?

This isn't stuff that I dreamt up by any means. The concept of the Sabra as a reaction to the diaspora Jew is a little too well known to be passed off as projection on my part. Now, regardless of what each critic's intent may be, there does exist a conscious rejection of the idea of trying to placate one's enemies in the hopes that they'll abandon their quest to eradicate us.

And while I understand that you find the quote I mentioned distasteful, it is clearly a very real sentiment and while shameful, is not anti-semitic at all. If this is the first you're hearing of it, I'm not surprised you think it's all imaginary. But since it isn't, and since it is relevant, I don't see why it shouldn't be talked about, especially when so many people, such as yourself, lack this basic insight into the philosophy that helped shape early zionism.

As far as it being an anti-semitic slur... I'd hold off on casual remarks like that if I were you unless you were around at that particular place in time. At the very least I'd learn a little more about the history and emotions surrounding it before I rushed to judgement.

[bemildred]

10. Hardly. Those ideas are more in the area of "trite" than anything.

One sees them over and over. That does not make them less fatuous. They are stereotypes, negative stereotypes, and I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that that makes them also a form of bigotry against the people so stereotyped.

[Shaktimaan]

11. meaning? what?

That the Sabra was not a reaction to the stereotype of the diaspora Jew?

I am not perpetuating the stereotype, I am talking about a very real reaction to it. One that shapes policy and politics in modern day Israel, like it or not.

[bemildred]

12. Meaning that the stereotypes are not correct.

They rarely are, when it comes to people. As I said, it's a form of bigotry, and against people that are not in a position to defend themselves.

[Shaktimaan]

13. Who isn't in a position to defend themselves?

I officially have no idea what you're talking about.

My comment was about the difference in how people see Jewish criticism of Israel. Regardless of what was intended, it is untimately seen as appeasement in some circles and is certainly seen by some as a reflection of "diaspora jew values" in the same vein as weakness is another of those values. Like it or not, modern day Israel has been somewhat shaped by a negative reaction to this stereotype and we can see it reflected in Israel's policy and politics.

To put it simply, some folk'll think that Jewish criticism of Israel comes from a place of weakness, not morality, and will judge it accordingly. That's it.

[bemildred]

14. The "diaspora Jews" who are supposedly diminished by comparison with

the sabras. Blame the victim, it looks like to me.

[The Magistrate]

3. Mr. Rosenfeld, Sir, Would Seem A Prime Nimrod

The idea that those who do in fact hate Jews indiscriminantly require some lisence to do so from Jewish critics of various Israeli policies, or even Jews who subscribe to the utopisan fantasy of a "bi-national state", is risible.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Risible, in some respects.

I agree that the idea of hardcore anti-Semites ("those who do in fact hate Jews indiscriminately ") "require" anything from Jews is laughable. However, what is not so funny are those who aren't indiscriminate in their hate of Jews, but parrot anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic rhetoric and use Jews as their "proof" that they, the parrots, are not anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semites because Jews are saying the same thing. I find that scenario very often on the "left" and I find it very frightening! White Supremacists (or white nationalists, as they like to call themselves these days) and Nazis, they don't need the "word of Jews" to back up their stances. If they find a Jew doing so, it is just gravy. However, those who aren't like that, finding Jews supporting anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic emboldens them, and, in some cases, makes "new" anti-Semites. It is that group, which troubles me.

[Shaktimaan]

6. you make a good point

It's not that Jewish support is required, per say. But what it does is legitimize it. "Hey, it can't really be anti-semitism if there are Jews who agree with me." And in this way it can mainstream the newer anti-semitism masquerading as anti-zionism much more easily.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. And the wheel spins.

I am glad you can see my point. Anti-Semitism is becoming passé on the left. Some feel it is "overblown and exaggerated," 'popping out from behind the trees' and the like. It seems unless someone says "kike" or "let's jew them down" or other some other direct example of anti-Semitism that it is "all in the mind of the paranoid Jew." What I see from some self-professed liberals and progressives spewing anti-Semitism are the preemptive "I am sure I will be called an anti-Semite...." or "I am Jewish/know someone who is Jewish/am married to a Jew/once saw a Jew on TV" and that is scary. They feel because other Jews (sometimes, themselves) using anti-Semitism that they are some how exempt from being anti-Semites. These are also the same ones who declare Israel a member of the "axis of evil" but find Bush saying the same thing about other countries to be "ignorant, propaganda, and bigoted." These are the ones that find any accomplishment by Israel to be overshadowed by current issues and policies. Of course, some are so bad, they go as far as to declare that Israel is an "illegitimate state" and should not exist, or even be moved. It goes on and on.

Anti-Semitism is still the "acceptable" prejudice because it is so easily disguised.

[Tom Joad]

15. David Harris is an anti-human rights campaigner, and those falsely

accused by him should not be surprised or offended.

[Shaktimaan]

16. really? How so?

I haven't heard that before. What's he done?

I found this on wiki...

In 1999, he was honored by the Polish government for his efforts concerning NATO expansion, in 2000 by the German government for his contribution to German-Jewish and German-American relations, in 2001 and again in 2002 by the Bulgarian government for his contribution to transatlantic relations, in 2004 by the German armed forces for creating a unique partnership between the German military and the American Jewish Committee, and twice in 2005 by the French government for his commitment to democratic and humanistic values.

In 2000-2002, he was a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. In 2003, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Hebrew Union College. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

He is the author of six books, The Jewish World, Entering a New Culture and four volumes of In the Trenches, and co-author of a sixth, The Jokes of Oppression. He has written scores of articles, op-eds, letters, and reviews in leading newspapers and magazines. Since 2001, he has had a regular spot on the CBS Radio Network, reaching 30-35 million listeners.

He is married and the father of three children.

He meets regularly with world leaders and contributes frequently to The New York Times,Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, and various other media outlets. He has a weekly radio commentary on CBS Radio, which is also available as a podcast<1>. He is a recipient of the French Légion d'honneur and the highest public service awards from the governments of Poland, Germany and Bulgaria. He is also the author of several books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Harris

[Lurking Dem]

17. Maybe he's an ADL member.

:sarcasm:

[furman]

18. PRNewswire: Jan. 29, 2007: AJC's Blaustein Institute Urges U.S. to Serve on UN Human Rights Council

Tom Joad says:
David Harris is an anti-human rights campaigner, and those falsely accused by him should not be surprised or offended.

Please have a look at this recent news release, accompanying white paper, and some background information
about the AJC's involvement in human rights issues.


http://sev.prnewswire.com/religion/20070130/UNM03729012007-1.html

American Jewish Committee Blaustein Institute Urges U.S. to Serve on UN Human Rights Council

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The human rights arm of the American Jewish Committee is urging the United States to seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and in a new briefing paper, "Why the United States should seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council in 2007," the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights offers compelling arguments in favor of U.S. membership. Elections are scheduled for April.

"In light of the Council's very troubled initial year, U.S. presence and leadership in the Council is plainly indispensable," wrote Robert Rifkind, chair, and Felice Gaer, director, of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute, in the letter to Secretary Rice. "The UN's central role and universal reach in human rights is why the U.S. must be engaged as a member of the new Council."

When the UN General Assembly established a new Human Rights Council in March 2006, the U.S. did not seek election to it, viewing the new body as flawed as it predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. The U.S. had served as the first chair of the Commission and was a member of that body for all but one of its 60 years.

Criticizing the new Council's obsessive condemnation of Israel, the JBI leaders wrote, "Engagement with the Council is not endorsement of its actions any more than is the case with General Assembly. It is a means of bringing our ideas, actors, proposals and resources more effectively into play on the matters that truly matter."

The JBI briefing paper assesses the strengths and disadvantages of current U.S. policy of not serving on the Council. "Membership in the UN's new Human Rights Council will promote America's credibility as a vocal defender of human rights," JBI concludes.

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, founded in 1971, strives to narrow the gap between the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the realization of those rights in practice.

CONTACT: Kenneth Bandler, Director of Public Relations and Communications, [phone], [e-mail], or Michael Geller, Assistant Director of Public Relations, [phone], [e-mail], both of American Jewish Committee


"Why the United States should seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council in 2007"
http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/JBI_HR_Papers_US_UN_HR_Council_Jan2007.pdf



http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=872351&ct=872385
AJC Human Rights Director Re-Elected to UN Committee Against Torture

November 26, 2003 - New York – Felice Gaer, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, has been re-elected as the American expert on the United Nations Committee against Torture. The 10-member committee monitors states’ compliance with the treaty against torture. Gaer received the most votes of any candidate, with 92 out of 112 countries voting for her.

Gaer is the first American and the only woman serving on the committee. She was originally nominated by the Clinton administration and was re-nominated this year. The U.S. government and AJC urged member states to vote in her favor.

“Felice Gaer’s re-election to the Committee against Torture advances the American Jewish Committee’s core mission to promote human rights for all,” said David A. Harris, AJC’s executive director. “Her long and distinguished career in protecting human rights has assisted countless victims of oppression and persecution around the world.”

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights was founded in 1971 in memory of Jacob Blaustein, AJC’s past president and a strong advocate of international human rights. Robert S. Rifkind is the chairman of the Institute’s Administrative Council.



http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.835983/k.AF53/Human_Rights.htm

Human Rights
AJC's commitment to human rights dates back to its establishment in 1906. At the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945, AJC leaders such as Jacob Blaustein and Joseph Proskauer were official NGO consultants to the US delegation and successfully pressed to ensure that the UN Charter included international human rights guarantees.

AJC's human rights agenda is pursued primarily through its Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI). With a universal concern, JBI calls attention to human rights issues of core importance to the Jewish community, i.e., combating religious intolerance, torture, discrimination (whether based on race, religion, sex, or other status), and preventing the indifference that can lead to genocide. For example, JBI advocated for the investigation and prosecution of those indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and currently in Darfur. AJC's Board supported the ratification of the International Criminal Court.

Committed to the protection of human rights through multilateral organizations as well as through state-to-state contacts, JBI supported and played a key role in the establishment of the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which Jacob Blaustein himself was among the first to advocate. JBI supports reform of the United Nations in ways that will secure better mechanisms by which the international community can continue to protect against human rights violations.

AJC has supported U.S. ratification of major human rights instruments including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention against Torture. AJC's Board has called for U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Such ratification will strengthen human rights protections for Americans and strengthen the institutions that monitor these rights elsewhere.

JBI has conducted original research and produced analyses of central issues in the field of international human rights. Honorary AJC President Robert S. Rifkind is Chair of the Institute. JBI Director Felice Gaer has been appointed as an expert member of important human rights bodies, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent federal commission, and the UN Committee Against Torture, an official UN treaty-monitoring body. The Institute's research is mainly directed at improving the promotion of international human rights through the UN and other international organizations.

Primary subjects of JBI's ongoing programming include:

* Building Effective International Human Rights Mechanisms and Institutions
* Human Rights Defenders
* Terrorism, Torture and Detentions Policy
* Preventing Genocide
* Religious Intolerance
* Human Rights and Antisemitism
* International Human Rights of Women
* Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
* Other Emergent Human Rights Crises

JBI centers its programs on:

1. Setting human rights standards and clarifying the concepts involved;
2. Building national and international institutions to assess compliance with those standards;
3. Defending human rights defenders and advancing the techniques they bring to their work;
4. Networking and constituency building, and capacity development;
5. Advocacy & educational training; and,
6. Participating in international human rights bodies.

Key JBI benchmarks include:

* 1972 – Convened an international conference that produced the Uppsala Declaration on the right to freedom of movement
* 1980 – Established the Andrei Sakharov Fellowship
* 1993 – Successfully championed the establishment of a UN High Commissioner on Human Rights
* 1995 – Supported developments that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court
* 1998 – Led a nationwide 50th commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* 2001 – Spearheaded opposition to Antisemitism at the Durban Conference against Racism
* 2002 – Advocated for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to implement commitments to combat antisemitism
* 2004 – Advocated a halt to genocide in Darfur

Related Items (links at http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.835983/k.AF53/Human_Rights.htm)

1. Human Rights Discussion Paper: The U.N. Role in Human Rights: An Introduction
2. We Must Halt the Genocide in Darfur, Sudan Now
3. We Can't Be Silent on Darfur: Op-Ed written by David Harris, AJC executive director, and Ruth Messinger, executive director of the American Jewish World Service, in an op-ed.
4. JBI Open Letter on UN Auschwitz session
5. Press Release: AJC Hails UN Holocaust Day Resolution
6. JBI Director Felice Gaer Addresses UN Conference on Anti-Semitism
7. Jacob Blaustein Institute Calls on States, OSCE to Establish Anti-Semitism Monitor
8. After the Promise: Keeping OSCE Commitments to Combat Antisemitism
9. JBI Chair Addresses NGO Preparatory Meeting for the OSCE Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism
10. Opening Remarks the Human Rights Movement: Past Achievement, Future Priorities:
A program in commemoration of the Dag Hammarskjöld Centennial
11. AJC Human Rights Director Re-Elected to UN Committee Against Torture



http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=866865
American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris Testifies Before UN Commission on Human Rights

March 29, 2001

March 29, 2001 - GENEVA -- The American Jewish Committee today called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to be true to its original mandate and end its singular focus on one country, Israel.
“The Commission’s agenda underscores all too graphically that Israel has been the only country to be separated from the rest of the world for special examination,” David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, told the Commission on Human Rights, which began its 57th annual session this week.

“The abuse of the Commission for transparently political purposes frustrates the defense of human rights and complicates still further the quest for peace,” said Mr. Harris in his testimony.

Mr. Harris pointed out that the Commission’s long-standing approach to human rights divides the world into two: one agenda item is dedicated solely to Israel, while the rest of the world is covered in a separate, single agenda item.

Moreover, the mandate for the Commission’s “Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories” is unlike any other – it is open-ended, not subject to review, and presumes that Israel is guilty of violations.

“The Special Rapporteur, inexplicably, investigates only Israeli actions, not Palestinian actions,” said Mr. Harris. “Palestinian violations of human rights are plentiful and well documented. They must not be ignored, even if politically inconvenient for some of the members of the Commission.”

Mr. Harris, referring to the Commission’s Special Session last October, recalled that some members “chose to ignore the historic opportunity offered by Israel last year to achieve a watershed peace deal based on unprecedented compromises, only to see it categorically rejected by a Palestinian leadership that once again took a counter-productive all-or-nothing approach.”

The Special Session called for an inquiry commission to examine the violence in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, but instead of an objective study, the report is “a virtual endorsement of Palestinian violence,” said Mr. Harris. “Nowhere in the report does one find references to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Fatah’s Tanzim, though each of these groups has publicly accepted responsibility for attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers.”

An impartial investigation of this exceptionally complex conflict, said Mr. Harris, surely would have included in its report the following proven and pertinent facts:

-- A Palestinian Authority Cabinet Minister publicly admitted that the violence, following Prime Minister Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in September, was a premeditated response after the Palestinian refusal to move forward in the peace talks at Camp David.

-- Jewish religious sites have been desecrated by Palestinian mobs. This is part of a determined Palestinian campaign, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, to deny the Jewish religious and historical link to the land.

-- The Palestinian Authority continues its policy of incitement to violence in the media, in schools, and, through some religious leaders, in the mosques. The Palestinian leadership has not yet called for the cessation of the incitement or the violence.

-- Acts of terror, with devastating consequences, have been perpetrated against Israel, both within the 1967 boundaries and beyond. Again, Palestinian leadership has failed to condemn these acts, much less call for their end.

“Instead, the report explicitly advocates Palestinian positions on political topics that are well-beyond the commission’s mandate and are subject to negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” said Mr. Harris, who also testified at the Special Session in October.

Mr. Harris today called on the Commission to play a positive role in seeking to protect human rights for all, without prejudice, in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“By doing so, this body will be fulfilling its mandate and making a constructive contribution to the region,” said Mr. Harris. “Otherwise, I fear, one-sided actions that fail to take into account all the facts, complexities, and nuances will do this Commission a grave disservice and, equally, a grave disservice to the cause of peace.”

The American Jewish Committee has a long history of association with the United Nations, dating back to the founding conference in San Francisco. Historians have credited AJC with an indispensable role in the inclusion of human rights references in the UN Charter, as well as an active part in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. Jacob Blaustein, a president of the American Jewish Committee, in 1963, originally proposed the creation of the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights.


http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.835985/k.77CF/Humanitarian_Campaigns.htm
Humanitarian Campaigns

As one of the most respected human rights organizations in America and around the world, the American Jewish Committee is uniquely qualified to provide aid when and where it is needed most. We are motivated to respond to humanitarian crises for two primary reasons. As members of the human family we share an innate responsibility for one another. As Jews, we have learned the all too painful lesson of what happens when we are silent and ignore those who need our attention and our help.

AJC’s ability to fulfill a mission of responding to humanitarian crises was given a boost in 1998 with a generous gift establishing the Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Humanitarian Fund. Combined with campaigns, including full-page advertisements, to respond to specific situations, AJC has been able to contribute significantly to a number of crises, including:

* Hurricane Mitch in Central America
* Repairing three California synagogues damaged by arsonists
* Turkish earthquake victims, including building a school (1999)
* Substantial aid to Muslim refugees from Kosovo (1999)
* Earthquake relief in India, including rebuilding Hindu and Muslim schools (2001)
* Earthquake victims in El Salvador (2001)
* Flood victims in the Dominican Republic

[breakaleg]

19. One more way to quash all criticism of Israel, even the well justified criticism.

Perhaps Israel and the US should for their own little club. That way they can block out any and all dissenting opinions from around the globe.

[furman]

20. In the US and Israel opposing opinions are allowed under rule of law, unlike most Islamic countries

where one could be jailed or worse for dissenting.

[Meshuga]

21. What does he mean when he says "liberal Jew"?

Most liberal/progressive Jews are zionists. The most ardent anti-zionists appear to be a small group of rightwing ultra-orthodox Jews.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Not always.

There's a pretty vocal contingent of Jewish left wing anti-zionists who oppose Israel because of what they see as neo-colonial policies, human rights abuses against Palestinians, etc.

[Meshuga]

23. I understand that but

The Jews in the far left are part of this anti-zionist group. Comparing the size of this group to the rest of liberal Jewry the number is very small. Most Jews are politically liberals (even the majority of the so called religious "Conservative Movement") and most Jews are zionists. The orthodox tend to be politically conservative and they don't even represent 10% of all Jews.

If we use the percentage of liberal and conservative Jews who are anti-zionists I'm sure the conservative camp would have the liberal beaten by a huge margin.

[geek tragedy]

24. Ironic that they defame Jews while claiming to fight

anti-semitism.

Tony Judt and Richard Cohen advancing the cause of anti-semitic? Oy!

[Tom Joad]

25. See muzzle watch. Tracking efforts to stifle open debate...

http://www.muzzlewatch.org/

Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.
MuzzleWatch is a project of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

:thumbsup: