> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Martin Schiller
>
> I'd be interested to hear whether an anti-semite in the current context
> (Pat Buchanan) is (a) someone whe finds semitic peoples repellent or (b)
> someone who is willing to create/perpetuate the perception that semitic
> peoples are repellant for the purpose of advancing an other
> cause/personal gain. Or is anti-semitism inclusive of both of those
> groups? Somehow it seems that there ought to be a distinction.
Actually, the first place to start is to distinguish anti-Zionism from being anti-Jewish (dropping the "semite" peoples debate). A lot of folks think Israel is illegitimate, but that does not make them anti-Jewish.
On the other hand, there is a class of folks who criticize Israel and then hold Jews all over the world collectively responsible for its sins (an echo of the Jewish slave-trader collective guilt arguments), which is a form of being anti-Jewish. Folks who refer to Zionists in contexts other than the Middle East are generally falling into this form of anti-Jewish belief.
There is little question that Buchanan is anti-Zionist and has often verged on the latter form of conflation of Jews in the US as collectively responsible for its sins, and especially US support for its sins. (i.e. his "amen corner" comments in the Gulf War.) That he has defended concentration camp guards and seemed so comfortable around Nixon when the latter gushed his anti-Jewish harangues just adds to the sense that Buchanan has issues with Jews as well as with Israel.
But then again, so does Jesse Jackson. And both of them have Jewish friends and advocates who think the world of them. This may be because neither of them propose policies that necessarily hurt Jews as a group (although Pat's "Christian Nation" could count).
One problem with discussions of prejudice of any kind is that hate, fear and distrust of difference is pretty pervasive, so it is pretty easy to create a situation where haters with good table manners get applauded while blunt honest people get tagged as pariahs.
This is one reason why more objective definitions of racism - as in do you support policies that actively hurt a class of people - is more attractive than just subjective markers of prejudice.
Of course, on the latter point, Pat is a racist of the worse kind, promoting policies that oppress blacks, latinos, and asians- particularly immigrants of any kind.
While speculating on Pat's prejudices about Jews is interesting, it just seems damn irrelevant when he has so many more obvious groups of people his policies are aimed at hurting.
-- Nathan Newman