>On this one, I think you are being a little to
>hypersensitive...
Remember, this came from the typing fingers of the same guy who complained recently that you can't point out that the New York Times is owned by Jews without being take for Goebbels. Indeed.
But, whatever AC's faults, insentitivity to language isn't one of them. He wrote the phrase "outside Jewish money" knowing exactly what its connotations were and how they would be taken by lots of Nation readers. In fact, I'm pretty certain that annoying Nation readers was one of his main intentions with that column. Which isn't always a bad thing, but in this case he's writing just the critique that the pro-Israel lobby would want - one that evokes anti-Semitism. That sort of approach won't win any converts. What's the point of writing political columns? To convince readers, or at least make them think, or amuse yourself and alienate large numbers of people?
Targeting McKinney was awful. But you can make that point without sounding like you're rewriting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
And, as is always the case when the Jewish thing is foregrounded, U.S. strategic interests get effaced. Another piece just up at <http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0820.html> makes that argument explicitly - that Israel doesn't serve U.S. strategic interests, and that the U.S. is serving instead as a patsy for the Zionists. This is by the same guy, Michael Neumann - who is related to the author of Behemoth, by the way - who announced recently that he wanted to have some fun with anti-Semitism.
And what about a phrase like "killing fetuses"? No doubt that was chosen to annoy Nation readers as well, but it also suggests a creepy affinity with pro-lifers. Why is it ok to compromise on a fundamental principle, the right to abortion, to make friends among the populist masses? Don't working class women need abortions too?
Doug