>
>I think Doug's point is crucial. There is NOTHING to be gained by even
>marginally noting that the ownership of this or that is Jewish. And
>there is an awful lot to be lost. And his comparison to the Presbyterian
>owner of the Post is apt. There are very few instances where it is even
>minimally intelligent to add irrelevant or marginal information about
>the persons whose positions one is attacking. The NYT is a dreadful --
>even criminal -- institution. Would it be one bit better if a
>presbyterian or an amerindian owned it and followed the same policy.
>
>In political discourse it is reasonable for the reader to assume that
>information transmitted is relevant and material.
>
>Going out of one's way to speak of "Jewish supporters of Israel" instead
>of merely "supporters of Israel" does suggest that the fact is relevant.
>How could it be relevant? The obvious (and vicious) answer is that u.s.
>policy toward israel is a jewish plot.
>
>It is worthwhile to note that a given critic of Israel is Jewish,
>because it is necessary to break through the lie that anti-zionism is
>anti-semitic. Hauling "The Jews" or "Jewish ownership of the Times" in
>really gives support to Israel. It is objectively anti-palestinian.
>
i think there is a major contradiction with this..... if it doesn't matter that a jewish owned institution is prob the no 1 perpetuator of defamatory stereotypes against jews then it shouldn't matter if critics of zionism are jewish or not.
~M.E.