The Jason Vest article in the Nation goes to elaborate lengths to NOT lead the reader to conclude (wrongly) that "'Jewish' and 'Israel' are ... co-extensive." He does exactly the OPPPOSITE of what you claim. The Vest article is not antisemitic. You simply can't tell the difference between a critique that IS antisemitic and a critique that is NOT antisemitic. Just as you appear unable to tell the difference between an article that uses fact-checking and logic and one that does not. This makes it almost impossible to enagage you in a serious discussion--you simply are playing with a different set of rules.
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:34 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
>
>
> How about JINSA, the "Jewish Institute for National Security
> Affairs, a
> non-profit, non-partisan educational organization committed
> to explaining
> the need for a prudent national security policy for the
> United States,
> addressing the security requirements of both the United
> States and the State
> of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation
> relationship between
> these two great democracies." ? Here the term 'Jewish' and
> "Israel' are seen
> as co-extensive.
> http://www.jinsa.org/about/about.html
> http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
>
> As to the business of how confortable Bush is with other rich
> people, in
> contrast to Clinton, let's not forget that while Clinton
> himself came from
> humble beginnings, his cabinet was surpassed in its number of
> millionares
> only by the current Bush cabinet and most of Clinton's
> closest non-white
> consorts, other than the people in the photo ops, were
> wealthy African
> Americans like Vernon Jordan and Ron Brown.
>
> The portrayal of the Saudis in F911 was very problematic
> indeed. ___________________________
>
> Liza Featherstone wrote:
>
> I actually think "Saudi" money is OK, just as it's OK to
> talk about U.S.
> or
> Israeli or British or French money. And we do talk about U.S.
> money: the US money in Israel sustaining the occupation, etc.
> The reason the term "Jewish money" creeps us out -- and it
> should -- is because "Jews" qua Jews are not a nationality or
> government or any kind of body from whom "money" can
> reasonably said to originate. Jews cannot as a body write a
> check. Some Jews as individuals send money to pro-Israeli
> groups, others send money to anti-war groups, or subscribe to
> LBO. To talk about "Jewish money" substitutes a racist cliche
> for analysis, as we all agree. Inasmuch as talk about "Saudi"
> money is similarly not always about the government, it risks
> a similar racism, but when we make clear we are talking
> about the Saudi elites, who effectively do run the country, I
> think it is acceptable. I think Moore in his film did do
> that, especially with the shots of Bush senior cavorting with
> the Saudi ruling class. There the message was not, look, he's
> hanging out with these weird scary Arabs, but rather, look
> how comfortable he is with other rich people, regardless of
> apparent cultural barriers. Unlike Clinton, Bush I was not a
> guy was often shown relaxing and kicking back with people
> very different from himself, so the image is striking, making
> you think, oh, maybe they are not so different: perhaps
> globally, the ruling class is his "base" rather than the
> American people who voted for him.
>
> Liza
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>