It has absolutely no basis in truth, and is totally unsupported. It was merely a ploy by the republicans because they don’t like the term and figured out a clever way to stop people from using it.
Discuss.
P.S. Since I’m asserting a negative (there are no facts to back up the neocon = antisemitic assertion), it would be silly to ask me for proof. Instead, proof is required for those who think there is a connection.
Huh? Has someone (who?) said that “neocon” is an antisemitic term?
Doesn’t seem possible. Isn’t it just a shortened form of “neo-conservative”?
Who claims that ‘Neocon’ is antisemitic? You can provide a cite for that, no?
I’ve heard people argue that the position of opposing neo-conservatives is anti-semitic (since they tend to be VERY pro-Israel), but never the term itself.
Well, here’s some of it, thoughtfully provided in another thread by december.
That gives a feel for it. If you criticise neocons, you’re Anti-Semitic, even if you don’t say anything about Jews or Judaism.
So I guess the “unpatriotic” thing is starting to lose its glamour?
That’s a december tactic, I hardly think it is fair to smear Republicans in general with his behaviour.
The Washington Times claimed that a particular Business Week article by Richard Dunham used “neo-con” to mean “Jew.” It would be well to read the article itself before making up one’s mind, wouldn’t it? Does the article use “neo-con” to imply “Jew”? Consider these points: [ol][]“The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called…-- and even a Zionist cabal.”* A “Zionist cabal” translates into a Jewish conspiracy.[]Dunham says, “The influence of the neocons runs deep in the Bush Administration.” If neo-cons are just conservatives, then the statement is almost a tautology. Obviously a conservative administration will be influenced by conservative POVs. []The article never defines “Neo-con”. That’s an important omission, since there no clear definition in general use. The people Dunham is describing do not call themselves a “neoconservative movement.” Donald H. Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are described as “two old-fashioned hawks [who] have become key allies.” Why are these two men not “neo-cons” themselves, but only “allies”? In what respect are they different from Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith, and Richard N. Perle? [/ol]If you put “neocon Jew” into google, you get 765 hits here. Why not check them out before making up your mind?
It’s impossible to say, because it’s hard to prove motives. However, the fact that most people don’t even really understand what a neocon is, and then use it as a slur where the recipients just happen to mostly be Jewish… Well, it does raise some eyebrows.
One British politician complained that Blair was getting advice from neo-con Jews, and Pat Buchanan has been going on about a neocon cabal of Jews. Those are the only two firm examples I can think of.
If you put “neocon Hitler” into google, you get 1690 hits. Odd, that. However, I feel I must warn you december… I googled “neocon december” and got 9120 hits.
Well, the clear challenge in this is that the reality is the core of what we may call neo-conservatism by chance has a large number of thinkers who happen to be Jewish. Further to that, on a few foreign policy points these fellows, who tend to have Zionist leanings, have some clear FP prejudices, so to speak, that are not divorced from their particular understanding of their cultural-religious heritage.
Given in the US the structure of political parties and associations mitigates against the emmergence of clear sub-groupings – e.g. in another political system the neo-cons might be a political party – there is bound to be confusion.
As to december: someday I would hope that the concept of simple minded google searches not being apropos to anything at all might seep into the fabric.
You also have to figure that neocons would mostly be non-Christians. Neoconservatism lacks the religious fundamentalist leanings of traditional conservatism. So it’s only natural that conservative Jews would be drawn to it.
Stop making stuff up, adaher.
Provide proof if you can to back up this nonsense. Otherwise stop posting in Great Debates and go to In My Humble Opinion, where no-one gives a toss.
Which part do you want me to back up?
Well, traditionally, neo-conservatives were anti-communist foreign policy hawks, many of them former socialists or communists , and a lot of them are/were Jewish, like Norm Podhorez, Saul Bellow, and Seymor Martin Lipset. A lot were non-Jews, though…Kirkpatrick, Moynahan, and Huntington, for example. So I don’t know how fair the neo-con=Jew association is.
The entirety of your post.
Why would “you also have to figure that neocons would mostly be non-Christians”?
Show that “neoconservatism lacks the religious fundamentalist leanings of traditional conservatism”.
Demostrate that “it’s only natural that conservative Jews would be drawn to it”.
What are neo–conservatives anyway?
I think I’m supposed to be one and I don’t know the answer to that question. 
Actually, a “Neocon” sounds like it should swear alliegence to Megatron, transform into an assault vehicle, & attack Optimus Prime.
When “Zioninst” is used n this context, it’s a pejorative term for “Jew”. Accusing neocons of having “Zionist leanings” is similar to calling someone a “Nigger-lover.”
I just thought you might want to do some research on the subject before you pontificated. Guess I just forgot that you already knew everything. Sorry.