No, you aren’t. You are, theoretically, doing it because of his constant expression of support for Israel. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is Jewish.
Here might be the problem:
It is conceivable that someone who is Jewish would, on average, have fonder fieelings toward the state of Israel, than someone who is not Jewish.
It is conceivable that someone (let’s call him Bob) might believe the US has too cozy a relationship with Israel, based purely on political and not on antisemitic grounds.
Bob might therefore talk smack about politicians who advocate (in Bob’s opinion excessively) for Israel, purely because of his political disagreement with them.
The end result is that Bob will call a disproportionate number of Jewish politicians out for their support of Israel. And that will look like he’s being antisemitic.
This is dog-whistle politics. To many Jews, hearing a list of powerful US politicians who purportedly consider Israel’s safety more important that the US’s sounds remarkably like previous antisemitic screeds about how the Jews control the world’s governments.
…which I now see FinnAgain basically already said, but there you go…
The two things are exactly alike, and to draw a distinction you swapped “Israel-firster” for “follows AIPAC’s agenda”. The two are obviously radically different as one explicitly states that a politician’s basic loyalty to his home has been violated and he is the agent of a foreign state. It’s vastly different to say that someone “follows AARP’s dictates” and “subverts America. his own home, for the benefit of foreign powers.” The reason people use “Israel-firster” in the first place is generally, but not always, dog-whistle politics. Calling someone an Israel-firster is a way to call someone a traitor, someone in the thrall of the Jewish State or a Jew who has betrayed his/her home for International Jewry. Even when not used as a dog-whistle, it’s a decidedly slimy way to mischaracterize someone when “disagrees with me on the correct foreign policy for Israel” is usually the accurate label.
There’s also the fact that Israel is virtually unique in the use of that particular dog-whistle. How often have you heard someone who supports NATO treaty obligations which may require the US to go to war even when we’re not attacked, a Europe-firster? How many times have you heard someone claim that a person who supports African debt relief, even at the cost of some economic power for America, an Africa-firster?
So while you can have a non-whistle use to “Israel-firster”, it’s pretty much still a slimy rhetorical trick with a unique pedigree and unsavory implications. Can it still be anti-Semitic, even when it’s only talking about the “bad Jews” (the “good” ones have the “correct” politics on Israel) and the gentiles who agree with them? Can “Zionist Occupied Government” be an anti-Semitic phrase even when it’s only talking about Jews in on the conspiracy and their gentile pawns? Yeah… but it’s increasingly difficult. And odd when it’s so much easier to discuss someone’s specific politics and argue for why they’re mistaken rather than alleging that a politician has actually put a foreign power ahead of his own home.
Now, if you want to criticize AIPAC’s influence go for it, providing that your criticism is factually based and cogent. But even then, asserting that someone has sacrificed their own home for the benefit of a foreign power is a hell of an assertion. It’s far saner to criticize someone’s policies and politics, debate their merits and drawbacks, and so on.
It may be a dirty label, but it isn’t anti-Semitic. Calling someone an Israel-firster isn’t out of line with the current level of political discourse.
How many times have you heard politicians talking about NATO or Africa like they do Israel? The reason you only hear about Israel firsters isn’t some latent anti-semitism or a call back to past prejudices. It’s because Israel occupies a unique position in the current political discourse.
I’ve seen some of this type of rhetoric towards U.S. politicians who are characterised as being more loyal to the United Nations than the U.S., usually leading to New World Order conspiracy-type complaints…
It’s “quite proper” to say that Lieberman is more loyal to Israel than he is the US?
Well, fair enough, I should’ve prefaced my statement by saying “how often in a sane context”
But you’re right, that same sort of conspiratorial nonsense does go around in some wackaloon circles where a difference of political opinion is in fact a sign that someone is of The Enemy.
I have to say I’m impressed.
It’s quite rare to meet some who insists that Holocaust Deniers and people endorsing The Protocols of The Elders aren’t engaging in Anti-Semitism.
Similarly, you deserve to be congratulated for raging against those whiny Jews who sqeal that Farrakhan is an anti-Semite for spreading tales of Jewish doctors injecting black babies with AIDS or that Poles who warn of Rabbis kidnapping Christian children to use their blood for making Matzoh are engaging in anti-Semitism.
It’s proper to ask the question. And it is a question I would also ask of Christian Zionists.
Black Americans who called for sanctions against South Africa or who praised Nelson Mandela and the ANC were regularly asked if they felt more kinship with Black South Africans than with their fellow Americans or loyalty to the American government.
And it’s perfectly acceptable to wonder if Catholics or Catholic sympathizers are more pro-Pontiff than pro-America. And by perfectly acceptable I mean nonsensical.
True, I 'd forgotten about that.
Also, remember how Mormon politicians are regularly asked if they take orders from their Prophet rather than the American people.
Is it proper to suggest that this would be a bad thing?
For someone who is or intends to be part of the US government, yes. See Pollard, J.
But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby actually exist.
If the Israel-first mentality does indeed at one point become a bad thing, the question becomes, is Politician A suspected of being an Israel-firster because he’s Jewish? Or is he demonstrably Israel-firsty?
To simplify it further, is Politician A doing a bad thing? Or is the thing Politician A is doing bad?
What does this post have to do with either Treis’ post or my congratulating him for his forthrightness.
Treis insists that “unless someone is making statements applicable to all Jews in a discriminatory or hostile way, it’s not fucking anti-semitism”.
As I pointed out, by these standards Holocaust Denial and promotion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion aren’t example of anti-Semitism and I’m congratulating him for his courage in standing up to those that claim they are.
I recommend you do the same.
What the hell are you talking about? Everything in your list excepting Holocaust Deniers are about Jews as a group, and thus fall under my definition of anti-semitism.
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
You said that statements could only be deemed anti-Semitic it they applied to ALL Jews and showed hatred for ALL Jews.
Claiming that the Protocols of Zion are accurate or that there’ve been cases of Jewish doctors injecting black babies with AIDS or that Hollywood is controlled by evil Jews or the Bush administration was controlled by evil Jews who cared more about Israel than America does not demonstrate hatred for ALL Jews.
By your standard, accusing individual Jews, groups of Jews, or Jewish organizations of neferarious activities to hurt Gentiles or sacrifice or manipulate Gentiles for the sake of the Jewish tribe/race/nation isn’t Anti-Semitic unless the accusser says that ALL Jews behave like this and there are no “good ones”.
That said, you do deserve to be congratulated for standing up for people like David Irving and arguing they’re not “Anti-Semites”.
However, have the courage of your convictions and stand up for those who promote the Protocols of Zion as well.