Izzy: “Sorry, [my remarks on the logic of anti-semitism] were not addressed to you personally…”
No apology necessary–that was all I wanted to know. (Also, no “righteous indignation” was intended–as you might have guessed by my having said, “I do appreciate your taking the time to explain these things in this debate.”")
"Then why bring up the war in Iraq at all [in connection to American Jews]?
Because, as I said, the connection is valid in the case of Jewish neo-cons, and Bush does take advice from neocons (both Jewish and non-Jewish), and so there is a bona fide reason to discuss the connection, such as it is. Consider the remarks made by Moran (and on this point see the link I post below). But it was certainly helpful for you to point out the polling data (which is also mentioned in the link).
“Also, I don’t know why it makes a difference if Hitler would or would not have killed a given person - not sure what your point was there.”
Actually, I see that as the most important point in my post. The whole Jewish conspiracy logic is built on the assumption that anytime you see some influential person with some Jewish blood in him or her, you’ve got further proof of the conspiracy. It doesn’t matter what that person actually believes, or call himself/herself, or what his/her conduct is. That person is not an individual, but is the essence of his/her Jewish blood. And that’s exactly why it’s so problematic for someone who is not anti-semitic to make a prima facie case for “Jewish influence” based on some evidence of Jewish blood.
London: " Mandelstam, I shall take my leave and look elsewhere for answers."
That alone makes the effort worthwhile. 
And I although I’ve only had time to read about half of it, I think I’ve found an excellent article for you courtesy of ZNet.
“Much of the rest of the world makes sense…”
Yes, but much of the world also makes more sense on issues such as global warming, human rights, international cooperation, genetically modified foods, etc. I think you make the mistake of seeing in the US’s Israel policy, not only a key aspect of its Middle East policy, but also as the fountain of all its other policies. And there’s just no justification for that. But I think the link I posted will help put this in context.
"including, maybe, Mandelstam?s [emotional investment] for the NYT
:laughs: If it seems that way it’s only because since Bush’s presidency–especially post-9/11 (another crucial event in pushing the US towards the right, which has very little directly to do with Israel)–the Times and its ilk have sometimes been just about the only sane mainstream media. (And then of course there’s the frequent anti-NYT postings of Andrew Sull…, um, I mean december which require a modicum of tiresome address.)
During the Clinton years I once got so annoyed with the NYT that I canceled my subscription (and thus began to read it online 
). I still have some serious disagreements with the Times: both with its editorial page and its reporting. But they never seem appropriate for discussion in the SDSM. I guess that’s because when I’m posting here I’d like to be in dialogue with more than 5 people ;).
Well, I’m eager to know what you think of the article and will get back to you if I learn of anything else on the subject (as it happens I’m having dinner this weekend with appropriate folks).
In the meantime, to you, to Izzy and everyone else fortunate enough to be going away for the weekend, enjoy!
Mojo, just saw yours on preview. I think you’ve got a good point there. But bear in mind that it is because of our media that what we mainly see are the kinds of images you describe. The impresson we’re given is that most if not all Palestinians are either suicide bombers, relatives of suicide bombers, or those who cheer on suicide bombers. But that’s just not the case. That said–and hopefully needless to say–I don’t think the reason that our media is so selective is because of Jewish ownership/editorship/control. Happy weekend to you too
