(hijack) I hope **mhendo ** and **tomndebb ** stay with us forever and ever. (/hijack).
A better topic for debate might be this:
Is “Neo-con” a code word for delusional right wing nutbag, or simply an accurate label?
As a Jew and one who thinks “delusional rightwing nutbag” is a pretty accurate description of the neocons, I would simply remind anyone who tries to equate the neocons with the Jews that if it was only the Jews in the U.S. who had voted in 2000, we wouldn’t be stuck with this silly President who has put the neocons in power!
So, no, I don’t see “neocon” as a code word for “Jew”.
I’m Jewish, and I’m not at all surprised by the equating of neocon politics with being Jewish. Because neocon foreign policy, as applied to the Middle East, would be particularly beneficial to Israel.
That said, it’s not only Jews who support neoconservatism…any more than it’s only Jews who support Israel.
(And no, I’m not implying that only neoconservatives support Israel. I’m just saying that Israel ends up being a clear beneficiary of neocon foreign policy in the Middle East)
Huh??? Did I miss a memo? I’ve always thought that in the US Jews tended to lean toward the Democrat party politically. Does anyone have statistics that refute this? Basically, because some notable neo-cons are Jewish, you are projecting that fact onto all Jews. If I wanted to slur Jews, I wouldn’t use a political term that I don’t feel describes what is typical of the politics of Jews.
It’s interesting that a stated goal of the neocon movement, IRC, is to wean Israel off of US financial support.
Of course, they feel the most expedient way to do this is regime change in Arab states.
This is my experience in political discussion. Whenever people, whether they be liberals or old-line conservatives, use the term “neo-con,” they’re always talking about the same people: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol, and the philosopher Leo Strauss. All male. Neo-conservativism is usually discussed as a type of conservatism based only on political cynicism and lacking the traditional moral values that constitute “real” conservatism. And it’s usually used as a term of contempt. And the topic of Israel always seems to seep in whenever you’re talking to someone and that “N-word” comes up.
This is my experience; others may think differently. But what I have found is that Neo-Con has become a political code-word for “male.”
Sadly, for the OP, there’re neocons who are not Jewish and, oddly enough, the vast nmajority of American Jews (and Jews world wide) are not neocons. And, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that anyone anywhere is trying to say otherwise.
The neocon=Jews things is just a super shoddy neocon dodge. They wrongly holler anti-semite instead of facing the criticism.
Maybe the OP can cite for someone actually maing the case that neocon=Jew.
Yeah, but then you’ve got to contend with Condi and, of course, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
Whoa, what about Guin’s observation that “neocon” also designates (non-Jewish) females like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
(In the “Well Shit, I Did Not Know That” category: Kirkpatrick was apparently originally a Marxist before becoming a Democrat in the '70s and then a Republican in 1985. Talk about your flip-floppers!)
Great minds, pantom. 
Where? I seem to have lost mine somewhere…
Granted, I’ve read many pieces written by various neoncons and neoconesque individuals protesting the assertion neocon=Jews; however, I’ve yet to actually see any piecs that uses neocon as a code words for Jew.
Unless the OP can supply some of these examples it would seem that this is still much ado about nothing.
No . . . we would have a paleocon nutbag . . . President Pat Buchanan! 
Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s just one of history’s delicious little absurdities – all those Jewish voters in Palm Beach County picking Buchanan on that confusing “butterfly ballot”. After the election I saw one or two bumper stickers reading “Jews for Buchanan!”
Actually, I might debate this point. It would be beneficial to Israel if you subscribe to the basic philosophy of the Likud Party in Israel. I imagine you would get more debate among the Labor Party about the plusses and minusses, ranging from those on the left end (Peace Now and such) who might argue that this foreign policy would actually be bad for Israel in net to those on the right end who think it is beneficial to Israel. (I am sort of guessing where the dividing line is here because I haven’t read that much about Israel’s reaction to the Iraq War.)
(Interestingly, I read that in this case of the guy under Feith who is being investigated for possibly spying for Israel, the investigation is apparently focussing on links of his directly to the Sharon government, not to the Israeli intelligence service.)
Exactly, and this shift from left to right is, as i noted earlier, one of the key hallmarks of the original definition of neo-con.
Isn’t there a theory, perhaps written on tinfoil, that there’s a harmony of interests between the neocons and Christian fundamentalists in that regard? I understand there’s a viewpoint, perhaps shared by a few persons with power in Washington, that the Jews have a New Testament role to play in preparing the Holy Land for the final “End of Days”, in which Christ the Messiah will return - followed by their casting into damnation for their refusing to accept him. If that’s what you believe, and that you also believe the End of Days is nigh, then it becomes a religious imperative to help the Jews smite their even-more-damned Muslim enemies.
jshore:
I don’t think even the Israeli Left would disagree that aggressively (especially if it’s American rather than Israeli aggression!) replacing currently terrorist-supporting dictatorial regimes (including the current Palestinian leadership, though I don’t know if the head of a non-state can be properly called a regime) with democracies would benefit Israel. I think they’d disagree on whether it’s right, i.e., whether those ends would justify neocon means, but I think they’d agree that those ends would work well.
Elvis:
Not tinfoil at all. Christian fundamentalists believe that a return of Jewish sovoreignty over Israel is a precondition for the second coming, and so they tend to support Israeli interests over Arab interests whenever there’s a conflict.
While it certainly is one of those situations in which politics has made strange bedfellows, it’s hardly tinfoil-hat territory.
So the conensus is broad: generally “neocon” is not used as code for “Jew.” But much is made of the fact that Jews are over-represented in the neocon ranks (relative to the general population) … more than the fact that Jews are over-represented among Nobel prize winners, say. See, for example, this bit from Adbusters in which the names of Jewish neo-cons are starred and their Jewishness implied as a reason and proof of their putting Israel’s interests above the U.S’s.
Chiam,
Certainly no one would disagree with the magic wand to make all Arab regiemes truly democratic with true rights of dissent and freedoms (rather than a popularly elected theocracy that reduced rights). I think that you would find strong disagreement about whether or not the current actions in Iraq are are an effective means to wave that wand or if they put Israel at any more or less risk. Bluntly put Iraq under Saddam was not a big risk for Israel other than the occassion saber rattling. Iran is worse. Destabilizing the region, distracting the US from attacking and capturing Osama et al, hamstringing the US in its attempts to put more effective pressure on Iran and seeing Iran backslide into greater fundamentalism, seeing Islamic fundamentalist extremism grow in support across the region, etc. … is not in Israel’s best interest. Many both here and there see these as the result of the current actions.