But, many of them no longer feel constrained by the moral impulse to avoid such calumnies, and often fashion rhetoric which implicitly warns of Jews’ undue influence on the public debate about Israel.
And, sadly, even many Jews contribute to the chorus of antisemitic narratives concerning Jewish power.
One of the most extreme examples of leftist Jews who advance classic antisemitic tropes is Philip Weiss – creator of Mondoweiss – who literally argued for a limit to the number of Jews in the media allowed to comment on Israeli-related issues, to prevent their corrosive effect on the Israeli-Palestinian debate.
The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele was a bit more subtle, by merely blaming, as the cause of Obama’s failure to stand up to Israel (in a 2010 essay) “the pressure that pro-Israel campaigners put on the mainstream US media.”
Daniel Levy doesn’t go as far as Weiss, but recently went further than Steele in his expression of concern about the effect of Jews on the I-P debate in the U.S.
Levy is the co-founder of left-wing Israel lobbying group, J Street.
Evidence of Levy’s hard left politics can be found in his comments mocking those who “believe” that Hamas is a terrorist group, his characterization of Israel’s creation as a “mistake”, and his view that maybe Israel’s continued existence within any borders may not be desirable.
Specifically, regarding the latter, Levy said:
“Maybe, if this collective Jewish presence [in the Middle East] can only survive by the sword, then Israel really ain’t a good idea.”
Yesterday, Sept. 20, Levy published a piece at CiF, “Obama and Israel: Why leading from behind won’t work“, on the degree to which reports about President Obama’s erosion of Jewish support is accurate.
In explaining why reports of American Jews’ defection from Obama (who received 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008), due to his policies towards Israel, are exaggerated, Levy positively cites a recent essay by John Heilemann (which he describes as “excellent”) – particularly his agreement with Heilemann’s complaint of:
“the outsize attention [Jews] command and the ear-splitting volume of the collective megaphone they (Jews) wield.”
So, Levy and Heilemann evidently believe that the only reason, it seems, that a good percentage of American Jews are concerned about U.S. policy on the I-P Conflict is due to Jews’ disproportionate influence on the media. (See a good take down of Heilemann’s logic, at Pajamas Media)
Can someone please explain to me how such words don’t conjure the political narrative about the “injurious” influence of Jews historically found on the far right?
Is this what the Jewish hard left in the U.S. has resorted to?
It’s as if, in the mind of people such as Levy and Heilemann, merely wearing the liberal uniform should axiomatically render charges of antisemitism against them as absurd.
Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. Their political orientation does not grant them such moral impunity.
In fact, while antisemitism of course exists on the right (particularly in some far-right parties in Europe), the central address of antisemitism, and their enablers, in the “respectable” Anglo, Western world – as this blog continually demonstrates – is the media institution which happens to fancy itself the “world’s leading liberal voice.”
- Vile anti-Zionist logic at Guardian’s Comment is Free (cifwatch.com)
- +972 and a revealing Twitter exchange between CiF Watch and a radical left Israeli Jew (cifwatch.com)
- The tortured logic which informs yet another anti-Israel Guardian editorial (cifwatch.com)
- Another CiF columnist accuses Jewish lobby in the U.S. of stifling debate about Israel (cifwatch.com)