Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’�and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen�it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’� Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.� He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.� (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

He begins by defending himself agains anti-semtic allegations but then still makes the effort to point out that Commentary is very important in the Bush administration and that is is a Jewish publication.

My intent with the original comment was just to characterize the opinions of The American Conservative magazine … paleo-conservatives are hardly the refuge of progressives and the tolerant minded. I didn’t think it was too much a stretch to point out their problem with the war was its ties to Israel (via American Jews) — which is different than most other people’s problem with the war.

And, yeah, I guess I do get a hint of anti-semitism from what Buchanan writes–mainly because there are a lot more accurate criticisms of neocons that don’t have anything to do with their support for Israel or their religion. Let’s start with their overly rosy view of democracy and our ability to affect positive change with military might. THAT’S a much bigger part of their ideology than is Israel. Claiming it’s really all about Israel is a bit odd. And it would hardly be the first time Buchanan was suspected of being anti-semetic. The Democrats branded him as such during the 1992 campaign if you remember.

But, all that said, my intent wasn’t to use that comment to delve into the existence (or appearance) of anti-semitism in paleo-con logic. Nor was my intent to brand all critics of Israel as anti-semetic. I applogize if I came off like some partisan hack.

Give me a break. I was making a point about how The American Conservative mag has a history of opposition to this war and the opinion Justin linked to is nothing new. I wasn’t trying to secretly brand all opponents of Israel as anti-semites.

Don’t waste too much breath defending Buchanan. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

It’s also no secret that American Jews have unique ties to Israel. I’d be hard pressed to identify another group that is so strongly involved with a foreign government politically, especially since many of Israel’s supporters have never lived there. We see condemnations of protesters waving Mexican flags in Los Angeles, yet we are somehow supposed to remain silent about a group that clearly feels US foreign policy should always be based at least in part on what’s good for Israel. What other country enjoys this kind of consideration? I would argue that France and Germany have been long time allies of the US, but I didn’t see any charges of anti-French bias when French wine was being poured down sewers after the start of the Iraq war.

As Buchanan makes clear (and I’m far from a Buchanan supporter) Israel is a long time and valued ally of the US, and we have made a committment to aid them whenever possible. Yet they are still a foreign government, and need to be treated as such. Their interests are not automatically our interests. You may disagree with me, but voicing my opinion doesn’t make me an anti-Semite. I’m sure many in Israel would want us to launch air strikes now against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Should we go along with that without regard for what is in our best interest?

That would make them homosexuals too… bonus.

1) The editors of American Conservative are “Leftists.”
2) They hate America.
3) They are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
4) They hate America and support terrorism.
5) They have been brainwashed by the New York Times and CNN.
6) They hate America and want to make sweet, sweet love to Osama.