----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:52 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless
> Dan wrote: > > > Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor > > more is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. > > So, she claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. > > That's definitely one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've > ever seen you post. No matter how many Jews founded the Neocon movement, > "Neocon" is not synonymous with "Jew". Is Bush Jewish? He is not a neocon; he's a compassionate conservative. Wolfowitz is the highest rank neo-con in the administration, I think. It's not intellectually dishonest....it has to do with the history of that claim. Neo-con was a term coined to refer to a group of intellectuals (mostly Jewish) who became conservative. It was a group/movement that was fairly well defined. During this time, the claim that they were not really patriotic Americans surfaced. Their real loyalty was to Israel, not the US. You see that claim in writings of folks like Pat Bucannan, I think. Since then, the term has been used by some in a much broader context. But, the claim that the neo-cons are really loyal to Israel is one that clearly dates back to the time when the neo-con had a distinctly Jewish nature. > Furthermore, isn't it not only possible but highly likely that the goals > of the Neocons are intended to be beneficial to both Israel _and_ the U.S.? Sure, that's all right. I don't have any objection with that. One important question is why Zimmy, who differs with many policies put forth by the neo-cons, still is very offended by the statement. If the Jewish nature of neo-con wasn't important, why would criticism of conservatives stick in his craw so? Let's assume, for argument sake, that his, Gautam's, and my anti-Semitic radar is too sensitive and we'd overstate things. Why would Zimmy, in particular, see a comment about Jews when the comment had nothing to do with Jews? What's more likely, a liberal Jew is aware of a conservative Jewish movement; or a liberal Jew wrongly thinks that lots of conservative Christians are really Jewish. In conclusion; while neo-con has been used as a much broader category....the accusation that we are referring had its origin at a time when the Jewishness of the neo-cons was part of the perceived problem. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
