Jim Moran Does It Again
September 15, 2007 at 7:19 am
Today’s Washington Post chronicles Rep. Jim Moran’s (D-VA) latest pilgrimage to the anti-Semitic side of town:
In an interview with Tikkun, a California-based Jewish magazine, Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is “the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.”
And:
AIPAC “members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two-edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and to individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating.”
Ronald Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, responds thusly to Moran’s track record: “There are only so many mistakes he can make before it’s fair to call him an anti-Semite.”
And Colbert King writes: “The canard that a powerful Jewish lobby controls the media is a well-known anti-Semitic staple.”
How should Democrats deal with this guy? Here’s a proposal: Ask Mark Warner. He’s running for Senate. If he wins, he’ll surely bump into an AIPAC lobbyist. Ask Warner, who’s represented in Congress by Moran, if he agrees with Moran’s characterization of the wealthy and media-controlling Jews who control AIPAC. His answer should shed some light into both politicians’ core beliefs.
richarda said,
September 15, 2007 @ 9:34 am
” . . . means of communications . . . . ”
Mental telepathy? Mimeograph? Spirit writing?
Or maybe that secret universal subvocalized TV trailer: “This program, like every show on every channel, is brought to you by The Jews.”
luagha said,
September 15, 2007 @ 9:49 am
And the gays. The Jewish Gays especially, if you’re talking fashion and television.
DaveS said,
September 15, 2007 @ 10:51 am
“The canard that a powerful Jewish lobby controls the media is a well-known anti-Semitic staple.”
That’s the thing… nothing he said is necessarily anti-semitic, but it is definitely symptomatic.
Letalis Maximus, Esq. said,
September 15, 2007 @ 11:22 am
At least he threw in that Jews are generous with their personal wealth.
Not that I’m defending him. I’m not. Throwing that in was probably a cynical attempt to avoid sounding like an anti-Semite.
GM Roper said,
September 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
I am of the opinion that anyone who does not think that Jim Moran is anti-semitic hasn’t been paying attention to what he says!
John said,
September 15, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
How, in any way, are these quotes an indication of anti-Semetism?
Seriously, it’s at the point where if anyone has anything critical to say about Israel, out come the charges of anti-semetism and shrieks about the holocaust.
In one forum yesterday, I dared to question the US foreign policy toward Isreal and was immediately accused of hoping Iran would wipe it off the map as my preferred “solution”.
Such retorts are weak in the extreme, and an indication that the other side doesn’t have anything going for it other than emotional hyperbole.
AndyJ said,
September 15, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
It’s not Jews that control the media. It’s greed.
The boundary between celebrity and politics, movie fantasy and political reality is very thin. The constant drumbeat of political scandal leads to screenplays about scandals. Politicians need money and headlines that celebrity brings. The media needs something/anything to feed the public appetite. We pay well for the privilege of watching the charade. A rigged game has fewer risks and greater profits. Why bet on unknowns when there are genuine stars? (Actors or politicians? Yes.)
Tolerating an anti-Semite for one minute is 45 seconds too long.
Menlo Bob said,
September 15, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
And then there is the liberals who, not liking the composition of the Supreme Court, take note of the number of Catholic justices and suggest that a form of theocracy is in play. In order to do so it requires them to ignore Senators, Kennedy, Leahy, Kerry, Harkin, Dodd, Reed, Murray and Biden.
The Objective Historian said,
September 15, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Er, uh . . .
I don’t see one anti-Semitic word in what Moran wrote and I don’t think you do either. He does not say Jews (or Semitic people) are an inferior race. He notes that, like AARP, and the NRA, the AIPAC is a very powerful lobby.
AIPAC is the second largest PAC after AARP (the last I looked at the numbers). They are funded by wealthy USA Jews, for the most part. Their raison d’etre is to spend money to “encourage” Presidents, Senators, and Representatives to direct US foreign policy toward activities in the best interest of Israel (note: the default is that these political office holders would work for the best interest of the USA; AIPAC would not need to fund them if they did not want a policy shift from this default position to a pro-Israel and thus non-default USA first priority position; put another way, if US and Israeli interests were the same, deduction indicates that AIPAC would not need to spend money at all).
It is one thing to over-estimate the “Jewish Lobby” in the USA; that is mistake. To deny the impact of AIPAC is an absurd denial of reality.
TOH
Xanthippe said,
September 15, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
I wish that Moran would name these “certain newspapers and magazines, and … individuals in the media” so that we’d all know which ones are powered by AIPAC. That way, we’d be able to judge how powerful AIPAC really is in American media.
Of course, it’s more fun to just refer to shadowy media that has the ability to destroy people than to actually name names.
That’s the anti-Semitic part. Hope that helps.
A Few Jews' Blues said,
September 15, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
“They are funded by wealthy USA Jews, for the most part.”
And you have what proof of this? AIPAC is supported by Jews and non-Jews from many socioeconomic groups. Of course, one could apply your statement to the Democratic Party. Wealthy liberal Jews provide a great deal of the funding for the Democratic Party at nearly every level, local, county, state and national.
“Their raison d’etre is to spend money to “encourage” Presidents, Senators, and Representatives to direct US foreign policy toward activities in the best interest of Israel (note: the default is that these political office holders would work for the best interest of the USA; AIPAC would not need to fund them if they did not want a policy shift from this default position to a pro-Israel and thus non-default USA first priority position; put another way, if US and Israeli interests were the same, deduction indicates that AIPAC would not need to spend money at all).”
This fractured logic would apply to just about any group that lobbies governmental groups. Why would organized labor lobby the government if US and organized labor interests were the same? The raison d’etre of the AARP is to direct US domestic policy toward activities in the best interest of senior citizensl AARP would not need to fund or lobby elected officials if they did not want a policy shift from the best interest of the United States to the best interest of senior citizens.
What ‘lovers of Israel and the Jews’ like yourself would have us believe is that US and Israeli interests can never be complimentary, which is, of course, absurd.
Let me ask you, what is your feeling about the so-called “Wahabbi Lobby”, the Muslim and Arab funded groups that want to influence US policy away from supporting Israel? This includes not only ‘official’ lobbying in Washington but also huge donations to American universities to establish pro-Muslim departments and programs. Since the “default” US position at this time is support of Israel, by your logic one could say that the Arab/Muslim lobby is not working in the best interest of the US.
Moneyrunner said,
September 15, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
For those who believe that Moran is not expressing an anti-Semitic sentiment, we need only examine what he is saying here, not the many similar examples of his attempts to smear AIPAC.
And, Objective Historian, I don’t know where you get your statistics, but while you are entitled to you own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is AIPAC is not even a PAC, it is a lobbying group. For that reason, if you will check for yourself at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A you will find that AIPAC is nowhere to be found as a PAC, and certainly is not to be found as the second largest PAC.
Second, let’s analyze Moran’s beliefs in his own words:
“Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is “the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning.’”
Well, as it has been revealed, the Israeli government did not consider Iraq to be their biggest enemy. That honor was reserved for Iran, currently developing a nuclear weapon. In fact, Israel opposed the attack on Iraq because they believed it would distract America from Iran. So, no, AIPAC has not pushed this war from the beginning. Some people commonly referred to as “neo-conservatives” and generally assumed to be limited to Jews, have been proponents of this war, but to conflate their views with either AIPAC or with Israel is simply not true. However, if you are of the opinion that a large group of wealthy Jews are directing American foreign policy, this whole thing makes sense. In the same way that “Mein Kampf” makes sense.
“I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.”
And here we have again the paranoid claim that wealthy Jews are directing American foreign policy. The assumption is that American foreign policy under Bush would have been different if Bush were not under the influence of AIPAC. That George Bush would be agreeing with that French diplomat that called Israel “that shitty little country.”
Now Jim Moran may have information about the hidden agenda of AIPAC that only he is aware of, bit if you go to AIPAC’s website http://aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp you will find exactly NO references to the war in Iraq. That’s right: zip, zero, nada, NO references to support for the war in Iraq. Isn’t it amazing that this supposed cheerleader for American involvement in Iraq should not trumpet that support? Why not Jim, or John or Objective Historian, or anyone else who wants to claim that Jim Moran is not spouting nonsense, and anti-Semitic nonsense at that.
Moneyrunner said,
September 15, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
For those who believe that Moran is not expressing an anti-Semitic sentiment, we need only examine what he is saying, not the many similar examples of his attempts to smear AIPAC.
And, Objective Historian, I don’t know where you get your statistics, but while you are entitled to you own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is AIPAC is not even a PAC, it is a lobbying group. For that reason, if you will check for yourself at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A you will find that AIPAC is nowhere to be found as a PAC, and certainly is not to be found as the second largest PAC.
Second, let’s analyze Moran’s beliefs in his own words:
“Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is “the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning.’”
Well, as it has been revealed, the Israeli government did not consider Iraq to be their biggest enemy. That honor was reserved for Iran, currently developing a nuclear weapon. In fact, Israel opposed the attack on Iraq because they believed it would distract America from Iran. So, no, AIPAC has not pushed this war from the beginning. Some people commonly referred to as “neo-conservatives” and generally assumed to be limited to Jews, have been proponents of this war, but to conflate their views with either AIPAC or with Israel is simply not true. However, if you are of the opinion that a large group of wealthy Jews are directing American foreign policy, this whole thing makes sense. In the same way that “Mein Kampf” makes sense.
“I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.”
And here we have again the paranoid claim that wealthy Jews are directing American foreign policy. The assumption is that American foreign policy under Bush would have been different if Bush were not under the influence of AIPAC. That George Bush would be agreeing with that French diplomat that called Israel “that shitty little country.”
Now Jim Moran may have information about the hidden agenda of AIPAC that only he is aware of, but if you go to AIPAC’s website http://aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp you will find exactly NO references to the war in Iraq. That’s right: zip, zero, nada, NO references to support for the war in Iraq. Isn’t it amazing that this supposed cheerleader for American involvement in Iraq should not trumpet that support? Why not Jim, or John or Objective Historian, or anyone else who wants to claim that Jim Moran is not spouting nonsense, and anti-Semitic nonsense at that.
Tom said,
September 15, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
The Objective Historian said: “if US and Israeli interests were the same, deduction indicates that AIPAC would not need to spend money at all”
Uhh… your presuming that in every decision making endeavor there is only one choice that is the right one (best one) for US interests? That hardly seems logical.
Sometimes there are decisions with multiple good options; maybe there is a legitment need for groups to steer decisions toward the good option that is more important to them and yet still puts US interests first.
If you’re going to be so arrogant to give yourself a handle incorporating the term “objective”, you best live up to what the word means.
Barbara Skolaut said,
September 15, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Ya’ know, there’s a reason a lot of Virginians call him Jim MORON….
Mason Jahr said,
September 15, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
The remarks do not cross the line into antisemitism. Looks like political commentary. Save the rebukes for when they’re warranted otherwise they lose their sting.
Mickey Finn said,
September 15, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
AIPAC has a lot of political power. Possibly more clout than any other lobbying group. The question is: How can it possibly be considered anti-Semitic to simply say so?
Borgne said,
September 17, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
He isn’t the only Democrat in the South to face such criticism. Consider John Eaves in Mississippi, the Democrat challenger to incumbent Republican Haley Barbour. He has a ad up called “money changers” and with the notable Jewish holidays on the calendar has ilicited a strong response in Mississippi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImpcwceqc4
http://www.neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=302&ArticleID=15223
kp said,
September 18, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
END THE APARTEID!
Scott said,
September 20, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
If Moran was to say the NAACP is the reason for racial tensions in America would it not be considered “racist”. By attacking the group you are attacking the membership of that group who has supported the platform through activity or donation. By stating his position on the lobby he is in effect stating that the people of that group and their support is responsible for the war. Let the apologists quibble but Allens’s maccaca was in effect directed at a “person” Moran directed his point to an enitire group, ie the Jewish who support AIPAC.
Sammy said,
September 21, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Ronald Halber is the individual in charge of this unnecessary chaos. Jewish extremists’ rendezvous against congressman Moran has no legal ground. Jim stated his own opinion of an American organization. Where is the problem? The problem is that most of AIPAC members are dedicated American Jews and extremely dedicated to the well being of the State of Israel way more than the well being of the US. Are you guys with US or with Israel? That is the problem. Why can’t we criticize Israelis or Jews anyway?! Stop being too sensitive about everything and stop using the term “anti-Semite” and use “anti-Jewish” rather. Aram, Asshur, Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans and Sabaeans are Semites too.