Joe Sobran takes the contrarian position on Mearsheimer and Walt's "anti-semitism".

The link above will take you to Joe's current on-line column. The archive is here. Not all of his past columns are available in the archive.


Joe is correct. As I have typed, Israel is not Judaism. Therefore, criticizing Israel does not make one a Jew hater. As a matter of fact, as Israel self-destructs, criticizing it may well be a sign of love and respect for our Jewish brothers. (See Orit's column here.)

On the other hand, Taranto is also correct. Anti-Israel sometimes may indeed equal anti-semitism. (I prefer the term "Jew-hatred". It catches the eye and the Arabs are a semitic people too. For example, if you hate Syrians, you are an anti-semite. Even if you are Jewish.)

The bottom line? The US must act in its national interest, properly understood, regardless of how that affects Israel.

If you think I'm being a weasel with that "properly understood" qualifier, let's try a little thought thingee:

Let us assume the UN has asked the US to send Norplant to Africa to sterilize millions of people of color. (Hard to imagine, no?) The State Department supports the plan, arguing it will buy us valuable good will Over There. The Forces of Progress (Ta-da!) in Congress like it as well because there will be fewer children Over There. The Vatican is against it, and, as a good Catholic, so am I.

Does this mean I am a traitor? Am I papist spy? Am I less of an American than Bill Gates or Ted Turner? Don't I want the kleptocrats that rule Africa to be our friends?

I am sure many (if not most) of my fellow Americans would answer yes to all of the above.

Let me just say my idea of what is best for America differs significantly from that of the Left, the Right, the realpolitik crowd, the Neocons, the isolationists, the Israel lobby, the Arab lobby, et ceterea. Hence "properly understood".

The Mother of All Bottom Lines, kiddies, is this: The only thing that ultimately matters is the salvation of souls.

From the humblest individual to the largest NGO and the most powerful of governments, (That would be ours, kiddies.) only salvation should matter. And don't kid yourself. We will all be judged on how we helped others save their souls as well as the condition of our own unique, immortal souls. (See St. Augustine on the Sermon on the Mount, here and here.)

(The WSJ's James Taranto on Mearsheimer and Walt is here, here, and here.)

Sorry, Joe. I am usually not so long-winded.


Things are getting messy. Before I address today’s headlines, let me offer my simple, comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East.

First, give Palestine back to the Brits. Then adopt a reverse Monroe Doctrine: the United States will stay out of the Eastern Hemisphere.

Think about it.

Okay, now to today’s headlines. Abdul Rahman, the Afghan gent who was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity, has been spared. Good thing we’ve brought democracy to Afghanistan, eh? President Bush says Islam is a “religion of peace” that has been “hijacked” by a few nuts. He would know.

One little question: Why didn’t the moderate majority of Muslims make a peep of protest when Rahman was sentenced to death? Maybe Islamic “moderation” is a little different from ours?

Over here, meanwhile, a couple of American professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, have published a long article on the Israel lobby, arguing that the state of Israel has been a huge liability for the United States. Having argued this myself for many years, I can tell them what to expect from their critics, if they don’t know already.

The two profs will hear the words anti-Semitism, Holocaust, genocide, Auschwitz, and so forth. Not that they’ll be directly accused of these things, but somehow the general idea will make itself felt.

For example, Bret Stephens, of the pro-Israel, pro-war Wall Street Journal, likens their article to an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory,” using “every canard ever alleged of the Jews,” then adds scrupulously, “I do not mean to suggest that Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt are themselves anti-Semitic. But ... what may not be anti-Semitic in intent may yet be anti-Semitic in effect. By giving aid and comfort to people who have no trouble substituting the word ‘Jews’ for ‘Israel lobby,’ the Mearsheimer-Walt article is anti-Semitic in effect.” Stephens adds his kiss-of-death clincher: “No wonder former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke was quick to endorse the article....”

“I do not mean to suggest ... But ... ” After but comes the insinuation. Analogy: “I do not mean to suggest that John Doe is himself a Soviet agent. But, well, just look at the people who are applauding his article! Draw your own conclusions.”

Mearsheimer and Walt aren’t facing a deadly tiger, but a Tasmanian devil — a nasty, filthy beast that won’t kill you, but will leave you with bites, scratches, and an infection. They are facing fanatical Jews who claim to speak for all Jews.

You can argue that Judaism too is a religion of peace — Jerusalem is the City of Peace — that has been hijacked by Zionist warmongers. But I guess that would be anti-Semitic. In effect, if not in intent, if you follow me.

The idea of the Chosen People returning to the Holy Land at last, after thousands of years, is an inspiring one. But the wrong people took it up and executed it in the wrong way — with a state that drove the natives out and created endless bitterness.

Still, I’ve come to believe that the United States, not Israel, is the chief culprit in the Middle East, which, to be sure, is a region overrun with culprits. We think of Christianity as a religion of peace, but imagine if, in this country, Methodists and Baptists were blowing up each others’ churches. That gives you a rough idea of the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after invading and disrupting it.

It’s a little late in the day to see Americans as “innocents abroad,” as I once did. The rest of the world no longer sees us as well-meaning oafs, seduced by the Zionists. It thinks we’re big boys now who ought to know what we’re doing and be held responsible. This is called “anti-Americanism,” which seems to be very much like, and closely related to, “anti-Semitism.”

Bush has tried to salvage his innocence by blaming “faulty intelligence,” but then continuing on the same course anyway. Attila the Hun also relied on intelligence: he never invaded without consulting his astrologer and being assured it was a slam-dunk. Apparently, judging by his successful record, his astrologer was more reliable than the CIA. So was Nancy Reagan’s. The lesson for Bush is obvious.