| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject: 'Jewish lobby' is an anti-Semitic term, says US diplomat |
| Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:00:11 -0700
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
To:
Subject: [Fwd: INDEP. 23.1.04; 'Jewish lobby' is an anti-Semitic term, says US diplomat
That's how they describe it in the Israeli media, but in the US one must watch what they say. But, if in truth, the lobby is made up of all the major Jewish organizations, secular and religious and all of them lobby for Israel when it comes to aid and support for Israeli government policies, is it not really a more accurate term than pro-Israel lobby (which also includes Christian evangelicals), even if it does not represent those Jews are not affiliated with those organizations or who are in smaller ones that are less representative of the community at large? There never seems to be a problem when people talk about "Jewish support for the civil rights movement" when the majority of Jews and Jewish organizations were not active in at all, or "Jewish traditions of social justice" when, those too, represented only the more enlightened and humane sections of the community? Are the Jewish supporters of Israel and their non-Jewish lackeys to be allowed to control our language?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=483856
'Jewish lobby' is an anti-Semitic term, says US diplomat
By Mary Dejevsky
23 January 2004
A senior US diplomat in London has ruffled feathers in Britain's foreign policy establishment by publicly implying that a reference to the "Jewish lobby" in the United States is an anti-Semitic remark.
The incident happened yesterday at a Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) lecture on US foreign policy given by David Johnson, who is the second in command at the American embassy in London.
During the question-and-answer session he was asked: "Will the US ever be willing to impose an equitable peace settlement in the Middle East, or is it perhaps that the Jewish lobby in America is too strong to make that feasible?"
Mr Johnson responded indignantly, saying: "I am highly resentful of the last part of your remarks, just because of its ethnic slur." And he went on: "During my time here I have become increasingly troubled by the willingness of European audiences to skirt up to the side of anti-Semitic language as a political criticism."
A retired US diplomat, now living in Britain, rose to defend the earlier questioner, objecting that Mr Johnson's remark reflected the American tendency to associate criticism of Israeli policy with criticism of Jews. "There is nothing racial about drawing attention to the existence of a particular ethnic group," he said, noting that the US had not only "a strong Israeli lobby" but Irish, Polish and other ethnic lobbies.
There was a shout of "hear, hear" from the audience and applause rang around the crowded hall.
Mr Johnson, who was US policy co-ordinator for Afghanistan before arriving in London in August, is an experienced State Department hand with extensive service in Europe.
One of his tasks in London appears to be to woo back members of the British political, academic and media circles who felt alienated by George Bush's foreign policy, especially the war in Iraq, which is unlikely to be advanced by the exchanges.
Later, Mr Johnson said he held "no animus" towards the questioner, saying that what he found unacceptable about the use of the term was its inference that "somehow the Jews control the US". He said he was surprised that the term was still so current in Europe, and especially in Britain, noting: "That is an unacceptable formulation." | |  | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
