The Slanted Economist

Well those AIPAC Jews are certainly getting too big for their britches, aren't they?  If you didn't think that before, you certainly would after reading the Economist's report on AIPAC's recent conference in Washington DC.  As soon as I saw the picture illustrating the article, I knew what I had in store - the great pleasure of witnessing once again, the accusation that Jews were running...and of course ruining the world.  Many points scored for the trick of using pretty colors for the giant sea monster.  Hey look kids! It's Puff the Magic Joo Dragon.  He sure is pretty, but don't be fooled -  keep your kids far away from the matzo factory:

How will the poor people in those teensy tiny boats ever contain him?  That guy on the lower right is shouting, "Get out the harpoons! He's about to capsize world peace and brotherhood and everything good in the world!"

You know that as soon as the big Jewish monster is contained, the sunshine and rainbows will be out, don't you? Giant lollipops for everyone!

So, what did the article have to say?

THIS week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears.

[Dun, dun, dun...<----cue up the portentious music] 

Whoa, Nelly.  The darkest fears of Joo critics? Human blood in matzo? Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  Palestinian genocide?  Jews running Hollywood and the banks?  You mean those fears?  YIKES!

They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol Hill—Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senate—as well as the vice-president (who called his talk “The United States and Israel: United We Stand”) and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions.

You heard it.  Power brokers.  First division candidates. People in the upper echelons. The hoi-polloi.  All at the beck and call of the {{{{shudder}}}} GREAT JEWISH LOBBY.

Hey, I'm a Jew and even I'm scared!  What the hell are those yarmulke-wearing folks up to?

The display of muscle was almost equalled by the display of unnerving efficiency.

"Unnerving efficency?"  You mean like when the nazis created their killing camps and found methods to murder as many Jews as quickly as they could?  That kind of "unnerving efficiency?" 

There were booths for “congressional check-in”, booths for “delegate banquet troubleshooting”, and booths full of helpful young people.

Ah yessss, Puff the Magic Joo Dragon makes it all look pretty, don't he?

The only discordant note was sounded by a group of a dozen protesters—Orthodox Jews in beards, side-curls and heavy black coats—holding up signs saying “Stop AIPAC”, “Torah forbids Jews dictating foreign policy”, and “Judaism rejects the state of Israel”.

Oh, if it isn't the good Jews!  The sane ones! The ones who like to kiss and hug cuddly old Ahmadinejad. 

Yet [AIPAC has] reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel.

And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.

Serious people asking awkward questions about America's allaince with Israel?  More likely awkward people making serious accusations.  And they speak of pro-war hawks, eh?  At least they didn't mention the dreaded neo-cons! And see, I told you they wanted to stick harpoons into poor Puff.

An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel.

Suddenly possible?  Like people haven't been making these accusations all along?  Like the Economist has suddenly given permission for it to be ok to accuse the Jews of having too much power and being a negative influence on American foreign policy?  It's ok, now, is it? It's become a "serious issue" being considered by "serious people?"

Well, the Economist, a British publication, did get one thing right.  The climate IS changing - in Europe.  Anti-semitism is on the rise.  It IS ok to ask these sorts of "serious and awkward questions" (aka allegations and accusations) in Europe.

The Economist, a major British magazine, obviously has no intention of protecting British Jews or any other Jews for that matter, from any of the attacks - from the destruction of synagogues, to the beating and murdering of innocents, to the burning of a Jewish kindergarden in Germany, to the fear of wearing Jewish symbols out in public in both Germany and France, to the defacing of Jewish cemetaries - which have been occurring with greater and greater frequency. With complete disregard, they write a distorted article that only adds fuel to the fire.

Europe has learned no lesson from WW2.  Their essential selfish and ugly character remains exactly the same as it was in 1938, '39, '40, '41, '42, '43, '44, and '45. Expecting them to put themselves out, to stand up for anyone or any thought or value other than that which benefits they themselves is like expecting unicorns to fly us all to the clouds.

Oh, not true, you say?  They have changed?  Then I anticipate many articles coming out in opposition to this one.  People decrying the obvious bias and distortion of making Jews look bad to promote the Economist's/Europe's own personal agenda of cowardice and appeasement.

Yeahrightsure.

**************************

Welcome Discarded Lies readers.  Thanks to Joem for linking.   

Comments

[AndyJ]

There is a lot of good that comes from gatherings. Hiding will not change anyone's skewed personal mythology. Facts will not change their minds or attitudes. If they are coming they will come whether people are organized or not. It is better to be organized.

The real question is why AIPAC consistently supports Democrats way out of proportion to Republicans? What positions do Democrats take that are in concert with the values of AIPAC members?

That question confuses people on both sides of the aisle.

[Mark]

Andy:

Jews in the United States are still predominately Democratic by party affiliation. AIPAIC is no doubt playing the demographic game, and rightly should.

It would be great if more American Democratic Jews realized that what is at stake (the survival of Israel as a safe haven for Jews from all over the world) is more important than their party affiliation here in the US.

[Penny Soaky]

Heh. I had a trial subscription to the Economist which I cancelled when the free issues ran out. It just didn't appeal to me, although I didn't run into anything quite this grotesque.

I'm glad joem linked here, lots of interesting stuff to check out. Hmmm, a food category! Off I go...