Read the final paragraph of the Breitbart story. From that it is clear that what the "Renegade Jew" of the title means is that Kristol is a Jew whose anti-Trump position is indirectly weakening Israel because Hillary/Obama's position is not sufficiently pro-Israel. Understood thusly, the title is not a capricious anti-Semitic swipe at Kristol. It is an oblique reference to Kristol's impact on Israel. If I am correct, the Atlantic's charge of antisemitism is not only unjustified but ironic in that the Breitbart author says emphatically that he and Trump are pro-Israel whereas Hillary/Obama are not.
I don't think that Breitbart was trying to be anti-Semitic with their headline, but they are guilty of two things:
First, they are pigeon-holing every single Jewish person who doesn't take a hardline approach with regard to Israel as therefore being "anti-Israel." There are many, many smart people -- Jewish and non-Jewish -- who don't believe that Israel should have a blank check with regard to their behavior in the region, and that the U.S. shouldn't have to support every action that they take. Not doing so is arguably far better for both Israel's and the U.S.'s long-term security interests in the region, because if Israel is compelled to soften their stances, it could lead to a decrease in violent extremism.
Second, they are guilty of extreme sensationalism. This is a tabloid, yellow journalistic headline, and emblematic of the desire to tear down anyone who doesn't fall in a lockstep march with every far right wing mentality. This is clearly exhibited in the comments section of the article, where people who ARE legitimately anti-Semitic have seized on the phrasing and used it as an excuse to push their hateful rhetoric.
Post by gateraider on May 17, 2016 18:55:08 GMT -5
cl, really? There are fanatic violent radical Muslim Imams, mullahs and religious leaders and fanatic violent radical Muslim political leaders who daily call for the complete destruction of Israel. They teach such crap to little kids in their schools. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries that would like nothing better than to annihilate the Jews. I find it difficult to be critical of Israel in light of the situation they face. If the U.S. was in that position, I would hope we would be more aggressive.
CL- I have no illusions about how needlessly aggressive Israel can be. However, I believe you underestimate how precarious their position is, especially as regards Iran. Of all our supposed friends around the world, I wish more of them had the sense of self-preservation that the Israelis have.
PP- Didn't you learn anything about MAD during The Cold War, when nukes were never used? The only thing having nukes guarantees Israel is that nukes will not be used against them. That leaves all the other ways of defeating a nation, conventional arms and one's opponents'--both internal and external-- birth rate.