Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
害怕涂片
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

你可能已经知道了, Israel is the only “democracy” dedicated to the proposition that all men sure as hell aren’t created equal.

More than sixty years after Hitler’s death, this seems to be the golden age of anti-Semitism, judging by the frequency with which the charge is made. Apparently 反犹太主义 was the first word Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and the neoconservatives learned to pronounce right after mama and dada. An anti-Semite used to be a guy who hated Jews; now he’s a guy whom Jews hate.

All right, that’s too simple. But you see the point. Calling someone that name is, nowadays, the easiest way to do him a bit of no good. It’s almost never applied to people who have actually harmed Jews, or urged others to harm them; it’s used for those who commit Thoughtcrimes against the Jewish state. Like 种族主义, its use has widened as the actual evil has receded. The fewer racial lynchings we have, the more we hear about racism.

The charge of anti-Semitism doesn’t have to be proved; and it can’t be DISproved. It’s an assertion about motives, not actions. That’s the beauty of it: its unfalsifiability. Joe McCarthy was ruined for calling too many people Communists, even card-carrying Reds; but has Norman Podhoretz paid any penalty for calling too many people anti-Semites?

Any number can play, including gentiles. Taki was accused by his Catholic publisher. My fate was crueler: I was 辩护 by mine. Bill Buckley denied that I was anti-Semitic, but wrote a sentence, or a chapter (with Bill, the difference may be unclear), adding that though I was innocent of the crime, I somehow deserved to be falsely accused of it. That was a little like saying, “True, he was a guard at Auschwitz, but let’s give him credit: he always showed up for duty on time.” Thanks, Bill!

Even when an innocent man is falsely accused, you see, he is still guilty of … of … well, of having been accused. The charge itself is its own proof! Orwell and Kafka would understand. So would Stalin.

Most people don’t really care whether the charge is true anyway. To them, the very fact that it was made is enough to warrant ostracism. Their reaction may be interpreted as follows: “Uh-oh! The Jews are mad at this guy! I’d better steer clear of him, or they may come after me too!” This response implies, of course, that “the Jews” control everything, which is what Henry Ford infamously believed and which is what Abe Foxman seems to want 每个人 to believe. Some might call that belief anti-Semitic, but there you go. Weird, but true. The label is enough to terrify people, to make strong men tremble. (The 种族主义者 label used to have similar power, but nobody thinks blacks run the country.)

No use saying, “But I’m not anti-Semitic!” Automatic retort: “Yeah, sure. That’s what anti-Semites always say.” Pleading innocent only gets you in deeper. Denial is further proof of guilt. So what if it’s also what an innocent man might say?

Here’s the real kicker, though: The burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser. Since the word 反犹太主义 is never really defined, the accused can’t even know just what he’s accused of, let alone whether he’s innocent. It can mean anything from genocide to joking about “Israel’s Amen Corner in this country,” the phrase with which Pat Buchanan enraged Israel’s Amen Corner in this country.

Lots of “neoconservatives” claimed the label proudly, until it became a term of reproach, whereupon they decided it was nothing but an anti-Semitic code-word for 犹。 In effect, they denied their own existence. As Milovan Djilas once observed, “The Party line is that there is no Party line.” But here it’s even crazier: the Party line is that there is no Party.

Recent case history: two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, have just published a long article on how costly the Israel lobby’s success has been for the United States. Care to guess what they’re being accused of? Several neocons offered the clinching evidence: David Duke agreed with them! Before you say that two and two make four, make sure Hitler, or Pat Buchanan, never said so.

Now you might think it’s almost self-evident that two countries as remote and different from each other as the United States and Israel would have divergent interests, that what was good for one might sometimes be bad for the other, and so on. This is essentially all the two profs are saying, albeit with footnotes. But even self-evident truths, if applied to Israel, can become explosive and, yes, anti-Semitic.

Still, I think “Jewish power” is largely a mirage. True, there are powerful Jewish interests, and they can be nasty, but most Jews are only their distant relatives. Fear of “the Jews” is really fear of nuts like Foxman, whom it would actually take very little courage to stand up to. I think of a line in the film Miller’s Crossing, where the Irish hero says to the Irish mob boss, “You don’t hold elective office in this town, Leo. You only run it because people think you run it. When they stop thinkin’ it, you stop runnin’ it.”

As I wrote shortly after the 9/11 attacks, “When it comes to Israel, an American journalist speaks his mind at his own risk. That helps explain why so few voices in the U.S. press are saying what European journalists may say without fear.” The neocons will learn that fear is a dangerous weapon to wield. Those who fear you today will hate you and fight you tomorrow. Osama bin Laden and George Bush will learn this too.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论