Importantly, many anti-Zionists use exactly the same rhetoric and wording as centuries-old anti-Semitic tracts like the Tsarist-era forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Left-wingers, many of whom would like to regard themselves as intellectuals, often don't realise they are not only repeating bigotry from the 19th Century, but are parroting modern right-wing hate groups. All they are doing is substituting the word "Zionist" for "Jew," so are certainly guilty of a lack of originality (perhaps an even greater sin in academic circles?)

I hear straight-faced recitations of how "Zionists" run the Australian media. (Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer are Zionists?)

The canard currently in fashion is the one about Zionists secretly running the US government. Which Zionists are we talking about? George Bush? Donald Rumsfeld? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell? (hmm... maybe it's really a black conspiracy; Colin and Condi are both African-Americans, after all). Do they mean the approximately 25% of American Jews who voted for Bush in 2004? Or the American Jews who, in the lead-up to the Iraq War, were more likely than non-Jewish Americans to oppose the invasion? When I ask these questions I don't get answers.

All this might just be another set of amusing little anecdotes about the cute foibles of pseudo-intellectuals in academia, but it is connected to a real issue that requires serious discussion.

It is VERY hard to keep a clear head in the inflammatory rhetorical environment of Mid-East politics. It is increasingly difficult to carry on reasoned debate on this topic. The "Anti-Zionism" Philip Mendes refers to has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles, and has mixed with other political strains to become a truly toxic mixture.

Worst, this cant dilutes the credibility of legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy, with which many Jews agree.

W_Howard, you have told us about a couple of straw men that you say are walking around in academic/intellectual circles. And how cleverly you demolished them. Congratulations. But I wonder how you recognised them, especially as no-one you talk to appears to have seen them. I suppose its just the old canard, "If it walks like a duck....".

W_Howard, you have told us about a couple of straw men that you say are walking around in academic/intellectual circles. And how cleverly you demolished them. Congratulations. But I wonder how you recognised them, especially as no-one you talk to appears to have seen them. I suppose its just the old canard, "If it walks like a duck....".


No "straw men" necessary. These are walking talking people who made these comments to me, openly and with straight faces. Professors. Post-graduates. With names and titles.

At a recent scientific conference (not about politics, but of course the topic came up in post-symposium talk around the pub), when talking about why the US-led Coalition invaded Iraq, a colleague looked straight at me and told me it was "the Jews [who were pushing for the invasion]."

"Which Jews?" I asked. He could name none. (I could name a few, just I could name quite a few non-Jews who supported the invasion.)

"Do you know a lot of Jews?" He said he did.

"Did _they_ support the invasion of Iraq?" No, he answered.

"So where does 'the Jews' come from?" He said he "read it somewhere."

"Where did you read this?" I continued. He didn't remember.

Bear in mind this was a highly-respected scientist who, if writing a paper, would be scrupulous in documenting his citations. I've been confronted with numerous other comments like this, also from academics, whom I could and perhaps should name. But I don't think it's appropriate in the circumstances. I have witnesses to this conversations. They also have names.

Mine's Will Howard, just there's no suspicion I may be a "straw man."

The term 'anti-Semitic'seems to have been so misused that it's now only a useful hate word for vilifying opponents. 'Anti-Zionist' just doesn't have the same ring to it. Lets face it, if you want to stop debate labels such as 'anti-Semitic', 'racist', 'bigot', etc do it.

True, the term "anti-Semitism" has been misused, and Philip Mendes makes a powerful contribution in separating anti-Semitism as one expression of bigotry from other strains of political rhetoric regarding the Mideast, especially Israel/Palestine.

Similarly, terms like "Fascism," "imperialism," and "colonialism" have been overused to the point of meaninglessness.

W_Howard, perhaps this is something akin to what those 'straight-faced' academics, graduates' etc were thinking:

1. It's on record that the Jewish lobby in the US campaigned against George Bush Snr gaining a second term due to his perceived unfair pressure on Israel (how dare he make billions of dollars in loan guarantees contingent on Israel being genuine about peace with the Palestinians!!!!) Remember his remark "Well, they [Jews] don't vote for us anyway [Republicans]" Well, George Bush Jnr, for all his shortcomings, wasn't going to let that lesson pass him by. Moreover, Bush Jnr is a born again Christian and it's also a matter of public record that conservative Christians and Zionists see their interests as convergent. So Bush Jnr for both theological and electoral reasons has led what some call the most pro-Israel government in US history.

This is not canard or secret. It has been born out by the current administration's record on the Mid-East. And for your information, I don't think you have to be Jewish to be pro-Zionist or even a Zionist. There are plenty of nutter Christians who believe in the Zionist dream. I suspect Bush Snr (and so in policy terms many of his cronies) is one them.

2. As for those straight faced people who dare say Zionists were behind the Second Gulf War. Well, perhaps they weren't the only interest at hand but they were certainly up there with the most important of them. As a casual but interested follower of current affairs it seemed to me to play out as follows:

The neoconservative cabal in the White House wanted to make war on Iraq well before 9/11 (plenty of evidence for this). Afghanistan got in the way for short time but 9/11 proved too alluring a pretext for an attack on Iraq.

The initial problem was a lack of evidence, and with the CIA not coming up with the goods, another department, the Office of Special Plans (OSP) had to be created. This group, dominated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, had direct access to raw intelligence and did their own 'analysis'. However, unlike the politically unhelpful CIA, this analysis came up with all the right conclusions. Yes, there was link between Sadaam and Osama and yes Sadaam was hiding a WMD program. Of course, since it all turned out to be neoconservative fantasy, the OSP has been quietly disbanded and the blame very 'unquietly' placed at the feet of the CIA. You have to feel sorry for the 'real' US intelligence community who never went along with the charade and are now paying the price in spades.

Finally, there is the motive for the attack on Iraq. Who could honestly believe that Sadaam posed a threat to the US? Sadaam had been in power for something like 20 or 30 years, and if there's one thing he had consistently shown it was an ability to survive. But you don't have to be a genius to work out that any attack on the US would be suicide. What was he going to do - send a carrier task force to attack New York? Perhaps one of his nuclear submarines would launch an inter-continental ballistic missile from the Pacific? Oh, that's right - he didn't have a carrier task force, or nuclear submarines, or for that matter inter-continental ballistic missiles. In short, only an idiot would have thought he was a threat to the US (yes, there are lots of idiots in this world).

He was however, a threat to Israel. He had shown in the first Gulf War that he could send Scud missiles to Israel (however ineffectually) and had the temerity to support the Palestinians against the occupation. In fact, he openly called for the destruction of Israel and paid the family of each suicide bomber USD25, 000 to compensate them for Israel destroying their family home (which, as a form of collective punishment is illegal under international law; but then, let’s not start talking about Israel and international law).

So, you don't need to be Professor of International Relations to see that Israel had much to gain by the demise of Sadaam. It might have cost 100 000 Iraqi lives but hey, lets keep this in perspective, I'm sure the survival of Israel was at stake.

As for the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist divide. Unfortunately years of semantic games means any such terms are completely without meaning. Is it a 'fence' or a 'wall'? An 'assassination' or a 'targeted killing'?

Any criticism of Israel results in shrill denunciations of anti-Semitism, and of course all anti-Zionists are really only sophisticated anti-Semites. So who gains from this obfuscation? The Israel first crowd have spent a long time trying to blur the distinction between anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, the Holocaust and the destruction of Israel, so that nowadays, anybody who criticizes Israel can be accused of anything from supporting the Nazi holocaust to backing the Arab millions which are supposedly about to bring about the destruction of Israel at any moment.

Today's SMH is a good example. Astoundingly, the article is titled "Calm Prevails as both Sides Give Peace a Chance"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Conflict/Calm-prevails-as-both-sides-give-peace-a-chance/2005/02/04/1107476804266.html

It then goes on to describe how two Palestinian girls, one of them just 10 years old, have been killed in the past week. Well, peace HASN'T prevailed. One side has stopped killing while the other goes on killing children. It's unbelievable. If two Israeli girls were killed all of Israel would be hysterical. They would launch a full-scale military assault on Palestinian towns and villages. Dozens of Palestinians would be killed. Yet when those killed are only Palestinian, then instead of being called child murderers, it's said there's a period of calm!!

Israel is an openly Jewish state. It's the Israelis themselves who have blurred the distinction between being Israeli/Jewishness and Zionism. Israel is not a totalitarian state where the population has little control over a government’s murderous policies. It is a democracy (if you're Jewish) and its citizens are responsible for voting in governments that carry out murderous and inhumane policies.

And to be honest I really don't care what label people give me for opposing this situation. If it makes me anti-Semitic, then I'm proudly anti-Semitic and think anybody who isn't should take a good look at their sense of morality.