Uncategorized

George Soros: Not An Antisemite; Tony Blankley: Probably Is

In an attempt to discredit billionaire George Soros, who has been pouring tons of cash into defeating George Bush in the coming election, as well as other various progressive causes, conservative pundits are portraying Soros as a self-hating Jew and as a vile Jew, all at the same time.

On a recent episode of Hannity & Colmes, Washington Times editor and Moonie apologist Tony Blankley made the following remarks:

Look, if he wasn’t a multi-billionaire, he’d just be another ignored left-wing crank […] This is a man who has blamed the Jews for anti-Semitism […] This is a man who, when he was plundering the world’s currencies, in England in ’92, he caused the Southeast Asian financial crisis in ’97 […] He said that he has no moral responsibility for the consequences of his financial actions. He is a self-admitted atheist, he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust.

As The Washington Monthly‘s Kevin Drum (formerly of Calpundit) writes,

Translation: he’s a Jew-hating Jew, he’s a greedy Jew, he’s a conniving and heartless Jew, he’s an atheistic Jew, and he’s a Jew who must have been (if you get my drift, wink wink) a Nazi collaborator. Anyone who’s not a child knows perfectly well what Blankley was saying here.

Regarding the charge that Soros “blamed the Jews for antisemitism” — this allegation was made in response to remarks made by Soros at an annual meeting of the Jewish Funder’s Network where he basically said that, looking back on his conduct as a Jewish business person, he feels guilty for besmirching the name of Jews with his actions, and suggested that others evaluate their own behavior, whereas corrupt practices by high profile Jewish people contribute to a negative image of all Jewish people. And in fact, if I recall correctly, isn’t there is a verse in Perkei Avot which states pretty much the same thing?

“I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world. As an unintended consequence of my actions, I also contribute to that image,” said Soros. Uh, is that antisemitic? Mmm, no…

Soros also offered a warning to supporters of bush and sharon’s middle east policies: “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies. If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly.” Is that antisemitic? Mmm, no…

These quotes were initially presented by Uriel Heilman reporting for the JTA, under the headline “George Soros says Jews and Israel cause anti-Semitism,” which was subsequently carried by the majority of Jewish newspapers throughout the US and Israel.

In a letter to the editors of the JTA, Mark Charendoff, president of the Jewish Funders Network, wrote, “The problem is not the words that were spoken by Mr. Soros, but more how they were heard, pasted together and then distorted.”

Of course, far be it from Soros’ enemies to latch onto this falsified “evidence” of Soros’ self-hatred, and use it to paint him in a negative light. I think it’s easy to determine who the antisemite is here—and it sure ain’t Soros.

24 thoughts on “George Soros: Not An Antisemite; Tony Blankley: Probably Is

  1. Have you heard the new Ludacris song, “Blow it out”. He attack that bird brain from Fox News on it, but says something how he “eats dinner with Jews but doesn’t talk to strangers”. I was just wondering if any of you knew what that meant, I’m lost.

  2. Blankley is a good guy. He’s not anti-Semitic at all. Soros, however, is a filthy POS, who gives Jews a bad name.

  3. right nahum, cuz douches like you who speak loshn hora about people they don’t even know don’t give jews a bad name at all; and blankley, who works for a guy who said “Jewish people, you have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed six million Jews. That is why,” is a total saint.
    jackass.

  4. Mobi-
    is there a difference between
    “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish”
    And
    “There is a resurgence of racism and violence against blacks in Europe. The policies of Thabo Mbeki contributes to that. If he changes that direction, then racism also will diminish.”
    I would consider blaming racism on the actions of a black leader a racist statement. Wouldnt you?

  5. is thabo mbeki’s country “the black state”? does it claim to speak in the name and represent the interests of “the black people”. are black american voters willing to forgoe all domestic concerns in order to provide unconditional support to thabo mbeki’s policies?
    if the answer to these questions are no, then yes, there is a very big difference between those two statements.

  6. From an extensive pluri-millenial experience, we know that Jews don’t cause anti-semitism, it has always been here under a form or another. It’s hw Israel’s acts are percieved (and often in a distorted way) rather than the acts themselves, which can influcence the virulence of that antisemitism.
    I do notice that the some ten years ago, there was that hack Pat Buchanan who was lauighed at for his rants against “UN world big govment Boo-Boo-Galley” and against “them damn zionists making us fight wars for their Isreal state”, notice how these ideas crossed over into the mainstream, of both left and right wings.
    Now that should scare you if you’re Stateside.

  7. Mobi-
    1) You have a losing argument here because if you are willing to make the connection between israel and the jews for the sake of this argument, then you have to do the same for all arguments and conclude that anti israel equals anti semitism. You cant say jews and israel are one and the same, and then say that criticizing israel isnt anti Semitic. Thats not being intellectually honest.
    I personally do not believe that criticizing israel is automatically anti Semitic, but at the same time if one claims israel should change its policies to decrease European anti semetism, then that is an anti semetic statement.
    2)Assuming the answers to all your questions is yes, you dont believe what my hypo quote is racist? (“There is a resurgence of racism and violence against blacks in Europe. The policies of Thabo Mbeki contributes to that. If he changes that direction, then racism also will diminish.” )
    Youre telling me that if whites in europe were burning black churches, lynching blacks, and not allowing blacks in their hotels/restaurants etc., it wouldnt be racist if someone got up and said, “if the ‘black state’ would change their direction, then racism will diminish.”
    Of course thats racist.
    FYI
    I couldnt tell if you knew or not but thabo mbeki’s is the president of south africa (at least he was at one point), a country that, coincidently, was more important to blacks in the U.S. during the 80s, then many domestic policies.

  8. Jimbo: “I personally do not believe that criticizing israel is automatically anti Semitic, but at the same time if one claims israel should change its policies to decrease European anti semetism, then that is an anti semetic statement.”
    First, any criticism is fair game, as long as it is constructive. That’s the important part. To establish a pretext by simply condemning Israel as “racist” to attack Jews anywhere is absolutely antisemitic. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish idea that Jews are responsible for other Jews, and an old American saying that one shouldn’t give oneself enough rope to hang oneself. All these things can be at play at the same time, and that’s unfortunate.
    But that’s not what Soros was on about. The way I read his statement, Soros was advocating holding ourselves to a higher standard. The difference between that and antisemitism is where non-Jews hold Jews to a higher standard than they are willing to hold anyone else, especially themselves. Human rights and Sudan as head of the UN Human Rights Commission, for example.
    That said, Tony Blankley’s comments are obviously and deliberately meant to misrepresent Soros’ statements in form and context. That’s bad enough, but Blankley uses that as a platform to launch into an assassination of Soros’ character. Especially the innuendo about “figuring out a way to survive the Holocaust,” which broadens the implications of all Holocaust survivors. Like the witch trial drowning technique whereby if the accused drowns, she is innocent as the water accepted the pure soul, but is guilty if the water rejects it and must be put to death.

  9. is thabo mbeki’s country “the black state”?
    You’re confusing administrative arrangements with public perception. The issue is not whether Israel truly speaks for all Jews — does it really claim to, by the way? this sounds odd to me — but whether the public perceives a link, ie identifies the one with the other.
    In the case of RSA, the same holds. To the extent that a given public identifies local “Blacks” with the RSA government, racism directed at “Blacks” may certainly increase with public disapproval the RSA.
    The common problem to both is what seems to me, anyway, to be a growing tolerance on the Left for a politics of hatred. We need to be able to criticise without making criticism identical to hatred, demonisation, etc.
    If that seems obvious, then go back and read the Comments to the Bush posting recently on this blog. On all sides of the argument. The analogy here is the critique of Adbusters, which thinks it’s promoting democratic institutions by fetishizing antidemocratic communications (slogans, groupthink, and so on) — when the way the Left should be going is to promote democratic communications, and work against the rise of the pensée unique.
    Oops. Ranting again…

  10. jimbo — read the e.u. & canadian reports on antisemitism. the vast majority of attacks are committed by young muslim males. i bet if you ask any of them why they “hate jews” they’ll tell you because of the occupation of palestinian territories and the slaughter and eviction of thousands of palestinians. is it racist? fuck yeah–no one here has said that that isn’t racist. but the point is still the same–if israel didn’t give people an excuse to hate jews, they’d have much less an excuse to do so. the climbing levels of antisemitism are linked directly to the climbing level of resistance to israeli occupation, and the occupation, as far as i’m concerned, is unjust.

  11. “but the point is still the same–if israel didn’t give people an excuse to hate jews, they’d have much less an excuse to do so.”
    “But the point is still the same–if blacks didnt commit so much crime theyd (racists) have much less an excuse to do so.”
    Nah, thats not a racist statement.

  12. 8opus: “The issue is not whether Israel truly speaks for all Jews — does it really claim to, by the way? this sounds odd to me — but whether the public perceives a link, ie identifies the one with the other.”
    Who put the THE in The Jews. The Jews speak in One Voice…. Is it good for The Jews…?
    Unfortunately we are stuck with certain roles in western mythologies, and the line between the national and religious components of Jewish identity is fuzzy as well. So, for all this we get to defend ourselves against periodic accusations of racism, apartheid, plagues, conspiracies, intransigence, colonialism, pirate capitalism, communism, or anything else people choose to blame certain problems on.
    Does anybody really see any of this changing suddenly when a couple hundred thousand Jews pack up and move behind a certain internationally recognized border?

  13. “but the point is still the same–if israel didn’t give people an excuse to hate jews, they’d have much less an excuse to do so.”
    “But the point is still the same–if blacks didnt commit so much crime theyd (racists) have much less an excuse to do so.”
    not the same thing at all. the black people behind bars do not call themselves “the black state” nor do they claim to act in the interest of all the black people. not only that, but blacks are not necessarily responsible for the majority of the crime in this country, whereas they constitute a minority of the population. rather they are disproporitionately prosecuted by a white majority.

  14. wow, way to go off topic.
    I was pointing out that the logic was the same.
    If X would change their ways, it would give less of an excuse for racists to hate Y.
    The distinctions you point out have no relevance to this argument. You know that if you replace black for jew, the result will be a racist statment, so you are fishing for meanlingless distinctions.
    So just answer this (from previous post):
    if whites in europe were burning black churches, lynching blacks, and not allowing blacks in their hotels/restaurants etc., it wouldnt be racist if someone got up and said, “if the ‘black state’ (assuming one existed) would change their direction, then it would give them less of an excuse to be racist”?
    I think most blacks would disagree with you.

  15. Soros is a rich total arsehole.
    People who are judenhaas don’t need an excuse to hate Jews…”Palestine” is just the latest excuse. Arabs and certain European types have been judenhaas before the existence of Israel and no doubt would be if it ceased to be.

  16. Instead of Mbeki try it with Robert Mugabe. For the purpose of this discussion, perhaps Zimbabwe could very well be considered a “black state.”

  17. Sigh. Well, last year a bunch of guys flew a couple of airplanes into some very tall buildings. They claimed to be acting in the name of all of Islam.
    Not coincidentally, a bunch of violence was visited by some Americans (non-Muslim) on other Americans (perceived to be Muslim).
    That was racist.

  18. In case anyone is still checking in, there’s some interesting stuff on Soros vs. the Rev. Moon and his media empire at
    http://tinylink.com/?m88YIJIFwH
    So, has the GOP sold out entirely to the Unification Cult? And is that why Dennis Hastert (R-IL) says all those terrible things about John McCain?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.