I am writing this not as an enemy of Andrew Sullivan but actually as a person who thoroughly enjoys his blog (most of the time). I make a point of reading it and I think his Iran coverage in particular has been amazing. It's opened peoples' eyes to the humanity of Iran, to the suffering and aspirations of its people, and put a face on an increasingly defensive and even brutal regime.

However, he's written some stuff recently, much of it in relation to Sarah Palin for whom he has a strong dislike, and also Bill Kristol, that has really upset me.

Now, I am not a Palin supporter and I'm from the other end of the political spectrum from her and Kristol, mostly, as you probably know.

But, using Israel, AIPAC and other American Jews/supporters of Israel or nascent fears of Israel or Jews as a means of attacking ideological enemies is wrongheaded.

Mearscheimer and Walt have played on classical antisemitic tropes of conspiratorial Jews with too much power, who secretly control the government in order to serve a foreign power and/or their own ends, which is particularly potent given the age-old disease of antisemitism that's never very far below the surface in our culture.

This piece in particular, entitled, "What President Palin's Foreign Policy Would Look Like," really made me nuts.

Allow me to quote: "In a phrase: AIPAC's foreign policy, with Cheney's torture regime in place..." AND it was accompanied by a picture, apparently, of Gaza under attack.

The flip side of this vision of all-powerful Jews is our actual vulnerability.

Andrew writes sensitively about human rights in Iran, about gay rights - and somehow misses the fact that Jews are historically among the most abused groups of people ever and that Israel itself is extraordinarily vilified among nations and is being victimized by the same sort of extremists who run Iran and who oppress people there and in regimes, including in Gaza.

And, this stuff is attacking the wrong target. If you want to attack a political enemy, by all means attack - just don't shoot me by mistake.

Andrew has responded at least in part to this TNR post, also linked here, which is a must read.

Here's the response.

I know nothing of these theological arguments, or the Auden kerfuffle, etc, but I do think the core arguments Leon makes, about "good Jews, bad Jews," have some merit.

I think we are in fact being stereotyped into "good Jews" and "bad Jews," with the bad ones being from the "wing" of Judaism which belongs to AIPAC, as if there were any such thing, and as if Israel for that matter were simply going around deliberately sabotaging Obama's peace plans, or as if there were no wars or terrorism in the Middle East and as if there were no history of violence against Jews there, and as if Israelis just want to crush Gazans for the sake of being mean.

I don't know if this is subconscious, if it's totally unintentional, or what.

I don't think Andrew Sullivan is in any sense a classical antisemite. He is defending Bronner against the ridiculous baloney going on at the NYT, as is Jeffrey Goldberg, He says he has defended Jews against Catholic bigotry and I believe him.

However, for a person who is so sensitive to the plight of people in the Iranian regime, Andy seems kind of tone-deaf to the situation of the Israelis, and also the Palestinians victimized by the Iranian proxy Hamas, and also the nature of the other Iranian proxy Hezbollah.

Worst of all maybe, he seems to be lumping supporters of Israel into a far right, warlike, "neocon", mode, which is per se "bad", regardless of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East and regardless of the variability of American Jews who, as Leon says, don't come in "wings" in any case.

"AIPAC" is construed by Andy, I think, to mean "far right, warlike, "neocon", and therefore "bad," when in fact AIPAC is bipartisan and a lot of its members, and a lot of people who support Israel are liberals.

In fact, Andy says he is a supporter of Israel. But, if that is so, how come there is no corresponding balance to the outrage over Gaza? And no discussion of the Palestinian impediments to the peace process?

Worst of all, we're being used as a bludgeon with which to attack Sarah Palin, Bill Kristol, "Christianists," et.al.

I resent this. Regardless of party politics, attacking Jews and/or Israel in order to score points against a political adversary isn't right and it makes us vulnerable.

The Protocols and Henry Ford and other antisemites blamed Jews for wars, revolutions, capitalism, communism, dual loyality, disloyalty, too much influence, conspiracies and being "oriental" among other things.

Accusing "AIPAC" of being responsible for American wars is straight up bigotry imo, but it isn't uncommon either on the Left or the Right, anymore than antisemitic tropes have been uncommon in the past.

And characterizing Israel as having trashed Obama's peace plans by launching Cast Lead really is maddening considering the years and years of rocket attacks and the refusal of Hamas to compromise, the Intifada, and all the wars against Israel.

I really like Andrew Sullivan's blog, I think he has a lot of good ideas, his work on Iran is excellent, I believe he supports human rights - he's surely aware of the lack of rights in other Middle Eastern regimes - he must be aware of Jewish history and the nature of antisemitism - so this stuff I just don't get.