OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today has a good run-down on Said, Moran and Buchanan's recent pronouncements and the question of anti-Semetism. I've put pointers to two of those (Said and Buchanon) here previously.


I'm against being too quick to cry "anti-semite." Neither Moran nor Buchanan's statements were, in and of themselves, anti-semitic. It's all in the context and the past history of the person. From the context of the Moran statement (that he was addressing a self-identified Jewish person) it doesn't sound like an anti-semitic statement at all, frankly. In fact, it just sounds accurate. That doesn't mean he's not an anti-semite - he may very well be and I understand he has a bit of a checkered past, but I think we should be careful with these accusations.


Buchanan has issues.


What's dangerous in too-quickly writing off some of these people as anti-semites, though, is that one misses the opportunity to address the substance of the issue, if any. This is particularly true in the case of Buchanan's editorial. The fact is that I have never felt any dissonance between my pro-Israel stance and my feelings as a patriotic American. We share so much in common history, background, culture, goals, enemies and a common future, that there's just no issue or worry for me, nor do I expect there to be and I don't mind stating so.


OTOH, if you're talking about overt crap like David Duke's droolings over the ZOG or somesuch, well, I admit, it would be a waste of time to spend much energy rebutting, like arguing with the tin-foil cap crowd over Roswell - but that's not the case with someone like Buchanan. He's far more likely to have tapped into something unsaid but felt by a lot of people, and the chance to address those thoughts is not an opportunity to be thrown away lightly.


OT: One of Taranto's readers suggests "Serious Consequences" as an alternate name for the MOAB. I couldn't agree more!