The reference to Mel Gibson was because he, like Glenn Greenwald, felt there were secret forces working to silence him and prevent him from simply telling the Jesus story as it happened, and if it happened to be that angry Rabbis stood around spitting on Jesus, then why should Mel Gibson be criticized for showing that in a movie?

Mel Gibson claimed Abe Foxman and the anti-Defamation league were plotting with (presumably Jewish) Hollywood executives to prevent the release of his movie.

Then Gibson got drunk, pulled over by a cop, and unleashed a tirade about the Jews starting "all the wars" in the world. Gibson concluded by calling the cop "sugar tits."

The parallels to the poor, persecuted Mel Gibson's grand Jesus narrative and Glenn Greenwald's grand Israel narrative are exactly the same.

Both believe they're telling "just the facts."

Both believe they have no internal biases affecting them.

Both believe they're best on all sides by the forces of secret cabals with the power to silence dissent.

Now we just need to wait for Glenn to get pulled over by a cop after he's had a few drinks, and he'll have his "sugar tits" moment.

[WinSmith quoting GG]: Isn't this the "dual loyalty" argument that nobody is allowed to make upon pain of being accused of all sorts of bad things -- that the political beliefs of some American Jews are shaped primarily or even exclusively by loyalty to Israel?

[WinSmith's response]:

Uhm, no. No it isn't.

Dual Loyalty is the accusation that someone is secretly working to undermine their own government for the purposes of helping a foreign power or government

[My response to WinSmith]:

Uhm, no. "[T]he accusation that someone is secretly working to undermine their own government for the purposes of helping a foreign power or government" is not an accusation of "dual loyalty"; it is an accusation of treason. And it is actually an accusation that the a person has *unitary* loyalty, not dual loyalty. And that unitary loyalty is to a state not their own, or to some other power outside their own state (e.g. the Pope, in the case of the allegations that were made against J. F. Kennedy).

Mark Marshall

Toronto

It's about a state of mind which neoconservatives have assumed, from which lofty vantage they view everyone they disagree with as incapable of intelligent analysis, so simple that they must only be single-issue voters. They then proceed to decide which single issue they should be voting on, and pronounce them hypocrites.

American Jews - the single issue must be Israel. American Christians - the single issue must be abortion, and if they do not vote to support the most extremist views, they are "not real Christians". Blacks who voted for Obama did so only because he is black and are racists - or reverse racists.

The close resemblance between Norman Podhoretz and WinSmith: they are both in a state of permanent apocalyptic excitation about their ethnic enemies. Why are some folks much more susceptible to this psychological syndrome (disorder, really) than others? Extreme xenophobia, of course, perpetually generates and provokes the conditions that the xenophobe most fears. And of course they fail to see and appreciate the paradox and the comical absurdity of their self-destructive behavior.

WinSmith? As in Winston Smith? LOL! Well, that explains the rather pronounced persecution complex. I've read some of your posts (just to get caught up) and you're hilarious; the last one just rocks:

"Poor Mel Gibson. He just wanted to make a movie about Jesus, and if the historical record happened to tell him that hook nosed Jewish satanic Rabbis secretly plotted to betray Jesus, then why is that Mel Gibson's fault? Like Glenn Greenwald, he's just telling the story as it happened. Sugar tits."

"Sugar tits." LOL! Seriously, though, you are just yanking our collective chain, correct? You don't actually believe this crap...

Anyway, there are actually people who DO believe that this type of invective works. Take the situation that is presently going on in Canada at the Toronto International Film Festival (or TIFF). Some celebrities and activists, notably Jane Fonda and Naomi Klein, have called for a boycott of celebrations of Tel Aviv's hundredth birthday that the TIFF has planned through the viewing of some short films by Israeli artists. The petition of signatories for the boycott, as I understand it, is apparently a kind of solidarity with the people of Gaza.

Of course, the real question here is whether artistic expression should be denied for the sake of fostering awareness and sympathy for an embattled population. Some people, such as myself, have expressed reservation and doubt as to the desirability of this course of action; others, like Fonda and Klein, are convinced that though the artists and their art are unquestionably not the objects of attack, the actions of their country - i.e., Israel - make them necessary victims in the greater struggle for Palestinian rights. It is, to be sure, a difficult issue to grapple with since no ideal solutions are forthcoming.

But instead of debating this dilemma honestly, we get the lunatics from the pro-Israel camp dragging the debate down to street level - eventually ending up somewhere in the sludgy depths of the sewer. Take the always affable David Frum: having to deal with the rather inconvenient fact that many Jews (and Israelis) support the boycott, Mr. Frum cannot simply cry antisemitism and be done with it. Ah, but don't despair: where there's a will, there's a way! Abusing history like a seal during hunting season, Frum comes up with this analogy drawn from another sad chapter in Jewish history (WinSmith! Pay attention and see how a master does it):

"And indeed, some Jews and some Israelis have submitted. They sign these petitions in hope, perhaps, of finding some personal escape for themselves from the vilification of Jews in general.

This too is an ancient pattern.In 15th century Spain, some of the most bloodthirsty persecutors of the Jewish population were the children and grandchildren of Jewish converts to Christianity. They may have hoped by their zeal against their kin to prove themselves to their menacing neighbours. I think of them when I see the sprinkling of Israeli names among the long roster of signatories to the Toronto declaration against the film festival."

(Source:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/12/david-frum-israel-denounced-for-what-it-is.aspx)

Now, though Frum does lack WinSmith's rather unrestrained lunancy and earnestness, being a former Bush speech writer he more than makes up in with his inspired perversion of history and his insufferable sanctimony. I guess what I'm trying to say is not to take these sad sods too seriously. Let us, instead, see some of the comedic value of their junk thinking.....

P.S.: Glen, great post!