Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Jim Moran's Tiresome Attack/Apology Routine

The endless cycle of Jim Moran's outbursts and apologies long ago became tiresome. Yet the congressman from Alexandria remains popular in his district, reasonably effective in the House, and pretty much unbeatable in his reelection bids.

Moran is up to his old tricks once again, railing against the supposedly dominating power of the Jewish lobby in this country, even as he argues that most American Jews basically ignore their own lobby's unparalleled sway. Moran's comments to the radical Jewish magazine Tikkun are as strangely illogical as they are wrongheaded and inflammatory.

Read Moran's interview in Tikkun (the interview is at the bottom of the article I link to above) and you'll see that the congressman ascribes enormous and frightening power to AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. "If you cross AIPAC," Moran says, "AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating."

Ah, it's the Jewish-controlled media again. That would be the same media that is routinely assumed by much of Jewish America to be wholly in the tank for the Palestinians and the academics who rail against Israel.

But Moran is much too smart to fall for simple conspiracy theories. He recognizes and states forthrightly that indeed, most American Jews reject AIPAC's consistent support for military solutions and tough measures against Palestinian attacks. "Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war," Moran says. "There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans."

Somehow, though, the fact that most Jews don't agree with AIPAC's view of the Middle East conflict, and the fact that most Jews--both voters and the Jews who are elected officials in Washington--oppose the war doesn't move Moran from his bedrock belief in the power of the Jewish lobby: "...because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful--most of them are quite wealthy--they have been able to exert power," he tells Tikkun.

As a Jewish Democratic group points out, if the Israeli lobby in Washington were as powerful as Moran makes it out to be, and if that lobby somehow is to blame for the United States going to war in Iraq, then how is it that a) Jews are more opposed to the war than any other religious group in this country, and b) many of the Jews in Congress voted against the war? Moran never explains this. He prefers instead to take his reasonable critique of AIPAC's political and military positions and apply it to Jews writ large.

AIPAC, the congressman explains, supports "domination, not healing. They feel that you acquire security through military force, through intimidation, even through occupation, when necessary, and that if you have people who are hostile toward you, it's OK to kill them, rather than talk with them, negotiate with them, try to understand them, and ultimately try to love them."

Jim Moran seems to have a deep need to blame Jews for the war in Iraq. In 2003, he said this: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." Funny, but I thought the folks who decided on and planned this war were named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and their various staffers. But Moran, despite repeated apologies for the tone and simplistic approach of his 2003 remarks, continues to peddle his bizarre notions about Jewish power.

But perhaps Moran is right. Perhaps the Jewish leaders he believes to be so influential are the same ones who, following the firestorm over Moran's 2003 remarks, summoned their wealthy donors and their puppets in the press and rose up and defeated Jim Moran.

Oh, wait, Moran destroyed his Republican opponent by 172,000 votes to her 106,000? And before that, Moran prevailed easily in the Democratic primary, winning 59 percent of the vote to beat challenger Andrew Rosenberg? Hmm, better check that Jewish lobby's omnipotence.

Once again, Moran is both defending his statements and apologizing for them. Moran's spokesman, Austin Durrer, told a Washington Jewish newspaper that Moran "understands that the tone of some of his comments ... may have been unnecessarily harsh." Yet Moran wasn't backing off his statement at all to the Post's Amy Gardner: "I would like to have a reasonable, objective discussion about AIPAC's foreign policy agenda. But it's difficult to do that because any time you question their motives, you are accused of being anti-Semitic."

Attack, apologize, reiterate the attack--that's the Moran method. Which is a tried and true rhetorical style. The problem here is bigger: A congressman who repeatedly chooses to make wild generalizations based on some of the ugliest stereotypes in history.

(Why does he do it? I think it's because this is what he genuinely believes. But for those who believe money is the driving force in politics, there's this: Iin the 2004 election cycle, according to, all--every penny--of the money the Jim Moran campaign received from foreign policy and defense-oriented PACs came from Arab and Muslim groups.)

By Marc Fisher |  September 17, 2007; 7:13 AM ET
Previous: HD Radio: 8-Track Tapes Of Our Age, Or The Next Big Thing? | Next: You Can't Take Pictures Here (Cont'd): Redskins Edition


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Marc misses the point here. The Christian right have assigned themselves a Messianic role when it comes to 'protection' of Israel. This most definitely played a very large role both in how we react to Palestinian issues and how we decided that Saddam Hussein was a 'threat'. That is, we viewed his theoretical ability to attack Israel as an attack on the US.

I personally believe that the Arab world is full of it when they discuss Palestinian issue.... Why is it that no one is asking Jordan to give up some of their lands that they got by fiat when Palestine was divided up by the British to make a Palestinian state? And Palestinians by and large supported the 1967 invasion of Israel that resulted in the mess we have now.

But anyone that thinks the US doesn't allow Israeli interests a whole lot of leeway is fooling themselves.

Posted by: Hillman | September 17, 2007 8:14 AM

The Post's tiresome routine of mindlessly defending AIPAC and calling anyone who disagrees with them Anti-Semitic is getting really old too. How many Post columnists will come forward to defend teh actual truth of what Moran said? So far, every Post columnist that has touched upon the subject is personally attacking Moran. Now, Fisher calls Tikkun "radical". I think AIPAC is radical with it's fanatical, Zionist first agenda. How is promoting a war by the US against Iraq and now against Iran for the benefit of Israel not radical? Maybe if AIPAC got Israel to fight its own wars, it would have a little more legitimacy. Moran is absolutely right and the Post needs to stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with AIPAC is "radical".

Posted by: C-Dog | September 17, 2007 8:18 AM

Agree with two prior comments. This is all about the Mearsheimer/Walt book and there's nothing except pointing out the obvious in that book. And Fisher is wrong when he chides Moran for the seeming inconsistency of arguing the warmongering of AIPAC and the liberal nature of Jews in the U.S. That's exactly the problem described by Mearsheimer/Walter ... the lobby is completely out of step with American Jews and doing harm to the long term interests of Israel. Stop pushing the anti-semitic talking point line!

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2007 8:49 AM

After listening to Moran's interview on WTOP Saturday, the entire premise of this article is off-base as Moran specifically refused to apologize for stating what he believed was factual. Regardless of whether you align with Moran's point of view, Marc Fischer's reporting is off the mark.

Posted by: Kurt | September 17, 2007 8:50 AM

Marc, I haven't read the interview. So, I'm commenting here based on the Post article about the interview and your column today. Therefore, if I misunderstand anything, it's due to poor reporting on your part.

However, based on your column, I fail to see how Jim Moran's comments on AIPAC are anti-Semitic. In fact, he seems to think AIPAC isn't even representative of most Jews. Isn't that the opposite of being anti-Semitic? I suppose he could be wrong about AIPAC's power to "destroy" you politically, but having such a misguided belief about a particular organization hardly qualifies as anti-Semitism. If that were the case, then any time someone engages in hyperbole about an organization, you could characterize them as bigoted against some ethnic group (whatever ethnic group makes up the majority of the organization's members, even if the organization itself does not represent the ethnic group as whole).

I think, Marc, that a little critical thinking on your part would be helpful here. In what way does Jim Moran characterize Jews as a whole in a negative, bigoted light in this interview? If you can answer that with clear examples, then I'll agree with you about the anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Ryan | September 17, 2007 9:10 AM

Moran is one of the most dishonest politicians in all of Washington. This is not the first time he has attacked the Jewish Community. Earlier he said that the US went to war not for Israel, but for the Jewish Community here in the US.
However, as Marc points out, this doesn't add up. The Jewish Community is approximately 70-80% liberal/ democrat and votes at a percentage far greater than its numbers. Supposedly 50% of the democrats primary money in 2004 and 2006 came from donors believed to be Jewish.
AIPAC would not have been pushing for this war because Sharon himself did not favor it. In documents that have been released since his stroke there is strong proof that he cautioned Bush this war was going to be a real handful if not a disaster, but his friendship kept him from going public.

Moran has always taken any chance to go after the Jews, and this is just another example. I don't know if he is anti-semetic, or just an untrustworthy person with no morals (see is hand in vote MBNA credit cards. He made a 180% flip right after receiving a huge loan at way below market rate.)

I don't know if the people above are just uninformed or something worse. Only they will know.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 9:14 AM

While ascribing overwhelming power and animus of AIPAC toward politicians they disagree with is not anti-Jew in itself, it is also true that Moran had blamed Jews squarely for the war in Iraq more than once. That alone is clearly an expression of bigotry toward Jews. For that reason alone I will never vote for Moran again, even though I vote almost exclusively for Democrats and independents. Bigots have no place in our government at any level.

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2007 9:28 AM

Substitute "NRA" for "AIPAC" and no one would have the slightest problem with what Jim Moran said. Why is it beyond the pale to point out the obvious, that AIPAC--like many other groups on different issues--is a very powerful lobby?

Posted by: DC Lawyer | September 17, 2007 9:31 AM

Its obvious who his donors are before you even left the bottom blurb about Muslims. I worked on his opponents campaign in 2004, ran into him a couple times and the guy is, without a doubt, one of the most dispicable human beings I've ever met. He just strikes me as being filthy, but then again whos not crooked in D.C.?

Posted by: Fear-N-Loathing | September 17, 2007 9:33 AM

If you criticize AIPAC, then you're anti-semitic.

Isn't that "illogical," Marc?

Posted by: Dan | September 17, 2007 9:40 AM

Mr. Fisher,
You just proved Jim Moran's point. He talks about the dominant influence that AIPAC has on politicians and you call him anti-semitic to try and discourage anyone else from talking about AIPAC's tactics.

This Zionist "McCarthyism" seems to be speerheaded by the Washington Post. I'm disgusted.

Posted by: Indy | September 17, 2007 9:51 AM

The Congressman has a long list of embarrasing gaffes and mis-steps that his friends and supporters ignore year after year. He does little for the 8th District, except just before an election, when all the local papers trumpet the money he has brought to all of us, mostly grants, ignoring his failure to do much since the last election. The Dems offered a great opportunity with Andy in '04 to put someone else in his place, and his Republican opponent was a moderate and another opportunity to take him out. Both were rejected. As long as the hard core 8th District Dems have a lock on the Alexandria Council, Arlinton Board, and Falls Church City Council he will remain in the seat. Jim's continuing lethargic efforts in the House to accomplish much of anything of value or concrete nature will continue. He will do what Jim Murtha tells him to do, and little else. How many other Congressmen with his years on the Hill have no leadership position? He has no committee, sub-committee, or any other leadership position, while many freshmen outrank him and have respect among Democratic leaders that he will never enjoy. We are stuck with him until he chooses to leave, and need to watch carefully who he annoints to take his place. It is long past time for Jim to go.

Posted by: Dave | September 17, 2007 10:01 AM

"supposedly dominating power of the Jewish lobby in this country."

I thought Moran was refering to AIPAC not the "Jewish" lobby?

There are more Jewish scholars than you can shake a stick at who say the exact same thing as Moran. I guess they just hate themselves. If a black person disagrees with the NAACP on certain issues and tactics then they are Anti-Black. You make Moran's point by this article.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 10:01 AM

Hillman, 1967 Invasion? Stick to immigration issues which you also know little of.

Posted by: wtf | September 17, 2007 10:52 AM

marc, why don't you list aipac's donations to us senators and congressmen? The amount given to them all is outrageous.

Maybe for you, the truth hurts...

Posted by: concerned citizen | September 17, 2007 11:01 AM

The barely-covered streak of anti-Semitism that runs through current 'liberalism' (as shown by Mr. Moran as well as all the commenters here defending him) is really disturbing. I think it comes from the liberal narrative that all situations can be boiled down to the oppressors and the oppressed, and that the ones who are 'oppressed' are automatically the good guys in any situation. Since, according to liberals, Palestinians are being oppressed, it's therefore required to condemn Israel.

Posted by: kr | September 17, 2007 11:10 AM

Two comments:

1) There is a difference between Jews and Zionists, as has already been pointed out by other comments.

2) Arabs are Semites, too. It is dishonest to label people as anti-Semitic when those people are merely anti-Zionist. Not only is it dishonest, but it makes you look like a fool.

Posted by: eric | September 17, 2007 11:25 AM

Why is it whenever criticism is directed at Israel, AIPAC, or anyone of the Jewish faith, the critical person is immediatly labeled an anti-semite? Jim Moran is not Adolph Hitler and this isn't 1939 Nazi Germany. Is it possible to have a critical discussion about Israel without being labeled anti-semetic?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 11:26 AM

There are many legit criticism of Israel. However blaming the Iraq war on AIPAC or Israel, where there is little if any evidence that either of these groups support it, that stinks.

When you make up false points, and then fall back on the why can't we criticize the Jews, its get old.
Part of the problem is that there is no legit voice for the arab side that has not been tied (directly or indirectly) to the support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 11:50 AM


Oh, my mistake. The massive buildup to invasion, where Arab countries massed huge armies right on the Israeli borders, but Israel essentially destroyed them in a matter of days.

Posted by: Hillman | September 17, 2007 11:57 AM

From the Post Article, indisputable proof that Moran blames Jews when there is no evidence to prove his point is true. The guy is just scary in todays day and age. He also returned money from someone connected to Hamas and Hezbollah. (Hezbollah has killed more US citizen than anyone except Al-Qaeda).

And in 2003, at an antiwar forum in Reston, Moran said: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 12:00 PM

Moran is absolutely correct. He is one of few people in congress willing to say the truth and stand up for America. AIPAC has been cheering for Iraq war from the very beginning.

Posted by: Joe | September 17, 2007 12:11 PM

There are a lot of people saying AIPAC is in favor of a war in Iraq, but not a single one has provided any proof of this. The website says that AIPAC is not in favor of US intervention in Iraq or Iran.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 12:15 PM

Moran has been an embarrassment for years, but keeps getting reelected. As long as a politician votes the way his constituents prefer, he can pretty much say or do as he pleases. I don't think Moran's liberal district is going to vote Republican just because it finds him inane. However, why can't an Alexandria Democrat step up and take him on?

Posted by: mart | September 17, 2007 12:18 PM

To all those who say that AIPAC didn't actively support and incite the Iraq war, including Mark Fisher...there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.

Posted by: Ken | September 17, 2007 12:24 PM

Let's parse what Moran actually said vice what his detractors claim he said. Moran said that AIPAC is a powerful lobby. AIPAC IS a powerful lobby. Moran said that AIPAC did back US action in Iraq. AIPAC DID back US action in Iraq. Moran said that AIPAC doesn't share the political views of most American Jews. I daresay, Marc makes the same claim!

So, why do Marc and all the other columnists go after Moran? Because he attacked AIPAC. Now, why should Marc and all the other reporters care whether Moran attacks AIPAC? Perhaps, because they agree with AIPAC and disagree with Moran. Does that give Marc or any other reporter grounds to call Moran an anti-semite? Well, there are lots of American jews who characterize any criticism of any jewish organization or Israel as anti-semitism. That doesn't make it so. On the merits, Jim Moran said nothing anti-semitic. But those with an axe to grind want to discredit him, so they claim he did. It's a cheap shot.

If AIPAC is not so powerful that they can get newspapers to attack politicians they don't like, why is it that not a single Post reporter or commentator was willing to actually play devils advocate and defend Moran?

Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 12:26 PM

Fisher sterotypes Jews as monolithic and in lock step with AIPAC. He is to lazy to go to the opinion polls to compare the positions of AIPAC with the opinions of American Jews. In his effort to kiss AIPAC Booty Fisher places all Jews in a ideological ghetto.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 12:46 PM're absolutely correct. If Moran wasn't such a great congressman and did not have the strong support of his people. AIPAC and the washington post would have taken him down already. Most shameful is no washington post journalist will defend Moran. You know why? The moment he or she does so, you can be sure they'll end up in the unemployment line.

Posted by: Joe | September 17, 2007 12:50 PM

Two stupid comments:

"1) There is a difference between Jews and Zionists, as has already been pointed out by other comments."

Yeah, there a a few nutty Jews who don't support Israel's right to exist, so the overlap of Jews and Zionists is only around 99 percent. How silly of Marc.

?2) Arabs are Semites, too. It is dishonest to label people as anti-Semitic when those people are merely anti-Zionist. Not only is it dishonest, but it makes you look like a fool."

Please, ace, that is such a tired -- and inaccurate bleat. The word anti-semitic is DEFINED to apply only to people who don't like Jews. It has nothing to do with what other people are semitic. The word was coined in Germany in the 19th century -- not many Arabs in Germany back then.

So you in fact are the one who looks like a fool.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 17, 2007 12:54 PM

A great Congressman? I live in Arlington and I am disgraced to have him. What on earth has he done.

Lets get away from the whole Iraq war and his illogical blaming of Jews (not just AIPAC) for the Iraq war and look at the MBNA scandal.

He changed his vote because he got a better loan. This isn't in dispute. The guy is dirty.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 12:56 PM

Get back to the metro beat. you're so out of your depth here.

Posted by: Rich | September 17, 2007 12:58 PM

Zionism is racism, enough said.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 12:58 PM

Though Moran's comments about ties to papers and magazines may smack of "powerful conspiracy", his primary point is that this interest group - much like the NRA or the AARP or the NEA or any other powerful (and legal) interest group - may sometimes pursue policies that are not in the best interests of the majority of American citizens.

To say that the policies AIPAC and other like-minded organizations (including those of a Christian or neo-con bent) support are sometimes to the detriment of the United States is a) not a tacit approval of Hizbullah or Hamas, b) not an implication of a "secret cabal" (of the type we hear about from the reprehensible "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion") and c) not tantamount to anti-Semitism.

What Mr. Fisher (or at least his less Metro-minded colleagues) should be writing about is whether or not America's unwavering support for Israel is justified and whether it serves America's best interest, or whether we should support a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to our politics and diplomacy.

A deep examination of of our policies toward not just Israel but many other nations would be valuable. It would be fascinating to read about the implications of our present relationships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Iran, Jordan, Syria, and more.

A side note: It was amazing to listen to Walt And Mearshimer on NPR's On Point a few weeks back, having read the book. These guys tiptoed through this book to avoid the charges they knew would be levied against them, and still the charges (straw men and all) came rapidly and resoundingly. Recommended to all as a podcast.

Posted by: Tom | September 17, 2007 1:08 PM

Why do I have a feeling there is a suicide bomber out there you should be supporting. Maybe if you took once ounce of your hatred for Israel and protested Hamas, the people of Palestine who so many Anti-israel people pretend to care about wouldn't be so bleak.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 1:08 PM

The people of Palestine are suffering because of Israel's racist and aparthield policies, not because of hamas or hizbolla. AIPAC doesn't want Americans to find out the truth, that's why they're up in arms the moment anyone mentions the truth. But guess amount of AIPAC stromg arm smear tactics can hide the truth any more.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 1:24 PM

This is the first time I can say this, but Marc is completely correct on this. Moran has a free pass to say and do whatever he wants regarding his anti-jew/israel agenda, but the voters of his district (my district) will just continue to vote him into office time and time again.

Its this sort of mindless voting that has allowed our congress to become nothing more than a useless group of finger pointers, accomplishing nothing.

Posted by: steve | September 17, 2007 1:30 PM

I will raise a motion at the next Council of the Elders of Zion to have him politically eliminated.

Then I will make sure that none of his children ever gets a job in the media. We will not even publish their letters to the editor. They can also rule out finance, entertainment, medicine, and law as careers.

Then I will elevate Marc Fisher to Editor in Chief of the Washington Post, which the Jewish cabal controls through Warren Buffet, a robotic animatronic puppet who takes orders from Reb Rev Shalom in Brooklyn Heights, New York.

And after all that is done, I will go back to my lunch of baby rack of Christian ribs and blood of Christ martini.

Ah, just another long day in the life of the average world-controlling chosen person of God, may He keep and protect all of you other unwanted mistakes...

Posted by: This Jew will take Moran down | September 17, 2007 1:51 PM

I guess you missed the article about how abusive the Hamas regime in Gaza is to its people in TODAYs post. They have beaten people in the streets and are imposing Islamic law in taliban style way. This is not Israels fault. I also doubt Hamas plans to have free and fair elections when the time comes.

But by now I can tell you would support a suicide bomber over virtually anything remotely Pro-Israel. Thanks for exposing your true feelings.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 1:51 PM

As the saying goes, he may be an SOB, but he's our SOB. My wife and I, both Democrats, were relieved when the districts changed a few years back and we didn't have to support Moran any more, but we still have to root for him to win in the general election. Why? Because any GOP opponent is loaded down with the baggage of the Virginia GOP and their right-of-Attila platform, and we could not vote against Moran and let that agenda in. The same logic continues for those still in his district, and the VA GOP is so tied to fringe right, "ram it down their throats" politics that I don't see them seriously challenging him with anything resembling a moderate opponent for years to come.

Why doesn't another Democrat oppose him? Because he's guaranteed to win, and no challenger is.

Posted by: SWheelock | September 17, 2007 1:59 PM

More Moran Dirty-Dog Deals

On June 19, 2006, the Washington Post reported that Moran supports earmarks stemming from "Project M," a technology involving magnetic levitation. To date, the project has received $37 million in earmarks. This project was designed to keep submarine machinery quieter, keep Navy SEALs safer in their boats, and protect Marines from roadside bombs. The Pentagon, however, has said that it has no use for the project. The owner of Project M's prime contractor, Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., has given $17,000 to Moran's campaign.

Posted by: J-boy | September 17, 2007 2:04 PM

Jim Moran keeps being reelected in a district with about ten Republicans in it.

Even a good number of Democrats are ashamed of him.

But Alexandria is the One Party Town and nobody rocks the boat. Sad.

And a little scary.

Posted by: CarolH | September 17, 2007 2:06 PM

Hey Marc Fischer... follow the money, will you? Israel has received more foreign aid and loan guarantees from the US than any other Nation on earth. The only other Nation who gets nearly as substanial amount is Eygpt, who were given more only "after" they sign the Camp David accords. Well, well then, how do you think they influenced the US Congress? Let me spell it out for you AIPAC!

Posted by: Bob | September 17, 2007 2:12 PM

If Arlington had a decent percent run against him in a primary the Democrats could actually have someone who is not a disgrace represent them.

Of course at some point maybe AIPAC will target Moran, and the haters in this thread will have another person to complain about.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 2:13 PM

Hey "Bob," why should we have given anything to Egypt before Camp David, since they were allied with the USSR?

LOL what an asinine comment.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 17, 2007 2:16 PM

If AIPAC could destroy anyone who criticized it, why is Moran constantly reelected? Isn't he the the biggest argument for why he's wrong?

Posted by: fmjk | September 17, 2007 2:29 PM

Well...the washington post is trying to destroy Moran right now.

Posted by: Joe | September 17, 2007 2:33 PM

I have had enough of trying to talk sense into the haters here. I think I am going to go ask the cabal for 72 virgins and a Million Dollar yacht. Does anyone have the number for the Cabal hotline? Since we do control the world, there won't be any problem obtaining this on short notice, right?

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 2:34 PM

Hey, Loudoun Voter, you just prove my point. Eygpt gets because they made nice with Israel. Why don't you go back to disparaging immigrants ;-)

Posted by: Bob | September 17, 2007 2:42 PM

Marc, why don't you write back to all the comments and explain, precisely, how criticizing AIPAC is anti-semitic?

Posted by: Ryan | September 17, 2007 2:43 PM

The voters of Virginia certainly have a knack for electing kooks to Congress. We have Moran who would be comfortable in the Germany of the 1930's as well in a padded cell in St. E's, former Senator Allen who could easily organize and address a KKK rally, and don't forget our new wild eyed anti-war and anti-common sense Democratic Senator. This is the same Virginia whose rresidents and elected officials are afraid to support voting representation in the House of Representatives for DC residents. The District voters couldn't do any worse than Virginia voters in electing their representative to Congress.

Posted by: DC Resident | September 17, 2007 2:53 PM

"Hey, Loudoun Voter, you just prove my point. Eygpt gets because they made nice with Israel."

Hey Bob, how are things in bizarro world, where the US lavishes money on its enemies' allies?

as for immigrants, uh, not everyone in Loudoun County is a bigoted mental midget. But nice stereotyping.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 17, 2007 3:13 PM

Why is it considered anti-semitic to point out that jewish lobbying groups influence too much power in government? If someone points out that the Democratic party is too influenced by the NAACP, people don't cry racism. You ought to be able to critize lobbyists and special interest groups' influence without being presumed to be prejudiced against that group.

I don't think the Jewish groups forced us into Iraq. But I do think that this country has a strong Jewish presence that makes their views known to Congress and contribute money to campaigns. I know that we've offered unwavering support to Israel in the face of human rights abuse against the Palestinian people. And one could certainly argue that Israel is justified in their treatment of the Palestinian people, but one could argue just as forcefully and credibly that the Palestinians are justified in their treatment of Israelis.

But by giving unwavering support to the Israelis, we've hurt our credibility in the region and exposed ourselves to the consequences. And sure, Isreal is the only democracy in the Middle East, but South Africa was a democracy during Apartheid, and we certainly distanced ourselves from it.

How can you not draw the conclusion that there is some connection between 1) the large jewish population in the US 2) the role of jews in the media and 3) the role of jews in government and our policies in the middle east. Fox News refers to suicide bombers as homicide bombers. Any time CNN tries to give news from the perspective of the palestinians, they are shouted down by Jewish organizations and issue an apology.

The reality is our news and our politics are shaped by the people who vote and watch tv, and a large number of them are Jewish. And damn few of them are Palestinians or arabs. And if we can't recognize or even talk about there being a connection, then Lord help us. Because we won't make any progress. We can't serve as an honest broker to lasting peace in the middle east, and we'll never truly understand some of the roots of the terrorism we are desperately fighting everyday.

So call Jim Moran a fool, and a buffoon for his inartfulness. But at least he's is trying to bring up a subject that desparately needs attention. I haven't seen many other politicians with the courage to do so.

Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2007 3:26 PM

King David Hotel

Posted by: M. Begin | September 17, 2007 3:28 PM call Israel the only democracy in the middle east, but there are 4 million arabs who live within the borders of so called Israel with no voting rights. The proper answer would be that Israel is the only apartheid nation in the middle east.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 3:52 PM

I guess the biggest mistake was for us to expect a filthy jew like Marc Fisher who works for the Washington Post to be objective and neutral in the first place.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 4:01 PM

filthy-mouth Mark spews: " call Israel the only democracy in the middle east, but there are 4 million arabs who live within the borders of so called Israel with no voting rights."

You're a lying sack of crap. Who do you think elected those Arabs serving in the Knesset, s-bag?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 4:08 PM

Lay off my Congressman-for-life. For some reason we in the 8th district keep re-electing this not lobbist loan taking, not child abusing, not ex-wife abusing, not anti-semetic, not Carpet Bagging, Virginia Gentleman.

Given the make up of the district, the best hope is for the democrats to oust him in a primary.

Posted by: 8th District & Proud | September 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Is it ok for us to call Mark an anti-Semite now that he has called Marc a filthy Jew? Way to show that you can hate Israel and not be anti-semitic. Everyone who hates Israel is not anti-semitic, but everyone who is anti-semitic hates Israel.

Also, I believe 20% of Israel and some members of the Israeli Congress are Muslim. Or is that just more propaganda from the Jewish controlled media and CIA factbook.

Posted by: Natstural | September 17, 2007 4:46 PM


AIPAC is *very* powerful and throws it weight around.

Moran is a jerk.

Film at 11

Posted by: wtf | September 17, 2007 4:52 PM

Wow - a lot of you are really brave with your mindless, hatred filled attacks when you don't have to own up to them.

If you really understood what is happening in Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, you would know that no one is right in this. Everyone has committed atrocities (note: this is the 25th anniversary of Sabra and Shatila).

I am an Arab American and support Israel's existence 100%. I don't agree with everything Israel does but I don't agree with everything the US does, or Lebanon, or France or ... the list goes on. I certainly believe the radical Palestinians who espouse suicide bombing are clearly wrong but I'm not going to caste a shadow on all Arabs. Nor will I castigate all Muslims because of the actions six years ago of 12 so-called Muslims. Should we categorize all white Christian men because of the actions of Tim McVeigh and the KKK?

Yes, to whomever wrote in about the correct definition of anti-semite, it does refer to discrimination of Jews. However, the definition of Semite does include Arab. It would make sense that someone could confuse the "anti" to refer to discrimination of all Semites.

Just because you can type inane hatred on this board, doesn't mean you should. Sheesh.

Posted by: BlogBunny | September 17, 2007 5:16 PM

Go screw yourself with your 72 virgins. If it weren't for Israel, your people will still be living in caves and without electricity.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 5:31 PM

Israel and Palestine should just get along just like the whites and blacks did in South Africa. Peace is possible.

Posted by: possible | September 17, 2007 5:35 PM

What you suggest is impossible. To have peace, Israel will have to part with the land they stole in 1948 and 1967. That will never happen. Ever seen a jew part with a nickle? Jew greed is the crux of the problem in palestine.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 5:44 PM

That wasn't me, BlogBunny. Its way to easy for people to flame someone elses name here. If an editor checks out the IP addresses they will see they do not match either of the two IP places I post from (work and Home).

Furthermore the comment about electricity just doesn't make any sense. People should have to sign in to make a post and have one screen name (each persons should be unique).

Anyone who gets their rocks off by pretending to post under someone elses name is kinda sick, IMO.

Posted by: Jon | September 17, 2007 6:03 PM

Nice, Loudoun Voter, for a moment I thought you were going to call me 'anti-semitic.' ;-)

Posted by: Bob | September 17, 2007 6:07 PM

This article supposes that "AIPAC" and "Jews" are synonyms. I think Moran would disagree.

I do.

Posted by: Charles Anderson | September 17, 2007 7:03 PM

Hot button!

With all the rant about "anti-Semitic", the only time the term is used in Mr. Fisher's article is in a direct quote from Congressman Moran.

Posted by: joe c | September 17, 2007 7:25 PM

First off, I think most thinking people can agree that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have f'd-up so many good opportunities for peace (or at least progress towards it), that it would be laughable if it didn't affect American interests so profoundly. And as someone who is of partly Jewish heritage, I do not hesitate to say that AIPAC's policies contradict both America's and Israel's long-term interests. For anyone who saw the Jewish chapter of Christiane Amanpour's "God's Warriors" program on CNN, you know that some of the fundamentalist Jews living in the West Bank (and formerly in Gaza) are just as twisted as Hamas (if not more so), though by necessity they rely on different tactics to achieve their goals. If our leaders could summon up the courage to tell these "religious" whack-jobs to take a hike, all of us would be better off: American, Israeli and Arab.

Posted by: TimUVA | September 17, 2007 7:29 PM

TimUVA....that's basically what Jim Moran was trying to do, and low life yellow journalist Marc Fisher and his AIPAC cheering zionazi washington post brown shirt buddies jumped on him.

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2007 8:16 PM

The respect and trust I held for the Washington Post between 1966 and 1980 quickly disappeared. With the death of Mrs Graham the trust evaporated like water on a 100 degree day.

Fishers' reporting is not bad, he just toes the line on the Posts' left wing dogma. Conservatives with a conscience don't last working for the Post. Goodbye! And a man has to eat!

Posted by: Al Bee | September 17, 2007 8:46 PM

When will the Jewish people wake up and see that it is the Democratic party that breeds anti-semitism?

Posted by: milly | September 17, 2007 9:09 PM

What makes Tikkun radical?

Posted by: Ted | September 17, 2007 9:16 PM

I guess the author was expecting no one to click on the final link in the article, where the supposed proof of Moran's motive lies: But for those who believe money is the driving force in politics, there's this: Iin the 2004 election cycle, according to, all--every penny--of the money the Jim Moran campaign received from foreign policy and defense-oriented PACs came from Arab and Muslim groups.)
Click on it, you'' see he received $8000.from these "arab and muslim groups, TWO PERCENT of his donations. In contrast, the defense industry gave him $103,500. I doubt the $8,000 was the incentive implied in the article. Who's being dishonest? Lying with statistics is an old one.

Posted by: Vince | September 17, 2007 9:21 PM

Read this article by Paul Craig Roberts:

Posted by: Ted | September 17, 2007 10:16 PM

Now for the good news tonight: NY Yankees won, Red Sox lost; Yankees only 3 1/2 games from first. Red Sox about to blow what was once a 14 1/2 game lead.
Now you all can go back to your who hates who more postings.

Posted by: Reality Check | September 17, 2007 11:30 PM

Thank you Mr. Fisher for a fantastic rebuke of Rep. Moran. As the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

Posted by: Jerome D. | September 18, 2007 12:05 AM

Jerome D. thank you for quoting Martin Luther King, Jr, - plagiarist, fornicator, father of many b@stard children and part time pimp. Of course blacks and jews love each other....they are both sucking America's tits dry, and they're working diligently to destroy America. Israel is the largest producer of ecstasy pills, and blacks sell it to our children.

Posted by: ColbertKingisapimp | September 18, 2007 1:43 AM

The MLK "quatation" is a fake, refuted LONG BEFORE

Posted by: lidia | September 18, 2007 5:19 AM

moran or moron like I call him doesn't like jews, neither does most of the dems. seems people don't care because they keep voting him in, pathetic. I for one will vote against him in every election until he is gone.

Posted by: dwight | September 18, 2007 5:45 AM

As some others have already pointed out, you are off base this time in your criticism of Jim Moran's comments about AIPAC's influence on both the media and politicians.

Moran's remarks in 2003 about the U.S. going to war in Iraq because of the influence of the Jewish community were indefensible. So, I didn't - and wouldn't - defend them.

But Moran's comments in the Tikkun interview were very different. He clearly distinguished AIPAC from the larger Jewish community and simply stated that this organization, composed of wealthy and powerful Jewish neo-cons, was a powerful lobby.

He also stated clearly that they are out of step with the larger Jewish community, which voted 70% for John Kerry and is largely opposed to the war in Iraq.

Colbert King, in his WaPo Saturday column, ends up asking Moran to give specific examples of AIPAC's undue influence on the media and the pressure they bring to those who oppose them.

While Moran may not have given those specifics, Rabbi Bruce Warshal, publisher emeritus of the Broward Jewish Journal, and respected South Florida rabbi, does lay out specifics of how AIPAC has brought pressure to bear even on pulpit rabbis who disagree mildly with AIPAC's political views. I document this, with extensive quotes from Rabbi Warshal, over on my blog,
I am also not clear why you believe that Tikkun, and Rabbi Michael Lerner, are radical. They are liberals to be sure. But Tikkun carries the writing of some of the most respected progressive thinkers, including Cornel West, Sister Joan Chitchester, and Tony Campolo, as well as Jewish writers. And Tikkun clearly condemns the anti-Israel positions of the true radical left.

I personally think they are naive about the prospects for peace in the Middle East and am more hawkish than they are. And I even think they, and Jim Moran, overstate the influence of AIPAC. But they do raise some valid points. They certainly are not anti-Semitic and I think you are off base in asserting they are.

Posted by: Anonymous Is A Woman | September 18, 2007 11:05 AM

So Jim Moran is called an antisemite for saying that the Jewish Lobby AIPAC pushed America to war in Iraq? We all remember in in 2002 and 2003 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Adelman, Michael Ledeen, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bill Safire, Charles Krauthammer and other supporters of Israel appearing on television night after night urging us to attack Iraq. Who is kidding Whom? The Jewish Lobby has been sacrificing America's treasure and blood for the benefit of Israel, and poor Jim Moran get attacked by the media for saying the obvious.

Posted by: mark | September 18, 2007 2:34 PM

The concerted attack by the Jewish lobby on Congressman Moran is outrageous. Notice how easily various Jewish writers and journalists can get their message out via various media outlets such as Washington Post, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, NY Post, TV networks and other Jewish controlled outlets. Why? Because all these media are owned/controlled by Jews. That is why Marc Fisher and others can easily attack Jim Moran, President Jimmy Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer for merely saying the truth.

Marc Fisher, We Americans are sick and tired of your pro-Israel propaganda. We have paid a heavy price by supporting Israel.

Posted by: Chris | September 18, 2007 2:44 PM

I lost all respect for Colbert King because of his attack on Jim Moran. Colbert's attack on Moran shows that if you are a second-rate journalist, you can still prosper if you obey the jewish masters.

Colbert is a clever monkey who knows that if he criticizes AIPAC and the jewish lobby, he will be sent to the rain forest. Colbert also knows that if he criticizes Moran, he will get a few extra bananas from his masters.

Posted by: Tim | September 18, 2007 2:56 PM

From the article:

"Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing espionage charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year.

Attorneys for lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have argued that the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.

'In other words, they'll tell us that back-channel disclosures are an everyday common practice?' [Judge] Ellis asked...

A former Defense Department official, Lawrence A. Franklin, already has pleaded guilty to providing Rosen and Weissman with classified defense information. Franklin was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison."

The preceding story is a fact. It is also a fact that the majority of the neo-conservative "thinkers" who brought us the Iraq debacle -- Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith -- are Jewish. The truth supports Mr. Moran.

Posted by: Bob | September 18, 2007 3:26 PM

An interesting observation:

95% of the comments, which are posted by ordinary Americans on this blog, are strongly supportive of Jim Moran, while 95% of the articles published in the "major newspapers" are critical of Jim Moran. These articles criticizing Jim Moran are mostly written by Jewish journalists and writers and are published in the newspapers like Washington Post (owned by Catherine MEYERS graham's family, NY Times (owned by Sulzberger), Wall Street Journal (owned by Kahn), Bloomberg (Ha! Ha!), NY Post (Zukerman) and other Jewish controlled media outlets.

In summary, while the vast majority of Americans agree with Jim Moran that the Jewish Lobby is responsible for the Iraq disaster, the Jewish controlled media continues to spread pro-Israel propaganda.

Posted by: jason | September 18, 2007 4:35 PM

"And Palestinians by and large supported the 1967 invasion of Israel that resulted in the mess we have now."

Hillman, there was no 1967 "invasion" of Israel. It was Israel that struck the first blow, on all fronts.

Premier Eshkol went on air saying that Israel did not intend to keep any of the land it would occupy in the course of action.

When a few months later the then Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, reminded Abba Eban of this, the Israeli Foreign Minister merely shrugged his shoulders and said "we changed our mind" (he should have said: Dayan forced us to change our mind).

Read Rusk's "As I Saw It" and also read the Israeli historians Shlaim and Oren on this - and then come back.

Posted by: Arie Brand | September 18, 2007 11:24 PM

I am tired of the media, that would include Mr. Marc Fisher, a Jew, who knows very well AIPAC calls the shoots in US Congress,both major parties and the White House (all presidents, regardless of party affiliation). AIPA writes ALL the legislation it wants passed for Israeli money, weapons and Middle East policies.When a Senate or House member does not sign on to the bill as a supporter, sponsor, co-sponsor, they are called all sort of names, screaming at staff and accuse the senator or congressperson of being supporters of terror (they say terror because that what its called in Israel, instead of terrorist)It is no secret, US has adopted Israeli doctrine of preemptive attack, see nothing wrong with Israeli collective punishment as recommended by a top Jewish lawyer and targeted assassinations. All are war crimes. and crimes against humanity, human rights!If any other country in the world committed these crimes, using US voters and taxpayers $blns in aid money and weapons,the US would sanctions them out of existence,economically! Marc Fisher, you are a mouth piece for The Jewish Lobby, as are most in the media. Shame on you for pulling the ANTI SEMITIC attack card, its, a Jewish thugishness "tiresome attack routine" on Congressman Moran. He is telling the TRUTH.You are NOT! So.. The Jewish Lobby runs US Middle East policy.Eventually "with any luck" it will backfire on them. Former PM Sharon said before he fell ill, "Israel is an empire built on lies" (he should know, he lived it and nurtured it) he said it in an interview with Haaretz, newspaper in Israel that Sharon threatened to close down a few times for telling the truth about the 40 year occupation of Palestinians and Palestine, Bush strongly advised Sharon better think about, it is not what Democracies do and is 'one' of the most essential freedoms, FREEDOM of THE PRESS. You and Foxman are the apologist for the Jewish Lobby and its YES, call for an Iraq attack and now Iran.US is 6,000 miles away, Israel is in striking distance of a REATALIATION if Iran is "preemptively attacked by US and Israel or US.Israel is not stupid,they only bombed a few sites in Iraq (this war) before Bush told them, stay out of the air space into Iraq and set up US real time monitors so Israel could watch the attack! How amusing they must have been for "third century mentally" crew who runs Israel, politicians and military READ the new book. written by two Jews (you would describe as "self hating Jews", since "anti semitic" would be an obvious lie)its called THE JEWISH LOBBY and it tells the history of the Jewish Lobbies in US and some interesting 'truthful' insight. The co authors are as I pointed out Jewish, and prominent professors, both were villainously attacked by the Foxman, Zion Org. of American (ZOA), AIPAC the American Israeli Public (Political) Action Committee and their ilk,in the medi, like you.

Posted by: SJ | September 19, 2007 2:07 AM

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made the decision to attack Iraq. All three are Christian. They came to power after Bush and Cheney won 16% of the Jewish vote in the 2000 election--a far lower fraction than they won of the Christian or Muslim vote. And yet Moran blames the Jews for the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in 2003.

Posted by: Chris | September 19, 2007 10:27 AM

We live in an upper middle class neighborhood in Fairfax County, Virginia. Almost all our neighbors and friends strongly believe that the Israel lobby pushed US to go to war in Iraq. One Jewish doctor in our neighborhood who strongly supported the war in 2003 recently said "I now oppose the war because it has not been managed well." Translation: a lot of people saw how the Jewish lobby pushed this war and are now starting to blame the lobby, which makes lot of pro-Israel people uncomfortable. We all knew that doctor supported the war only because he thought it would benefit Israel regardless of the consequence to the US.

As a republican, I salute Congressman Jim Moran for having the courage to speak the truth. I wish the Republican Congressman in my district would also have the courage to do the same. I will send my check to Jim Moran even though I can't vote for him.

Posted by: cindy | September 19, 2007 12:25 PM

Jewish lobby continues its propaganda in the media that Americans support Israel, but except for Jewish Americans (and some corrupt evangelical leaders fully paid by the Israel lobby), I have not seen too many Americans supporting Israel. Because the media is dominated by Jewish supporters of Israel such as Marc Fisher, they keep on printing the same lies. This has resulted in a strange situation - Most of us Americans know that Israel and the Jewish lobby is seriously harming our country, but the Jewish lobby keeps printing in the media that we love Israel.

Posted by: tim | September 19, 2007 12:59 PM

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made the decision to attack Iraq. All three are Christian. Need I say anymore. Bush is commander in chief it was his decision.

Posted by: marshall | September 19, 2007 1:18 PM

Marc...quite simply you're an idiot

You lambast Moran for making "generalisations" yet the likes of you and your fellow Bush lick-spittles have said NOTHING about the comments by the likes of ole walrus coward John bolton and the rest of his loud mouthed yellow bellied PNAC brigade directed against Iran and Iranians

Facts are that what Moran said was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. You and the rest of the dopey, uneducated AIPAC crew, as usual, will label comments like this as anti-semitic. Well it doesn't bother me because I know (unlike idiots like you) that semite refers to ALL peoples of the Mid east - not just jews as you seem to believe (maybe because your idiot pastor told you)

Posted by: DonR | September 19, 2007 2:25 PM

even though I vote almost exclusively for Democrats and independents. Bigots have no place in our government at any level.

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2007 09:28 AM

yeah that's why you vote for racist Repuke knuckledraggers.

what Moran said on AIPAC was 100% correct

The war with Iraq was pushed by the likes of Perle, Feith, wolfowitz, Kristol, Krauthammer etc - how many of them aren't Jewish ?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2007 2:28 PM

The barely-covered streak of anti-Semitism that runs through current 'liberalism' (as shown by Mr. Moran as well as all the commenters here defending him) is really disturbing. I think it comes from the liberal narrative that all situations can be boiled down to the oppressors and the oppressed, and that the ones who are 'oppressed' are automatically the good guys in any situation. Since, according to liberals, Palestinians are being oppressed, it's therefore required to condemn Israel.

Posted by: kr | September 17, 2007 11:10 AM

Try providing some evidence that liberals are anti-Jewish....should be amusing to see you ass-licking codpiece Bush worshippers provide some evidence for your claims - after all 4 years on we're still waiting for you idiots to produce those WMD you claimed were in Iraq.

When you've done that try getting an education. Semite refers to ALL peoples of the Mid East be they Muslim (which just happens to be the majority religion in that particular part of the world), Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Pagan or even Jewish. So even if you can manage to prove that Liberals are anti-Jewish (unlikely given your recent knuckle-dragging Puke history of proving your claims), you'll then have to prove that liberals are anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-atheist, anti-agnostic, anti-Zoroastrian, ant-pagan as well

That should provide you with a life time's work - that would be if you Republicans ever worked which has yet to be proven

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2007 2:38 PM

Jim Moran is under attack from the jewish groups and their media agents for saying the media is controlled by jewish interest. I believe a prominent jewish writer recently wrote that to say Hollywood and television is controlled by Jews is not antisemitic, but a mere statistical observation.

Several months ago, Jimmy Carter was viciously attacked by the attack dogs of the jewish lobby for criticizing Israel in his book. At that time, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who is a former lobbyist of the jewish lobby AIPAC, interviewed Dennis Ross, who is the head of an AIPAC funded organization, about Carter. So, we had a funny situation where the jewish lobby was interviewing the jewish lobby on jewish controlled media for an "objective view" on Carter.

Posted by: henry | September 19, 2007 3:34 PM

Marc- I"m a little disappointed with your column. As someone who should respect journalistic ethics of seeing both sides, you do a poor job of fairly reporting this story. I think anyone can fairly asses that the pro-Israel lobby has an outsized role in shaping the United States near universal support for the state of Israel. Although Moran may generalize too much, a fairer analysis on your part should have made this point clearer. I expect more from the Post.

Posted by: James | September 19, 2007 7:01 PM

Marc commented in his chat that his problem was more that Moran made the comments, then with all the comments themselves. Moran has a history of anti-semetic remarks, so his criticism can easily be viewed as an attack to Jews in general.

Also I pulled the definition of anti-semetism from websters:

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-tE-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

End of the story, its doesn't apply to all semetic people. Definitions can change over time and this really only applies to Jews. If you don't like it, write the people who create the definitions of words.

Posted by: Jon | September 20, 2007 5:36 PM

Given Fisher's anti-Moran diatribe and the overall pro-Jewish Entity bent of the mainstream news media, how about our renaming the latter the Jews media?

Posted by: Bernd | September 20, 2007 8:02 PM

While I don't believe that Jim Moran is an antisemite and I do believe that AIPAC and several interlocking lobbying groups do have too much influence (you could say the same about other lobbyists such as those who work for Big Pharma, the NRA, and the insurance industry too), I think some of the comments here are both appallingly igonorant and are truly antisemitic.

First, the media is not controlled by Jews. Some Jews do own some newspapers, such as the New York Times. But neither Katherine Graham, her husband Phil Graham, nor their son who now publishes the Washington Post are or were Jewish. They were all wealthy Protestants (what used to be called WASPS). Ironically, the Washington Post, itself, used to be criticized for being anti-Israel back in the 1970s.

One of the largest media moguls is an Australian of whom you might have heard, Rupert Murdoch. He owns the New York Post, Fox News and possibly quite soon the Wall Street Journal.

I would guess that the vast majority of WaPo writers are not Jewish, including Colbert King, who wrote the original scathing column about Moran.

And finally, it was not simply the Jewish neo-cons who influenced the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq. It is well-documented that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (who is not Jewish either) all were eager to find a way to invade Iraq almost immediately after 9/11 regardless of who was really responsible.

This has been written about by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former White House security adviser Richard Clarke both of whom published books with these allegations before the 2004 election.

The vast majority of Jews, 70 percent, do not support the war in Iraq, voted for John Kerry, and are not neo-cons. In fact, Jews as a group, more consistently than any other group in America, identify as liberals.

Posted by: Anonymous Is A Woman | September 24, 2007 11:42 AM

"The idea for Freedom's Watch was hatched in March at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker, according to participants."

Posted by: read the NYT | October 1, 2007 3:17 PM

Rice to Face Subpoena in Spy Case

The Associated Press
Friday, November 2, 2007; 3:32 PM

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more than a dozen other current and former intelligence officials must testify about their conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case.

Lawyers for two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year. Prosecutors had challenged the subpoenas in federal court.

Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman maintain the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.

If they ultimately testify in court, the trial in federal court in suburban Alexandria, Va. could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way U.S. foreign policy is crafted.

The lobbyists are accused of receiving classified information from a now-convicted Pentagon official and relaying it to an Israeli official and the press. The information included details about the al-Qaida terror network, U.S. policy in Iran and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors said.

But defense attorneys argued that top U.S. officials regularly used the lobbyists as a go-between as they crafted Middle East policy. If so, attorneys say, how are Rosen and Weissman supposed to know the same behavior that's expected of them on one day is criminal the next?

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the lobbyists have a right to argue that "they believed the meetings charged in the indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."

Posted by: Marc, care to respond? | November 2, 2007 4:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company