I’m Glad Joe Klein Could Do Research On Rashid Khalidi
Posted on October 31, 2008
I’d ask “what is with the MSM,” but, we all know the answer: in da tank
Herewe have the McCain campaign’s execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism–a favorite pastime, as we’ve seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I’ve never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I’d say that if we have a bigot here, it’s Mr. Goldfarb who, if he’s intent on calling people antisemitic–or any other epithet–should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I’d also like to know on what basis CNN’s Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)
Oooh, we have the fun “neoconservative” word crop up, something I doubt the majority of Lefties can even define, and don’t you love the “accusations of anti-semitism?” We have been treated to a constant call of racism charges ever since Obama broke his promise about running for president to run for president. First they were against Camp Hillary and her supporters, now they are against Camp McCain and his supporters. Remember
- If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
- Veiled racism seen in new attacks on Obama
- Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree
And those are just a few of the hits. When Palin was hung in effigy, not a peep. If Barry is hung in effigy, Racism! If you bring up Bill Ayers? Racism. Bring up Jeremiah Wright? Racism. Pflagher? Racism. Call Barry a socialist? Racism. Everything is racistunless you prostrate yourself at the feet of Obama. I’m surprised Joe Klein didn’t deem that bringing up Khalidi was racist. But, it was “bigoted.”
Anyhow, Klein could have at least taken the 5 minutes it takes on the Internet to research Khalidi himself. According to Discover the Network
- Former PLO operative
- Has justified as legitimate Palestinian “resistance” that results in death of armed Israelis
- Rejects the possibility of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Well, as a former member of the PLO, Khalidi certainly can’t be an anti-semite, right? Does that answer a bit of your question of how Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic, Joe? Why do Liberals members of the Credentialed Media have such a tough time doing research nowadays?
PS: Khalidi also fits right in to the mold of trotting out the “racism!” charge like other Leftists, as he did over the illegal immigration battle.
» Filed Under Bigotry, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Elections, Fraud/misrepresentation, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, News
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “I’m Glad Joe Klein Could Do Research On Rashid Khalidi”
Leave a Reply
Instead of “anti-semite” people need to stop trying to be fancy and just “anti-jew”, this way duchebags won’t correct them.
It’s like when someone corrects you because you called something “Frankenstin”, and they say “well, you know, it’s really Frankenstin’s monster, Frankenstin was the guy who…”
Shut up!! You know what I’m talking about, don’t pretend you don’t!
The Nazis were “anti-semites” right? They killed 6million Jews? Right? Ok? ok. Were on the same page.
I know it’s not the same topic, but the effigy of Sarha Palin makes me sick. It’s as if women have never been the focus of violence. And why? Because she’s made the grave error of wanting to protect the unborn. How dare she?
She’s got my vote.
This lead from the Corner at the National Review on line:
” the International Republican Institute, while McCain was chairing it (which he apparently still does), gave goo-gobs of money to a Rashid Khalidi founded Center for Palestine Research and Studies — specifically, $448K, which would be about six times what Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network got from the Woods Fund under Ayers/Obama.”
Why can’t bloggers take the time to do a little research?
“Anti-Semite” has historically been applied to Jews alone, not to other Semites. It’s just a specious trick to suggest that a Semite cannot be anti-Jewish just because the word “anti-Semitic” *seems* to refer to all Semites. This seeming is a ploy, a way of twistic the historically sanctioned use of the word. But that is irrelevant to the matter of Khalidi, who is accused of being against Israeli policies, not agains Israeli, or for that matter American Jews. Ever since I heard an interview with Khalidi a decade ago I didn’t like what he said. I think he’s sneaky and dishonest. And having gone to Yale, taught at Chicago and Columbia etc., doesn’t matter. Bush went to Yale. Bork taught at the University of Chicago School of Law, and Said (a loathesome character through and through, much worse than Khalidi) went to Princeton and taught at Columbia. The question here is really whether Obama will be even-handed on the Israeli-Arab (not just Palestinian) conflict. He had a Jewish mentor, his campaign is being run by a Jew, and another Jew (Ross) may, for all we know, be the next secretary of state. Anti-Semitic? Hardly.