The Washington Times notes the persistent posting on the MoveOn site of viciously anti—Semitic posts, discounts the defense offered by its political action director, Eric Pariser, and notes that MoveOn cannot avoid responsibility for the often anti—Semitic tone of the website:
Suggesting President Bush's fight against terror is largely the result of excessive Jewish influence over Congress and the media is anti—Semitic. Asserting that Jewish policy—makers and Zionists in the Bush administration had a secret plan to invade Iraq and conquer the Middle East —— a plan pushed by the all—powerful "Israel lobby" —— is anti—Semitic.
MoveOn's followers made that case time again, referring to "greedy Jewish pigs" and "Zionazis" in the process. And when a 2003 MoveOn position paper claims that Bush foreign policy advisers who supported the invasion of Iraq have "dual loyalties," making policy decisions in the interests of Israel as much as the United States, it says the same thing with less colorful language.
Judging by its actions in the wake of this scandal and the tone of the paper, we can say with "a margin of safety" that MoveOn still has a Jewish problem. So do the candidates who fail to renounce the support MoveOn is giving them.
How much longer will Democratic candidates be able to accept MoveOn's support while hiding its anti—semitism? How much longer will Jewish voters tolerate this from the Democratic party they still overwhelmingly support?
Clarice Feldman 9 15 06