It seems to me that “the paleoconservative” is using the classical power argument of the PC left. Buchanan’s argument, no matter how vile, is a mere rant of the oppressed and should be respected. The neocons, who have power and once abused it, are evil and deserve to be slandered.

There are times when the ersatz admiration and affection of certain paleocons for the Palestinians resemble this. Even Buchanan, with his claims that all Arab national liberation movements will win and his example of Algeria, sounds more like Fritz Fannon than a man of the right. Buchanan is turning into an anti-anti-Islamist.

On the other hand, the use of reductio ad Hitlerum is vindictive.

I would prefer an honest argument, where neocons are attacked for enforcing their orthodoxy, rather than knee-jerk opposition to everything they support. It would serve paleoconservatives and all conservatives far better than the current climate of hatred.

If the paleos want to be taken seriously, they should dump Pat Buchanan.

Hi, Eugene. We communicated earlier, as you recall. I really think you are getting a little too heated up about Pat. The reason he distrusts the Israeli lobby is because he had firsthand experience with their single-minded tactics. He also detected a number of Trotskyites among their number and that didn’t sit well with him. He also considers that many Jews are placing the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the U. S. and that is what really sets him off. And he is partially right on all of those complaints. However, I don’t believe Pat holds malicious thoughts toward Israel or Jews in general. But he is suspicious and wants to see evidence that the Israeli lobby will not damage this nation in their zeal to aid Israel. I believe this impass can be broken, because it is a tragedy that this friction continues.

Bob,
As Mr. Auster has demonstrated on numerous occasions, Buchanan has gone so far in his hatred for Israel that he compares the Israeli government to Hamas and Hizbollah, compares Menachem Begin and the defenders of Mossada to suicide bombers, and blames Israel for Islam’s assault on America. This is a guy who considers Saudi Arabia our biggest ally in the Middle East and makes up excuses for the Muslim butchers.

I used to respect and admire Pat Buchanan and I still agree with him on social issues, trade, and immigration. But his hatred for our only ally in the Middle East and one of our few true friends led me to lose all respect for him. I consider Pat Buchanan to be a shameful crank and a dhimmi who bows down to the Muslim enemy.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think Pat is the monster you are describing. However, I don’t want to debate that and I respect your opinion. Hopefully, something will change to make Pat more acceptable to you and vice versa.

Buchanan is a very talented writer with wonderful command of history. As our host wrote in an article on Frontpage several months ago, he has tragically become obsessive about Zionism, Israel, and Jews to the point where he’s making irrational statements that contain the same type of arguments that one normally hears from the left.

Mr. Auster’s article is here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12650

I am aware of that article. I guess I’m going to remain conflicted here. Oh, well…

This is a link to an article by Don Feder on Buchanan. It’s titled “Abu Buchanans Fatwah on Israel”.

As I have written previously, I enjoy Buchanan’s regular column; he is a very good writer and has a great sense of history. Conservatives who really believe in the danger of expanded government can learn a lot from his polemical attitude toward Bush and his betrayal of conservative principles.

I have not read his book, but Feder’s skewering of Buchanan’s anti-Israel stance is telling about the man himself. Let us not forget that the godfather of conservative soul, William F. Buckley, wrote a book entitled “In Search of Anti-Semitism” a few years ago. Like Mr. Griffin, Buckley vouched for Buchanan’s anti anti-semitism and defended him against the charge that he hates Jews. Nonetheless, Buckley did conclude that Buchanan was guilty of contextual anti-Semitism based on columns he wrote, effectively blaming the Jews and Israel for the first Iraq war (which he opposed).

Personally, I’m willing to accept balanced criticism of Israel, provided the actual criticism can be scrutinized, and counter arguments proffered. What bugs people about Buchanan is his complete lack of contrition despite the fact that he was proven wrong in his irrational criticism of Israel. When he referred to the Israel’s Amen corner in the US Congress, he pissed off a lot of people, including the very gentile Bill Buckley. Yet Buchanan lacked the maturity to even acknowlege his misstatement, much less apologize for it. And if this were the only example of his anti-Israel hostility, few would have anything to say. But his attitude toward the Jewish State has remained extremely hostile to this day. This hostility at times borders on irrationality. And he has never showed any contrition for this attitude regardless of the false pretenses many of his arguments are based on.

This is the URL I referred to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14868

Mr. Auster has taken Pat Buchanan to the polemical cleaners on many occasions. He feels very strongly that Pat is anti-Israel and pro-Arab and quite possible an anti-Semite. I would say that the majority of readers and posters to VFR respectfully disagrees with him. Certainly, I do.

I regard Pat as the most cogent spokesman for the paleo right. I have never detected even one antisemitic inference in any of Pat’s writings or speech. I define an anti-Semite as someone who claims that Jews are diabolical agents whose main mission in life is to destroy white European civilization through drugs, pornography, miscegenation, communization, globalization, antibiotics fed to livestock, etc. Legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government or of certain Jewish or Zionist advocacy groups is not a manifestation of antisemitism, Mr. Auster. The main reason why I believe that Pat is persona non grata to many Jews is his argument that the U.S. need not have entered into World War II as illustrated in his 1999 book, “A Republic, not an Empire.”

To many, this little bit of nativist heresy was unforgivable. I recall the Wall Street Journal’s crusade against Pat after the book came out. For two solid weeks, the op-ed pages were full of anti-Buchanan screeds. Not one letter in support of Pat was published. Finally, Pat was allowed a letter of 2 or 3 column inches to answer the scurrilous accusations against him.

There is a school of thought within Judaism that believes that if you “scratch a goy” you find an anti-Semite. I sincerely hope that Mr. Auster is not a student of that school.

To Timegrid,

People were attacking Buchanan as an anti-Semite long before 1999. I defended him from that charge from the early ’90s to 2001. His articles in April of 2002, in which he attacked Israel as an animalistic, outlaw state for defending itself from terrorists and made a moral equivalence between the Israeli government on one side and Hamas and Hezbolah on the other convinced me that he was an anti-Israel bigot. I did not call him anti-Semitic in that article, though I did say that animosity against Jews was the only explanation I could come up with for his hostility to the Jewish state. More recently I’ve refined that further. It is true that he has never attacked Jews as Jews, so I think it’s not useful for people to say he is against Jews as Jews. We do know, however, that he is an anti-Israel bigot and a defender of Moslem terrorists. So I don’t call him an anti-Jewish bigot. I call him an anti-Israel bigot. However, Buchanan still fits in the category of people that I have said I will have nothing to do with: people who rationalize, excuse, and defend people who seek to exterminate Jews.

Also, I’m surprised and dismayed that Timegrid, who is a fan of this site, would even remotely suggest that I believe that if you “scratch a goy you find an anti-Semite.” What have I ever said that could lead him to suppose that about me?