This writer got a heads up last Thursday tuning in on the interview of former Republican Patrick J. Buchanan, who just announced that day he was a third party candidate for President. His interview on Corporation for Public Broadcasting was an eye opener. Buchanan’s statements on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer that night seemed plain enough. Buchanan wants America to listen, but Republican leaders do not want to hear him. The interview appeared to end in confusion, not for Buchanan, but for the shows host, Jim Lehrer. Jim, as Buchanan called him, seemed to fumble the ball by allowing Buchanan to talk to a giant national audience for about ten seconds about the Israeli lobby in Washington, a subject rarely if ever heard on network TV.
How did this veteran establishment pundit, Jim Lehrer, fumble the ball? He pressed the subject of Buchanans alleged anti-Semitism beyond the limits of decency. Buchanan finally challenged Lehrer to quote a single fact to support his allegation. The correspondent responded that he did not intend to do so. But Lehrer then asked Buchanan: if you are not anti- Semitic, Mr. Buchanan, why do so many people say you are?
Buchanan responded to the effect, maybe its because I am not afraid to talk about the power of the Israeli Lobby over our Government! A visibly unnerved Jim Lehrer changed the subject, offered a few more innocuous questions, and quickly ended the interview. Clearly, he had asked one too many questions.
Just about everyone has zeroed in on Buchanan. The Washington Post, the New York Times and even the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard unleashed vicious, factually void attacks on Buchanan. Even Robert Bork, weighed in with a strange digression into Buchanan’s supposed anti-Semitism. His attack was in his Wall Street Journal essay that responded to George W. Bush concerning the nations moral climate.
Two things are missing in all of these attacks. No one ever tells us what they mean by anti-Semitism. Curiously, by the classic definition of Semitic, most Arabs are Semites and few Israelis are. Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged, Second Edition defines: Semite, Semite, n. a member of any of the peoples whose language is Semitic, including the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, etc., not, specifically, a Jew.
Similarly, Arab Americans are Semitic and most Rabbis are not. The same press once asked the famous chess player, Bobby Fisher, Are you anti-Semitic? Of course, I am not anti-Semitic, replied Fischer, the Arabs are Semites, and I am certainly not anti-Arab. What the brainy Mr. Fisher was pointing out is that the term, anti-Semite is an oxymoron as we hear it today, as every good linguist knows. So why do we keep hearing it?
There is something more important than the semantics of Semitism. What is this Israeli Lobby that the press tries so hard to ignore? Why does no one debate this issue? Is this why Jim Lehrer turned pale and immediately changed the subject when he discovered he had given Buchanan an opening to talk about it on national prime time TV?
The controlled media and controlled politicians would rather nobody discuss and debate who it is that really runs our country. Does former Republican, Pat Buchanan know the attack on him has nothing to do with his attitude toward Semites or non-Semites? It seems much more likely it is because he alone, among the candidates, has dared to identify a powerful group and its role in influencing life in America. He alone has mentioned AIPAC, self-proclaimed to be one of the worlds most powerful lobbies that openly boasts it controls Congressmen and media moguls every day. Readers should wonder why and how. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
For an understanding of the influence wielded by the State of Israel upon the US Congress and our foreign policy, read the book review of One Nation Under Israel.
