So often when someone levels a criticism at Israel or a Jewish person, the response is automatic. Anti-Semitism. The inference seems to be that Jews are immune to criticism given what their ancestors suffered during the Holocaust. It has been argued that with some Jews there is a "victim mentality" that precludes any criticism.

Now the protesters at Zucotti Park in Manhattan are hearing some of the same. The criticism ignores that many of the protesters themselves are Jewish. They have even celebrated Jewish holidays in the park. But much of their criticism is leveled at Wall Street, bankers included. Goldman Sachs is the biggest name. You can't get around it- many in Wall Street and the banking industry are Jewish.

But I am not one to excuse what they and their colleagues have done to America, or the widespread abuse of power they have exhibited, or the fact that they seem to have bought Congress lock, stock, and barrel.

I don't think that the Jewish bankers did what they did because they are Jewish, and I resent the claims being made that those who do criticize them are anti-Semitic.

Now it is true that among the park protesters are some real crackpots. One or more of them has carried signs that are anti-Semitic in their remark. But those in the banking industry, and their fellow-travelers, would like then to label the entire protest as anti-Semitic. If that is so, then the bailout of the banking industry was a great pro-Semitic action on the part of the American people.

The same criticism comes when one says something, anything really, in support of Palestine. But as the current Israeli government becomes more intransigent in its attitude toward peace, my guess is that more Americans will see past the cries of prejudice to address the real issues.

My comments stem from an article on this in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-criticized-for-flashes-of-anti-semitism.html?hpw

Is this not true of most any identifiable group? Blacks, whites, Irish, Ozzies, you name it, if pushed hard enough they all are "sensitive", aren't they (we)? Know any gay folks who take rather instant offense at remarks? Other than everyone on this and other MB's?

Do you have a pill to cure human nature or shall you try psychoanalysis?

Best regards,

RA1

When I was a kid in Mississippi (50's), union folks were usually labeled communist by factory owners. Why discuss substantive issues when you can short circuit the argument into whether your adversary is a minion of Satan? Same thing happened in the 60's when integration was the topic.

So, to directly address your question, if you criticize Isreal's policies toward the Pals, you're likely to be attacked as anti-semitic (or a self-hating jew, apply as applicable). I doubt it's so much an active sense of vitimization as a useful way to stop the argument in its tracks.

I agree, Lucky, playing the anti-semitism card on the occupiers does seem a bit of a stretch.

You sure are a clear thinker, MsGuy. Thanks for stating it so well.

For such minor skills as I may have, I give full credit to my high school debate team.

Are you the one on the left or right? I would say left.

Best regards,

RA1

I would have said the one with his hand between his knees and his arm around the guy in the middle.

Is it really any different than when people said one was a racist for criticizng President Obama but now it is not racist for people to criticize Herman Cain?

Reading the responses, I realize that I did not do a very good job of framing the issue. The ensuing discussion did not go where I had thought it might, and trying to rephrase my question at this point seems futile. I can't win them all.