Recognizing Antisemitic Spin In The Guise Of Reason

Michael Douglas's recent LA Times piece on "Confronting Antisemitism" elicited a response from a Middle East policy blog called, "Mondoweiss" that offers a clear example of how pro-Israeli ideas are spun in the media to be made to seem without merit. It is a combination of public-relations techniques called, "The Straw Man" and "Moving The Show." One creates a false idea to replace the actual subject of discussion – directs all discussion to the false idea, refuses to discuss the original idea – and thus prevents the original idea from any further consideration.The response on Mondoweiss to Michael Douglas's LA Times piece on "Confronting Antisemitism" was perhaps even more revealing than the Douglas piece, itself; the Respondent treated Michael Douglas's call for an end to irrational hatred of Israel as EQUAL to demanding an end to criticizing Israeli policy.In Douglas's recent speech accepting The Genesis Award, his launch point was a criticism he offered in regard to Israel's Ministry of the Interior's Orthodox policy on Jewish identity. Douglas demonstrated in real-time that a person devoted to Judaism who considers Israel "home" can also critique the Israeli status quo – in the presence of the Prime Minister, no less – with both intensity and grace.Douglas did not call for an end to critical interaction with Israel as a modern State within the community of nations: he called for an end to irrational hatred of Israel being used as a predicate to legitimize antisemitic violence against Jews everywhere.Equating radically different ideas as did Mondoweiss is the same public-relations tool that the LGTB community used to de-legitimize any dissenting moral opinions about same-sex romance: they simply name-call any who disagrees in any way with any aspect of their policies or practices a "phobe" – a person in the grip of a pathology. Thus, to disagree instantly results in being labeled literally mentally ill.The danger inherent in such spin-for-invalidation is obvious: one cannot speak against antisemitic violence if the perpetrators in any way declare their motivation to be any less-than-ideal aspect of the State of Israel: thus, killing Jews in a kosher market in Paris is protected from identification as the overtly racist hate-crime it is – and why? The murderers – who slaughtered innocent French citizens of Jewish faith or ethnic background shopping for food and coffee – have their crime re-defined as an act of (justifiable) anti-apartheid patriotism. Readers must be careful to vivisect such rants as this from Mondoweissfor the manipulation of first-glance similarityimposed on radically different ideas – purely as a tool for preventing attention to, discussion of, and redemptive action taken in regard to the actual idea served for consideration. If the current "Every Life Matters" effort to protect African-Americans from unjustifiable harm has merit, then it surely follows that "every Jewish life matters" as well. Arguing this idea is not – on any level – a demand that the political world cease examining and critiquing the policies and deeds of the modern Jewish State. That idea is a true "Straw Man." That effort is classic "Moving The Show." In any debate, a moderator would interrupt the speaker and direct him or her to return to the actual idea in discussion. In the case of Michael Douglas's LA Times essay – the idea he offered was simply this: imperfections in Israeli policy or action do not legitimize the murder outside due process of Jews anywhere in the world.Every Jewish life matters, too.The two pieces can be found at the following URLs.  http://www.msn.com/…/confronting-and-ending-ant…/ar-AA9SSwi… AND http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/response-michael-douglas