The Jews.

I agree with Fox that there is no 'definitive' description of a neoconservative, just as there isn't one for liberals or any other group-- as has been said plenty here, though I guess not enough. However, my description and Wiki's are quite close. It also provides a good history of the origin--which I hope many will read, as they think the world and politics began and ends with the Iraq War. It was morphing much earlier and may continue to do so.

I think the reason Blatham and ehBeth don't like Wiki is because the neocons didn't have horns drawn on their heads. It's reasonably unbiased. I think they may be too accustomed to press material massaging the liberal line.

"Neoconservative" is not only not a bad word--it has rich and thoughtful origins, a dynamic set of goals and fire in it's heart.

(Maybe I can get a job at Wiki!)

Oh yeah. I'm not Jewish. My husband thinks there is some hushed strain of Jewish heritage somewhere in his family tree, but not mine.

Fox is right about Christians' relationship with Jews being one reason I am interested in what happens with them--but truthfully, as a child I was introduced to images of human beings that no longer looked like human beings. I read Anne Frank and fell in love with the people. I guess when such incredibly strong impressions are made on us as strong-willed children, they stay with us.

I would be proud to be of Jewish heritage, but I'm not.

I hope you can understand a kinship or caring of Jews--or some other group--that isn't owing to inclusion in it.

<broil>

I wrote a fabulous balanced response, wherein I was thoughtful and not nearly as caustic as usual(after much tweaking) --and it was lost in space.

Now, I'm not feeling so patient. Please pretend this is affable.
It's entirely affable, even on frustrated re-write.

Re Wiki. I didn't intend it as a one stop shopping experience for a perfectly balanced description of neoconservatism. I DID think it would be a good general description of my basic belief in it's origin and goals, as well as a good general introduction to the meaning of the term, per me, for GF. To imagine you believe I think that almost any political/philosophical movement could be entirely defined by one source is a bit of a disservice to me, but I'll survive it.
You'll recall the Pentagon fellow who, describing Feith said something like, "Each day I have to work with the stupidest fukk in the world." Well, one thing Feith is not is stupid. Nor is Wolfowitz. Nor the Kristols, nor Struass nor many others one can point to and who refer to themselves as neoconservatives. It's a smart and well-educated crowd. But this wikipedia piece has a serious failing as a description of neoconservativism...it is written by someone who clearly has a PR goal (the excerpt I noted earlier is a precise example). As such, it has the same deficits or worth as, say, a history of the Reagan presidency if written by Mario Cuomo.

Your little back hand with that iron doily re affinity for African AIDS sufferers and Palestinians missed. Pity, though. Good effort! Palestinians and moreso African AIDS sufferers accrue quite a tidy sum of support/pity/solidarity/funding around the world--and don't have the added distinction of being blamed with every negative event in humankind--nor do they encounter the lovely open racist attacks and slights that wouldn't be countenanced, had they been directed at ANY other racial or ethnic group. When the Pals or Africans are accused of culpability in the Plague, 911, famine, flood and the Fall of Rome et AL, write back for my sincerest apology on this issue.
It wasn't meant as backhand, but as balance. We are faced with the problem of discerning what sentiment is anti-semitic and what is merely disagreement with Israeli government policy or something else. There is an ongoing investigation now regarding accusations of spying by folks who were employed with AIPAC. Would such an investigation be an instance of anti-semitism? Would reporting on it be? If Richard Perle were found to have business interests associated with the Sharon family, would it be anti-semitic to investigate and report on that? If someone researchs and writes on connections between the Bush family and the ruling Saudi family, is that an instance of anti-arabism?

Additionally, how could we have spoken so many times and you still say things such as:

I recommend you pay attention in a regular way to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper which allows more criticism of Likud policies than you are likely to find in the American (or Canadian) press.

_________________

Please hear me on this. Criticise Israel's policies long, loud and often. That is not at issue. Racism against Jews is separate from disagreement with Israeli policy. However, disagreement with Israeli policy CAN be a symptom of an anti-Jewish bigot--but, it surely doesn't equate with it.

The proof, as always, is in the pudding.

Too much pudding is found to be rotten, IMO.

Like our jihad guy here. I mean, look at that.
Yes, that is representative of the classic breed of dead stupid anti-semitism. But so? That doesn't help us on the other question even a bit unless we wish to just give up on the differentiation task. Perle, for example, is a selfish and deceitful swine who will lie through his teeth for his own good or for the good of some goal he has in mind - and the proof of that pudding is calling Hersch a 'terrorist'. Guys with that integrity level will very happily try to escape attention through suggesting that Hersch is a terrorist or that some reporter noting the linkage between him/others and Likud is just a secret anti-semite.

LOL!!! Incredible. You are inferring there are NO liberal racists???

Your bias has colored your thinking.

It's more a dangerous method of racists and those who hate Jews to demonize Jews and Israel, and attempt to turn Americans against them. It happens to fall in to the hands of Democrats as Republicans as a rule support Israel and Jews, in general.