Mel's Culpa

Okay, I know, posting about Mel Gibson's getting all shitfaced and then exploding in a venomous anti-Semitic rant it hardly a unique thing to do.

In fact, I bet thousands of these (blog opinions) have popped up on the net since old Mel got busted for drunk driving and showed his true sense of privilege and entitlement - you know, boasting how he owned Malibu and how he was going to make sure he "fucked" the cop who nailed him.

What a great guy! And certainly proof that conservative, Bush-loving, war-supporting Hollywood types can be as annoying, petulant, and immature as those on the left.

But there is more to Mel's meltdown than just that nugget. There was that little matter of a really disgusting barrage of old fashioned Jew-hating. Aside from the repugnant nature of his remarks and the sort of mindset and value system that would allow someone to say those things, Mel's assault on Jews is a great way to throw real anti-Semitism into sharp relief against those who are called anti-Semites by hard-core Israel-supporters simply because they don't follow lock-step behind every single action the Israeli government takes.

Unfortunately, nowadays anyone daring to raise the idea that perhaps (just perhaps) the fact that Israel's bombing the hell out of south Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers, killing (up to now) hundreds of innocent women and children in the process might just perhaps be a bit disporportionate is immediately branded by the Israel pimps as being anti-Semitic Nazis who threaten castration, coddle terrorists and ought, therefore, to be shunned, insulted, ignored, and ridiculed (at the very least). And that's on a good day.

The logic seems to follow the pattern that questioning Israel is de facto proof of hatred of Isreal, and thus, Jews as a whole. Israel-supporters will give you the argument that Israel is being proactive agasint the terrorist organization Hezbollah - and on the whole that position is a legitimate one. But, it begs the counter argument of whether those actions are reasonable. This is not a question of whether Israel has the right to defend itself (it does); whether it has the right to exist (it does); or whether its own civilian population has been victimized by horrifying terrorist attacks in the past (it has). However, it is a question of whether the current action is reasonable, viable, and responsible. An opinion saying "Israel has every right to be as brutal in response to the kidnapping because anything less would invite more assaults by the terrorists" is as valid as the counter-opinion that says "Israel's invading Lebanon and escalating the attacks to the point of open warfare just because two soldiers were kidnapped is overkill and will only lead to a much greater and more destructive confilct."

Note, the latter opinion does not (as Mel did) imply Jews are evil, Israel should be eradicated, or anything of that sort. What it does imply is the government of Israel is at fault for conducting an action that is inappropriate, counter-productive, and short sighted. Another way of saying it is by using a machine gun to kill a snake, Israel is screwing the pooch in a big way, and that they should be called out for it.

However, inevitably, those who support Israel, either blindly or not, will point out historical facts ("well, in 1978 ..."), or other so-called relevant points to try and prove that the anti-Israel action opinion is based on incomplete or improper assumptions, and is thus flat out wrong. If the offending opinion is not recanted and changed to whole-heartedly support the current Israeli action, it will quickly degenerate into name calling (usually along the lines of idiot, fucktard, or dumbass), and eventually charges of anti-Semitism.

Which is where Mel comes in. Here is a true anti-Semite. From his thinly veiled (well, not too thinly veiled) swipes at Hebrews in Passion to his re-connection to a sect of Catholicism that makes the Vatican look like the voice of tolerance, Mel has obviously got issues with those that follow the Torah. And when he launched into a slurred, vodka soaked tirade about how "Jews are responsible for every war in the world" and the like, well ... we get a good look at an old fashioned jew hater. The kind who really does believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was non-fiction. The sort of guy who should put those of us who do sometimes wonder at the nature of Israel's actions into the proper perspective, and make a distinction between anti-Israel (on certain topics) and anti-Semitic.

However, he won't. Pimps for Israel, like any other idealogue are basically by definition unable to see or acknowledge that distinction. The funny thing is how the most ardent and blind supporters will whip out some trivial incident in which they disagreed with the Israeli government as proof that they are not idealogues. Much like the most die-hard Bushwipes claiming disagreement with dubyas immigration plan is proof that they aren't sycophantic toadies. But all that does is prove how blindly they actually do follow. And, as anyone knows, you can't voice a contrary opinion to someone like that. Not unless what you want is name-calling, disrespect, and shouting.

Me, I just want a cool beer on a hot afternoon.

This is my opinion. Now call me names.

Ook ook