When attacking the ideology of the neoconservatives, the big enchildada is dual loyalty: in their hearts, do they feel allegiance to Israel? Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine said that this was the clear thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer’s paper, they were accusing supporters of Israel of being a fifth column. W&M have responded (in their recent rebuttal) that “we recognize that all Americans have many affinities and commitments,” including to other countries. That’s the American way. They’re echoing the Louis Brandeis line, which he came up with 90 years ago to assuage concerns about dual loyalty held by assimilated Jews who didn’t care for Zionism, such as Jacob Schiff and Arthur Sulzberger.
Where academics fear to tread, the blogosphere doesn’t. I think it’s a legitimate issue. But how to talk about it?
The question has come up lately in the Jimmy Carter brouhaha. Critics of Israel are justifiably upset that Amazon.com is not being evenhanded in its listing for Carter’s book: in its “Editorial Reviews” heading for the book—”a space normally used either for the publisher’s own description of a book, or for short, even-handed summaries from listing services such as Booklist and Publishers Weekly”—Amazon offered only the full text of a sharply-critical Washington Post review by the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, accusing Carter of being unChristian in his approach to Israel/Palestine. (Amazon.com would seem to have amended the heading, to include a PW review alongside Goldberg’s.) The critics point to Goldberg’s background—that he “is a citizen of Israel as well as the United States, and that he volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, for which he worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian detainees.” The critics are saying, You should say where Goldberg’s coming from.
(Goldberg doesn’t mention citizenship on his website bio. Henry Norr, who wrote the petition to Amazon, tells me, “Glenn Frankel of the Washington Post, in a review of [Goldberg's book] “Prisoners,” includes the following in his summary of Goldberg’s personal story: “Like all new citizens below a certain age, he enters the Israel Defense Forces…”)
The issue is a long-held concern among Jewish critics of Zionism. In 1970, a leading Jewish anti-Zionist, Rabbi Elmer Berger, learned that several Jewish Americans had served in the Israeli Defense Forces, having gained automatic citizenship in Israel.
[T]his peculiar dual nationality extends only to Jews…It is extended to citizens… who have never been to Israel and whose only relationship to that state is the Israeli presumption—written into its nationality legislation—which claims as a national anyone identified as a Jew. [In allowing them to serve without question,] the United States government…is acquiescing in this religiously-discriminatory presumption…[and it] is contrary to the constitution.
Berger worried about Jewish identity. He feared that American Jews would be called upon to define their religious identity in terms of identification with a neo-colonialist “theocratic” state that was dehumanizing Arabs. (He was right!) And he feared that American Jews would be torn in allegiance, or be seen to be torn in allegiance.
I called one of the leading experts on dual loyalty, John Fonte, of the neoconservative Hudson Institute. Fonte doesn’t write about Jews and Israel (probably a Career-Limiting Move at Hudson!), he writes about Mexico. He is concerned that in granting Mexicans in the U.S. a right to vote in Mexican elections, Mexico is making those citizens “supra-citizens,” with more rights than other citizens—and also slowing the process of American assimilation.
That’s his word: assimilation. This neocon scholar says that assimilation is a democratic value in America: for immigrants or their children, or grandchildren, to take on Americanness.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea” for American citizens to fight for or vote in other countries, Fonte said. Before America entered World War II, some Americans went over to fly with the RAF, and neocon Fonte thinks Americans joining the Israeli army are in the same category, taking part in a war that’s in America’s interests. Still he thinks that the State Department should sign off on this kind of thing on a “case by case basis.”
“I don’t think Israel’s interests and ours overlap completely,” I said.
“There’s never a complete overlap of interests,” Fonte said. “Even Britain and the U.S. differed on the Grenada invasion.”
You used to forfeit your citizenship by voting in another country or fighting for one. The law on forfeiting citizenship ended in the late 60s on a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in a—you guessed it—Israel-based case, where a Jewish-American artist who had voted in Israel wanted to move back here. Thus a 200-year precedent crumbled.
I told Fonte that the revolving door between Israel and the U.S. disturbed me. One of my relatives just came back from his “birthright” trip to Israel (“Israel is about Jews. It is about saving Jews…”) and showed me photos of American kids proudly holding guns and serving in the IDF—serving the apartheid-like Occupation. My relative’s commemorative t-shirt for the trip was IDF olive-green, to show solidarity with an army that helps to deprive Palestinians of their rights. On campuses here, Jewish students are told to wear blue and white in solidarity with Israel, something that would have horrified Elmer Berger.
“I find this confusing,” I said.
“Definitely there’s confusion,” Fonte agreed. “Right now you can do anything.”
He pointed out that after one of his articles on Mexico, fellow Hudson Institute hawk Max Singer told him that he was going to stop voting in U.S. elections, just in Israeli ones.
So a big neocon was voting in both countries? I called Singer in Israel.
“Correct,” Singer said. “I felt I should vote in one country or another but not both.”
“John Fonte said you came to that realization not that long ago.”
“Yes.”
Singer says the dual loyalty issue in his case did not arise from his being Jewish but from being a citizen of both countries. (Which he could be because he’s Jewish). He even served in the U.S. Army reserve, according to Hudson’s website. But he’s decided to be “politically active in Israel.”
Of course, he’s politically active here, too, helping to shape our foreign policy. Hudson describes him as “Senior Fellow, Board Member, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters. Areas of Expertise: Middle East…”
I guess I’m still confused.
mommy dearest NOT,
Didn't daddy dearest tell you not to smear?
According to SourceWatch, "Smears appeal to emotion and discourage reasonable discussion."
They also say, "A smear is among the simplest of propaganda techniques. It can take the form of repeated, unapologetic, systematic, name-calling, or otherwise implying or asserting that opponents are bad, evil, stupid, untrustworthy,…, or part of some undesirable category."
And Edward Filene, founder of the Institute of Propaganda Analysis says, "Name calling is used to substitute arguing for considering the merits or an idea, belief or proposal."
And SourceWatch also says "Name calling is a form of ad hominem attack that links a person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hoping that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
So we know you:
1. You don't want to permit us to do what we have come here for — search for the truth.
2. You don't want a reasonable discussion. The truth would come out if we had one.
3. You are a propagandist– I'll take a shot in the dark and say it's for — Zionism! Or Neo-cons. Same difference.
4. You substitute name calling for constructive ideas — why? because you don't have any ideas. It hurts you to think.
5. You don't want us to look at the evidence. Again the truth would come out.
So, mommie dearest NOT.
Go find a wall, and hit your head against it.
Trust me — you'll feel much better after a couple of weeks of that.
And you probably won't come around and harass innocent people.
You don't belong here.
We only take humans.
Phil;
at this point you really need to take stock in yourself and your career.
Is this where you imagined yourself winding up?
No column,
A failed novelist,
a blogger presiding over a public toilet.
I wonder how someone like you makes a living. Are you on the Arabs payroll like Billy Carter was?
all those think tanks are so disgusting. hudson instute employs nibris kazimi, chalabis pool boy and a compulsive moron. his web page is such a joke. he will take an innoucous event, like when bush went to jordan to talk to maliki, and interpret it in some totally absurd way. so because he is the only one who has that take on it, that makes its special. that's his racket. and he always makes sure to translate tons of random stuff from arabic. if you are a real bullshit artist, those think tanks are the place for you.
Actually, I think Philip's monomania is kind of amusing. The perfidy of the Jews, ad nauseum. Even David Duke's website has more variety.
Of course, there is also his necrophiliac attachment to the murdered girl from the Peace Corps. I wonder if the police ever questioned Phil.
Wise king and co: Keep demanding that US and Israeli soldiers die for your biblical fantasies while you bravely drink your decaf in your dangerous air-conditioned environment!
Ladies and Gentlemen!
Here is the quality of the opposition to Mr. Weiss for all to see! Brave, tough armchair warriors screaming hysterically like offended sissies, cowering behind the anonymity this blog offers them!
Ah! The guts, the toughness, the resolve!
This is what I call, REAL MEN!
Enjoy!
mommy dearest / fuck you, too
[I'm referring, of course, to the name you used in your most recent post]
It never fails to amaze me how even the smallest dose of truth can generate an identity crisis!
Since you seem determined to try to prevent any discussion of the thread topic — which is, by the way,
Dual Loyalty: Why Did Neo-con Max Singer Vote in Israel and U.S.?
we may as well get some benefit from your performance.
I want to thank you for the opportunity you are providing to the readers of this blog to observe the various forms of manipulation, hate speech, and propaganda — IN LIVE ACTION and LIVING COLOR — produced by those who are proponents of the Zionist cause. It's good for everyone to see what you're really like. It even gives you a chance to see yourself, as 'twere, in a mirror….
Now the last time I checked — of course I normally don't hang out in those circles where pejoratives are as common as air — the term "pussy" was a term of disparagement. Just so we are clear on that, let me quote WIKI on this:
"Terms of disparagement are pejorative words and phrases which are either intended to be or are often regarded as insulting, impolite or unkind.
Etiquette demands that the use of these terms, like any behavior likely to insult someone, should be avoided in all circumstances.
Sociologists point to derisive language as an indicator of flawed reasoning about the character or motivation of others. Though insults are common, and often used in jest, a fundamental axiom of sociology recognizes that derogatory forms of speech make erroneous attributions about the character of a person. Scholars classify the erroneous assumptions as the fundamental attribution error."
In the event you don't know what hate speech is, let me provide you with this, also from WIKI:
"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation and appearance (such as height and weight). The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
See also hate mail."
I'm pretty sure that includes e-mail to blogs, but I'll check on that.
Now since there may be a few of the readers or new visitors here who do not realize that what you are engaged in is propaganda, I will provide the WIKI take on that as well:
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information."
Note: no information, just manipulation.
"An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, the more obvious propaganda method, but there are varied other more subtle and insidious forms. On the other hand, a most common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). Individually propaganda functions as self-deception."
Isn't that fascinating: "self-deception"! My, my. Go figure!
"Culturally it works within religions, politics, and economic entities like those which both favor and oppose globalization. Commercially it works within the (mass)market in the free market societies."
If there is anything in the above which is not clear to you, don't hesitate — actually, I'm sure you won't — to let me know.
Ta
Wow. They must be really panicking…
The moment you see people reacting like that, you know they've been caught with their pants down.
Kobold,
Nice work – as always!
Weiss probably did kill that chick that he wrote the book about. She probably blew him off, so he hacked her up…nasty…
This is one of Phil's best and most effective postings. Proof is that his critics don't try and address him on the merits of his case, but call him vicious names — to cover up their own weakness.
This time they hit a new low, they even use regular posters' nicknames to post their incredible evil.
Maybe it's time for this blog to require people to register nicknames with a valid e-mail so that the venom squad at least cannot use other people's nicknames falsely.
I wonder if those who posted under the names "oooh", "Rowan Berkeley" (definitely not the real one) and "A Good Laugh" have a static IP. In that case, they are recorded by the server and I know for a fact they can be matched to real people and be sued.
Murder accusations and defaming murdered people are not funny. This is serious.
It makes you a little homesick for Pearlman, don't it?
Nice work, KoboldBlew!
I think it is time to start deleting the off-topic and blatantly harassing comments.
The Nazis, of course, industrialized mass murder. But still, the perpetrators had one-on-one contact with the victims. They may have dehumanized them, over months and years of appalling debasement and in their minds, before the actual killing. But, still, they were in eye- and ear-contact, sometimes in tactile contact, with their victims. The Germans, along with their non-German helpers, had to round up the men, women and children from their houses and drag and beat them through the streets and mow them down in nearby woods or push and pack them on cattle cars and transport them to the camps, where 'Work makes Free', separate the able-bodied from the completely useless and lure them into 'shower' halls and pour in the gas and then take out, or oversee the extraction of, the bodies and prepare the 'showers' for the next batch.
The second Holocaust will be quite different. One bright morning, in five or ten years' time, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the Bomb, the mullahs in Qom will covoke in secret session, under a portrait of the steely-eyed Ayatollah Khomeini, and give President Ahmedinejad, by then in his second or third term, the go ahead. The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa, and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites, including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases. Some of the Shihabs will be nuclear-tipped, perhaps even with multiple warheads. Others will be dupes, packed merely with biological or chemical agents, or old newspapers, to draw off or confuse Israel's anti-missile batteries and Home Guard units.
With a country the size and shape of Israel (an elongated 8,000 square miles), probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel. A million or more Israelis, in the greater Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem areas, will die immediately. Millions will be seriously irradiated. Israel has about seven million inhabitants. No Iranian will see or touch an Israeli. It will be quite impersonal.
Some of the dead will inevitably be Arab. 1.3 million of Israel's citizens are Arab and another 3.5 million additional Arabs live in the semi-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv-Jaffa and Haifa have substantial Arab minorities. And there are large Arab concentrations immediately around Jerusalem (in Ramallah-El Bireh, Bir Zeit, Bethlehem), and outside Haifa. Here, too, many will die, immediately or by and by.
It is doubtful whether such a mass killing of fellow Muslims will trouble Ahmedinejad and the mullahs. The Iranians don't especially like Arabs, especially Sunni Arabs, with whom they have intermittently warred for centuries. And they have an especial contempt for the (Sunni) Palestinians, who, after all, though initially outnumbering the Jews by more than 10 to 1, failed during the long conflict to prevent the Jews from establishing their state or taking over all of Palestine. Besides, the Iranian leadership sees the destruction of Israel as a supreme divine command, as a herald of the Second Coming, and the Muslims dispatched collaterally as so many shuhada (martyrs) in the noble cause. Anyway, the Palestinians, many of them dispersed around the globe, will survive as a people, as will the greater Arab Nation, of which they are part. And surely, to be rid of the Jewish state, the Arabs should be willing to make some sacrifices. In the cosmic balance sheet, it will be worth the candle.
A question may nevertheless arise in the Iranian councils: What about Jerusalem? After all, the city contains Islam's third holiest shrines (after Mecca and Medina), Al Aksa Mosque and the Mosque of Omar. But Ali Khamenei, the supreme spiritual leader, and Ahmedinejad most likely would reply much as they would to the wider question regarding the destruction and radioactive pollution of Palestine as a whole: The city, like the land, by God's grace, in twenty or fifty years' time, will recover. And it will be restored to Islam (and the Arabs). And the deeper pollution will have been eradicated.
To judge from Ahmedinejad's continuous reference to Palestine and the need to destroy Israel, and his denial of the first Holocaust, he is a man obsessed. He shares this with the mullahs: All were brought up on the teachings of Khomeini, a prolific anti-Semite who often fulminated against 'the Little Satan'. To judge from Ahmedinejad's organization of the Holocaust cartoons competition and the (current) Holocaust denial conference, the Iranian president's hatreds are deep (and, of course, shameless).
He is willing to gamble — the future of Iran or even of the whole Muslim Middle East in exchange for Israel's destruction. No doubt he believes that Allah, somehow, will protect Iran from an Israeli nuclear response or an American counterstrike. Allah aside, he may well believe that his missiles will so pulverize the Jewish state, knock out its leadership and its land-based nuclear bases, and demoralize or confuse its nuclear-armed submarine commanders that it will be unable to respond. And, with his deep contempt for the weak- kneed West, he is unlikely to take seriously the threat of American nuclear retaliation.
Or he may well take into account a counter-strike and simply, irrationally (to our way of thinking), be willing to pay the price. As his mentor, Khomeini, put it in a speech in Qom in 1980: 'We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant.' For these worshipers at the cult of death, even the sacrifice of the homeland is acceptable if the outcome is the demise of Israel.
Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, has suggested that Iran doesn't even have to use the Bomb to destroy Israel. Simply, the nuclearization of Iran will so overawe and depress Israelis that they will lose hope and gradually flee and emigrate, and potential foreign investors and immigrants will shy away from the mortally threatened Jewish State. These, together, will bring about the State's demise. But my feeling is that Ahmedinejad and his allies lack the patience for such a drawn-out denouement; they seek Israel's annihilation in the here and now, in the immediate future, in their lifetime. They won't want to leave anything up to the vagaries of history.
As with the first, the second Holocaust will have been preceded by decades of preparation of hearts and minds, by Iranian and Arab leaders, Western intellectuals and media outlets. Different messages have gone out to different audiences — but all have (objectively) served the same goal, the demonization of Israel. Muslims the world over have been taught: 'The Zionists\the Jews are the embodiment of evil' and 'Israel must be destroyed.' And Westerners, more subtly, were instructed: 'Israel is a racist oppressor state' and 'Israel, in this age of multi-culturalism, is an anachronism and superfluous'. Generations of Muslims and at least a generation of Westerners have been brought up on these catechisms.
The build-up to the second Holocaust (which, incidentally, in the end, will probably claim roughly the same number of lives as did the first) has seen an international community fragmented and driven by separate, selfish appetites – Russia and China obsessed with Muslim markets; France, with Arab oil – and the United States driven by the debacle in Iraq into a deep isolationism. Iran has been left free to pursue its nuclear destiny and Israel and Iran, to face off alone.
But an ultimately isolated Israel will prove unequal to the task, like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an onrushing car. Last summer, led by a party hack of a prime minister and a small-time trade unionist as defense minister, and deploying an army trained for quelling incompetent and poorly-armed Palestinians gangs in the occupied territories and overly concerned about both sustaining and inflicting casualties, Israel failed in a 34-day mini-war against a small Iran-backed guerrilla army of Lebanese fundamentalists (albeit highly motivated, well-trained and well-armed). That mini-war thoroughly demoralized the Israeli political and military leaderships.
Since then, the ministers and generals, like their counterparts in the West, have looked on glumly as Hizbullah's patrons have been arming with doomsday weapons. Perversely, the Israeli leaders may even have been happy with Western pressures urging restraint. Most likely they deeply wished to believe Western assurances that somebody, somehow – the UN, G-7 – would pull the radioactive chestnuts out of the fire. There are even those who fell for the outlandish idea that a regime-change in Teheran, driven by a reputedly secular middle class, would ultimately stymie the mad mullahs.
But even more to the point, the Iranian program presented an infinitely complex challenge for a country with Israel's limited conventional military resources. Taking their cue from the successful Israel Air Force's destruction in 1981 of Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor, the Iranians duplicated and dispersed their facilities and buried them deep underground (and the Iranian targets are about twice as far from Israel as was Baghdad). Taking out with conventional weapons the known Iranian facilities would take an American-size air force working round-the-clock for more than a month. At best, Israel's air force, commandos and navy could hope to hit only some of the components of the Iranian project. But, in the end, it would remain substantially intact — and the Iranians even more determined (if that were possible) to reach the Bomb as soon as possible. (It would also, without doubt, immediately result in a world-embracing Islamist terrorist campaign against Israel (and possibly its Western allies) and, of course, near-universal vilification. Orchestrated by Ahmedinejad, all would clamor that the Iranian program had been geared to peaceful purposes.). At best, an Israeli conventional strike could delay the Iranians by a year or two.
In short order, therefore, the incompetent leadership in Jerusalem would soon confront a doomsday scenario, either after launching their marginally effective conventional offensive or in its stead, of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Iranian nuclear program, some of whose components were in or near major cities. Would they have the stomach for this? Would their determination to save Israel extend to pre-emptively killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran?
This dilemma had long ago been accurately defined by a wise general: Israel's nuclear armory was unusable. It could only be used 'too early or 'too late.' There would never be a "right" time. Use it 'too early,' meaning before Iran acquired similar weapons, and Israel would be cast in the role of international pariah, a target of universal Muslim assault, without a friend in the world; 'too late' would mean using its nuclear weapons after the Iranians had struck. What purpose would that serve?
So Israel's leaders will grit their teeth and hope that somehow things will turn out for the best. Perhaps, after acquiring the Bomb, the Iranians will behave 'rationally'? But the Iranians are driven by a higher logic. And they will launch their rockets. And, as with the first Holocaust, the international community will do nothing. It will all be over, for Israel, in a few minutes – not like in the 1940s, when the world had five long years in which to wring its hands and do nothing. After the Shihabs fall, the world will send rescue ships and medical aid for the lightly charred. It will not nuke Iran. For what purpose and at what cost? An American nuclear response would lastingly alienate the whole of the Muslim world, deepening and universalizing the ongoing clash of civilizations. And, of course, it would not bring Israel back. (Would hanging a serial murderer bring back his victims?) So what would be the point?
Still, the second Holocaust will be different in the sense that Ahmedinejad will not actually see and touch those he so wishes dead (and, one may speculate, this might cause him disappointment as, in his years of service in Iranian death squads in Europe, he may have acquired a taste for actual blood). And, indeed, there will be no scenes like the following, quoted in Daniel Mendelsohn's recent 'The Lost, A Search for Six of Six Million,' in which is described the second Nazi Aktion in Bolechow, Poland, in September 1942:
'A terrible episode happened with Mrs. Grynberg. The Ukrainians and Germans, who had broken into her house, found her giving birth. The weeping and entreaties of bystanders didn't help and she was taken from her home in a nightshirt and dragged into the square in front of the town hall. There, she was dragged onto a dumpster in the yard of the town hall with a crowd of Ukraininans present, who cracked jokes and jeered and watched the pain of childbirth and she gave birth to a child. The child was immediately torn from her arms along with its umbilical cord and thrown — It was trampled by the crowd and she was stood on her feet as blood poured out of her with bleeding bits hanging and she stood that way for a few hours by the wall of the town hall, afterwards she went with all the others to the train station where they loaded her into a carriage in a train to Belzec [extermination camp].'
In the next Holocaust there will be no such heart-rending scenes, of perpetrators and victims mired in blood (though, to judge from pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the physical effects of nuclear explosions can be fairly unpleasant).
But it will be a Holocaust nonetheless.
So let me see if I can follow the trail Weiss has, perhaps inadvertendly, begun to forge. He appears to be, from his other writing, a humanist, someone who wants to support universal values. He has recently decided to base his public persona on blasting the super-nationalists in Israel, whose fierce tribal-national loyalty causes them to debase or deny the value of Palestinian lives.
Yet, paradoxially, his latest steps into that wilderness have led him to impugn or raise provocative questions about American Jews because they are not loyal ONLY to one country, they are NOT NATIONALIST ENOUGH, they are not American patriots, too many of them salute two flags and they probably should be saluting one flag. Presumably he would rather that they be Pat Buchanans and Jerry Fallwells rather than Abe Foxmans.
He's so concerned about this that he brings up, in a short and superficial blog, a charge that is terrifying to American Jews like me, who care as much about this country as he does, but ALSO care about Israel (and I'm a lefty who has fought hard to convince American Jews to speak out against the occupation).
So he is veering dangerously close to the territory often reached by people on the left who come out swingly wildly, and carelessly, against everthing to do with the Zionist enterprise and American Jews. If he doesn't stop himself, soon there will be little difference between his rhetoric and the Liberty Lobbyists and the conspiracy theorists who yammer on about the Zionist Occupied Government in DC.
Their credo is that Jews are NEVER loyal to the country in which they dwell; that is what makes them Jews, that is the essence of Jewish identity. Their credo is Jews are loyal to the tribe, to the vast international Zionist network, and therefore they cannot be trusted, they are not and can never be real Americans.
He's not there yet, but I can't find any evidence in his previous posts that he won't get there soon. On the contrary, a few days ago he wrote that the "entire culture" of American Jewry has been "captured" by dehumanizing neo cons. The gross, careless generalizations are getting easier and easier for him.
Weiss says he is "confused," But this is not a topic to mull over as if he were in a quiet college bull session with a good buddy who is also trying to figure out the daunting mysteries of life. This is very volatile, very tricky stuff. He is becoming a closely watched, public figure. He needs to think long and hard about what he actually believes, and the implications of what he believes, before doing more posts like this one. nds.
Sounds like a family squabble to me. I thought MY family was bad…
Looks like Jews have family squabbles bar none.
To BP, I can't help noticing that you live everywhere but in the present. Small wonder you live full of fear. I've never found a fearless place to live BUT the present. This has nothing to do with the topic of this blog, but it's one of those universal truths. Those who live in the past and in the future are not living at all. They have absolutely no hope of changing anything. This may be a particularly difficult lesson for you to learn, given the enormous evil you have seen in the past. But it's absolutely essential that you learn it. Or nothing will ever change for you because you are not open to any change. You use the past to condemn the future.
Tough Dove, there is no political topic that shouldn't be publicly discussed. (That's been the problem all these years. Any time anyone brought up the elephant in the living room, someone would call you an ati-Semite.) Well, thanks to Mearsheimer, Walt, Judt, Carter and our own Phil Weiss, now it's possible to talk about the primary loyalties of those Jewish neo-conservatives who pressured Bush to send American troops to die in Iraq and are hectoring him now to go bomb Iran. When I listen to some of these guys, I do indeed wonder if their first allegiance is to Israel, rather than the United States. Teddy Roosevelt pointed out 100 years ago that America can only work if immigrants are willing to assimilate. If right wing Jewish neo-conservatives can't put their tribal loyalties far enough aside to put put America first, I submit they're living in the wrong country.
It is indeed the case that the allegation Phil Weiss killed somebody was not posted by me.
Phil does seem to have locked onto a strategic target here.
I did not allege that Phil Weiss killed Deborah Gardner.
It is, however, a well known fact throughout Tonga that he dug up her corpse and skull-fucked her.
It is amazing how the clan talk amongst themselves.
"The law of the land", and being a "dual national". What else? A god-given promise to move-in when the time is right and move out when the going is better elsewhere?
Tough Dove, your little propaganda piece was touching, but the overwhelming majority of American Jews who have nothing to do with AIPAC or the neocons have nothing to worry about.
The many American Jewish leaders on the other hand who keep pushing the US to enforce the Likud agenda (while conveniently forgetting that 80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic Party) however, have indeed a lot to worry about.
The blatant and irresponsible lie that the likes of people like you and Bill Pearlman and the neocons and the Likudniks are representative of American Jews has to be countered primarily by ordinary American Jews though. It's time for them to speak up and finally draw the line. Enough is enough.
bill- so shouldn't the jews get the hell out of israel then? if a holocaust is inevitable. isn't that what smart jews did when hitler came to power?
Bill, Iran has not aggressively attacked another country in 250 years.
The transports of European Jews to the concentration camps was more orderly than what you have described. They were led to believe they were going to re-settlement camps, they packed provisions and valuables — which were taken from them when they arrived and processed for the use of the German Reich — and this orderliness was accomplished through the collaboration of the ubiquitous 'judenrat' and of some Zionist Jewish leaders.
Before you get all hot and bothered over what I have written, do yourself a favor, find out about the real heroes of the Jewish Resistance during WW2. This is something to be proud of.
That's the big problem with this Jews-as-innocent-victims mythology, you end up losing your heroes. In every single national and ethnic group in wartime Europe there were those who collaborated with the German occupation, and there were those who heroically resisted. Including Jews. Who are part of the human species, and as such have both villians and heroes.
See the account of Rudolf Vrba, an escapee from Auschwitz who worked in the 'Canada kommando', for an exciting account of Jewish villians and heroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba
Enough BS,
You are misreading me. I am one of the 80% of American Jews whose voices and views are not adequately represented in Washington. I've opposed AIPAC for years and am distressed that liberal Jews haven't done enough to peel themselves away from the neo cons. The fact that you assume I am part of the same cabal proves that I am right to be worried. Some American Jews who care deeply about Israel and who want to help protect its citizens from suicide bombers and rockets have the same political goals as, I presume, Weiss does (not sure about you): they want to end the occupation, stop settlement expansion and give Palestinians a state of their own. And I am worried that if too many American begin to believe that the mere act of caring about Israel is dangerous to the U.S., then I, too, will be implicated. The Dual Loyalty issue as it applies to individual Jewish neo con leaders is something that can and should be discussed, but it has to be done very very carefully. And Weiss' post was not careful enough. It provoked a firestorm of comments not only from the right wing Jewish propagandists you and I both revile, but also from people who scare me because they are filled with such vitriol against anyone who cares about Israel.
A few things.
I agree that maintaining dual citizenship is a dangerous trend in a democracy open to all people.
Divided loyalties sooner or later run into trouble when common interest disolve on certain issues, as they always will.
Basically you cannot serve two master.
I am old enough to remember people in my own country (Britain) who regarded themselves as 'Left' but 'cared about (apartheid) South Africa', in the sense that they felt it should reform itself to avoid being overthrown altogether. Obviously, quite a few of them were Jewish.
toughdove,
You are misrepresenting the problem.
Caring about Israel is NOT a problem per se for anyone.
But when caring about Israel means for some American Jews that American foreign policy should solve Israel's problems, regardless of the issues this might create for the US and Americans' safety, while at the same time defending Israel's misguided policies of the last decades at all costs, then you got a very serious issue.
You are worried because, even though you don't admit it, it isn't just AIPAC and the neo-cons. It's also countless progressive Jews from academia, the media and even the intellectual community who have been keeping silent, or have even actively defended the Likudnik, extremist right-wing agenda simply because they thought that was their duty to Israel, regardless of the policies Israel implemented. Their primary objective has been for decades simply shielding Israel from criticism. This reflexive attitude has created today the beginnings of a backlash by worried Americans that is indeed dangerous.
However, it is not too late. Far from it. It is time for prominent American Jews and intellectuals to follow the path of Tony Judt and finally speak up and disassociate themselves from the Likudnik agenda, openly, not just in private spaces. This is indeed the real service to Israel.
I remember a great man and humanist, whom I won't name here, who used to say that when you care deeply about someone, it is your responsibility to criticize him when he is going too far. Real friends are not those who tell one how great he is regardless of his actions. He was right, and it is in this respect that many prominent Jews and leaders have failed Israel.
In more practical terms, this means that instead for example of having so many American prominent Jews from the whole political spectrum try to discredit Carter, and Mandela, and Tutu, who have all said the same thing, to instead actually SUPPORT him and force Israel, AIPAC, the ADL and so many other American Jewish organizations to change course.
As long as they mistakenly think that their duty is to shield Israel from criticism regardless of her catastrophic policies of the last decades, they do a disservice to Israel, to America, and to Jews everywhere- not just in the US- as well.
So you have a right to be worried. But you shouldn't look at the symptoms (backlash), you should be looking at the causes of the situation American Jews find themselves in today if you really want to reverse the situation.
Israel and its policies are indefensible today. Either revisionist Zionism and the whole lunacy of Greater Israel will die, or everybody else will pay the consequences – and it won't be only Jews who will pay the price.
toughdove
You are right to be worried.
Here's why.
Americans like myself are opposed to the influences of any group like the Jews (some of them) or Cuban exiles (some of them) who want to invade Cuba to reclaim their casinios, or any fanatics who want to use the US and it's citizens for their own purpose…when it is not in the best of America or anyone else really except the fanatics who promote it.
But Americans like me, and I am pretty average, see the Jewish-Israel-Lobby problem as a "political" problem, a "special interest problem". This is particulary dangerous in the case of people who emotionally identify with a another country because of their 'race' or 'religion", two hot buttons in human nature, and becuase it involves promoting the interest of a "foreign" country over the interest of America.
But…what you need to worry about is the fanatics on the other side of the coin. Just like what seems to me to be a lot of "cultist type mentality" from die hard or militant type Jews posting a lot on the internet in defense of Jews or Israel…they have evil twin cultist types among gentiles and other religious fanatics and right wing political elements, who are in bed with them now, but will be the very ones who wouldn't hestitate, when things go bad, to turn on the Jews as a "whole".
Those are the people you need to worry about…along with the Jews like them.
As a non Jew and American whose family has been here too long to even remember they came from another country, it seems to me there is a storm brewing on the Jewish-Israel-US issue that is long overdue and needs to be discussed and settled…before it goes too far for both America and Jews. This also applies of course to other interest groups, but due to our current situtation in the ME, this particular influence is the most visible example of the problem of facing America in deciding what is "diversity" and "right to representation" ..and what is in fact the "misuse" of those democratic principles and rights in "usurping" the true interest of the country they are living in.
toughdove
You are right to be worried.
Here's why.
Americans like myself are opposed to the influences of any group like the Jews (some of them) or Cuban exiles (some of them) who want to invade Cuba to reclaim their casinios, or any fanatics who want to use the US and it's citizens for their own purpose…when it is not in the best of America or anyone else really except the fanatics who promote it.
But Americans like me, and I am pretty average, see the Jewish-Israel-Lobby problem as a "political" problem, a "special interest problem", not as a problem of the entire Jewish community. But it is particulary dangerous in the case of people who emotionally identify with a another country because of their 'race' or 'religion", two hot buttons in human nature, and because it involves promoting the interest of a "foreign" country over the interest of America.
But…what you need to worry about is the fanatics on the other side of the coin. Just like what seems to me to be a lot of "cultist type mentality" from die hard or militant type Jews posting a lot on the internet in defense of Jews or Israel…they have evil twin cultist types among gentiles and other religious fanatics and right wing political elements, who are in bed with them now, but will be the very ones who wouldn't hestitate, when things go bad, to turn on the Jews as a "whole".
Those are the people you need to worry about…along with the Jews like them.
As a non Jew and American whose family has been here too long to even remember they came from another country, it seems to me there is a storm brewing on the Jewish-Israel-US issue that is long overdue and needs to be discussed and settled…before it goes too far for both America and Jews. This also applies of course to other interest groups, but due to our current situtation in the ME, this particular influence is the most visible example of the problem of facing America in deciding what is "diversity" and "right to representation" ..and what is in fact the "misuse" of those democratic principles and rights in "usurping" the true interest of the country they are living in.
Tough Dove:
You can grovel all you want to these people. It won't do you any good. If you advocate anything less than the destruction of israel then your a zionist war monger. Thats what we've been trying to tell you left wingers for years. Do you think they make any distinctions. They don't.
To unsuspecting readers:
To Bill Pearlman, the phrase "destruction of Israel" means actually the destruction of his biblical fantasies (the Greater Israel lunacy).
In other words, an Israel with the 1967 borders and in peace with her neighbors is for him the "destruction of Israel", because by "Israel" he means only the biblical Greater Israel.
Alan, you have hezbollah to the north, hamas to the south. Now after the Palestinians trashed Josephs tomb I'm not real crazy about them being in charge of Jewish religious sites but lets leave that aside. Israel pulls off the west bank for the sake of argument. Next thing that will happen is that you'll have Iranian proxies up on the ridge line overlookingthe coars with missiles. They can hit all the key industrial and miliatry sites without breaking a sweat. When you give land you should get peace. And that is not whats being offered and has never been offered.
Ten questions to the Zionists
by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L
Dean of Nitra Yeshiva and author of min hametzar
"1. IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
2. IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
3. IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid
4. IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
5. IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.
6. IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.
8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"
9. IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
10. IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".
There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions."
See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Michael_Dov_Weissmandl
www.weissmandl.org/
You asked for it:
Asshole, lets leave aside the fact that transfering resources to the Germans in the middle of a war is really stupid let me ask you this.
Is is just possible, maybe, possibly, that the Gestopo might LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that the British parliament, the same government that blocked desperate people from escaping Europe might not have taken in 500,000 Jews. I don't know where you got that one from scumbag. IHRYou asked for it:
Asshole, lets leave aside the fact that transfering resources to the Germans in the middle of a war is really stupid let me ask you this.
Is is just possible, maybe, possibly, that the Gestopo might LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that the British parliament, the same government that blocked desperate people from escaping Europe might not have taken in 500,000 Jews. I don't know where you got that one from scumbag. IHR< Jewwatch, or4any one of the other fine web sites that you lunatics inhabit.
"If I knew it was possible to save all (Jewish) children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the latter — because we are faced not only with the accounting of these (Jewish) children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People."
David Ben-Gurion statement in December 1938 a month after Kristallnacht.
"Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999," Benny Morris, Publisher: New York, Alfred A Knopf.
Above quote undisputable. See also:
Martin Gilbert, "Israel was everything", New York Times, June 21, 1987. Also quoted in slightly different translation in Shabtai Teveth, "Ben-Gurion", p. 855-56
Pearlman, here is Wikipedia on Rabbi Weissmandl:
"Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl (1903-1957) (known as Michoel Ber Weissmandl) became famous for his tireless efforts to the save the Jews of Slovakia from extermination at Nazi hands during the European Holocaust."
"…Min HaMetzar (Jerusalem, 1960) is a book that describes Rabbi Weissmandl's war-time experiences. The title consists of the first two words of Psalm 118:5, meaning "from the depths of despair", literally "From the Straits". This is the main publication in which Rabbi Weissmandl's accusations against the Zionist organizations appear."
That's where I got it from, Min Hametzar. Deal with it. Tough, huh?
Several posters have urged me and American Jews who feel the same I do to speak out against Israeli policies and not be silent. Take my word for it: since the early 1980s, I have been criticising and speaking out against Israeli expansionisn, the fanatical Israeli settlement movement and other policies and people. And I've been trying to counter-act the conventional Israel Lobby by working actively with progressive Jewish groups who represent the true voice of the American Jewish majority.
So no one needs to lecture me about "breaking the silence" or the dangers of the right wing fanatics in my community. But I am telling you that the vicious tone of many of the posts here, and the conviction expressed or implied that American Jews need to "choose" between their loyalty to the U.S. or Israel, is worrisome to me. It is as worrisome to me as the ignorant shmucks who are cussing out Phil Weiss (who, by the way, is a casual friend of mine and, by now, knows who "tough dove" is)in their comments.
It is the height of naivete for Alan to write "Caring about Israel NOT a problem per se for anyone." It is not a problem for him and I am glad to hear it. But if someone who knows little about the Middle East or American Jews cruises around much of the blogosphere these days, it would be very easy for him or her to quickly buy into the worse kinds of anti-Semitic canards. There are some very loopy and dangerous people luring out there. It is not a paranoid fantasy to imagine that the tone of the conversations on this blog and many of the substantive comments could add to their convinction that THE JEWS ARE TO BLAME for everything.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking that that the charge of anti-Semitism is used by too many people to stifle debate. You're right. Believe me, I've been called a 'self-hating Jew" any number of times by American Jews who think I am contributing to anti-Semitism by criticizing Israel. I am not saying there should not be open debate and conversation about the kinds of issue Philip Weiss raises. But there also needs to be a certain level of self-restraint when it comes to tone and language, an awareness that writing on the blogosphere can have an impact on untold numbers of people who are not as reasonable as, say, Alan. I don't know exactly what my particular red lines are. All I can tell you is that Phil crossed one by writing so casually about "Dual Loyalty."
You want people like me to be on your side, Weiss fans? You want me to speak out in my community and in the public arena in order to change American foreign policy and end an unjust, inexcusable occupation? Then I urge you to be more circumpect, to think of all those loopy, dangerous readers out there and how they will react to your choice of words. If more of those people get stirred up in this country, then it will discourage people in the American Jewish peace camp from criticising Israel, because they will not want to feed the maw of hatred. You cannot pretend raw anti-Semitism is a paranoid fantasy. Please realize that it is out there, and try your best to find a way to avoid encourating it when you criticize Israel and the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd that I, too, want to stop.
Several posters have urged me and American Jews who feel the same I do to speak out against Israeli policies and not be silent.
Take my word for it: since the early 1980s, I have been criticising and speaking out against Israeli expansionisn, the fanatical Israeli settlement movement and other policies and people. And I've been trying to counter-act the conventional Israel Lobby by working actively with progressive Jewish groups who represent the true voice of the American Jewish majority.
So no one needs to lecture me about "breaking the silence" or the dangers of the right wing fanatics in my community. But I am telling you that the vicious tone of many of the posts here, and the conviction expressed or implied that American Jews need to "choose" between their loyalty to the U.S. or Israel, is worrisome to me. It is as worrisome to me as the ignorant shmucks who are cussing out Phil Weiss (who, by the way, is a casual friend of mine and, by now, knows who "tough dove" is)in their comments.
It is the height of naivete for Alan to write "Caring about Israel NOT a problem per se for anyone." It is not a problem for him and I am glad to hear it. But if someone who knows little about the Middle East or American Jews cruises around much of the blogosphere these days, it would be very easy for him or her to quickly buy into the worse kinds of anti-Semitic canards.
There are some very loopy and dangerous people lurking out there. It is not a paranoid fantasy to imagine that the tone of the conversations on this blog and many of the substantive comments could add to their convinction that THE JEWS ARE TO BLAME for everything.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking that that the charge of anti-Semitism is used by too many people to stifle debate. You're right. Believe me, I've been called a 'self-hating Jew" any number of times by American Jews who think I am contributing to anti-Semitism by criticizing Israel. I am not saying there should not be open debate and conversation about the kinds of issue Philip Weiss raises. But there also needs to be a certain level of self-restraint when it comes to tone and language, an awareness that writing on the blogosphere can have an impact on untold numbers of people who are not as reasonable as, say, Alan. I don't know exactly what my particular red lines are. All I can tell you is that Phil crossed one by writing so casually about "Dual Loyalty."
You want people like me to be on your side, Weiss fans? You want me to speak out in my community and in the public arena in order to change American foreign policy and end an unjust, inexcusable occupation? Then I urge you to be more circumpect, to think of all those loopy, dangerous readers out there and how they will react to your choice of words. If more of those people get stirred up in this country, then it will discourage people in the American Jewish peace camp from criticising Israel, because they will not want to feed the maw of hatred. You cannot pretend raw anti-Semitism is a paranoid fantasy. Please realize that it is out there, and try your best to find a way to avoid encourating it when you criticize Israel and the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd that I, too, want to stop.
Pearlman: "… transfering resources to the Germans in the middle of a war is really stupid…"
Yeah Bill, especially to save millions of Jews. You are on record now showing how much you really care for Jews, just like the Zionist leaders who were refusing to save Jewish lives unless they could be ransomed to go to Palestine only.
Bill, Israel has the power to stop this whole thing. And no one but Israel can stop it. Don't come at us because of your anxiety over Israel. If that blasted Israel Lobby hadn't made total insanity of US ME policy none of this would be happening. AIPAC dismantled the brakes, that's what happened.
There was a piece from Col. Sam Gardiner on Counterpunch today, he's describing the US mobilization for the strike against Iran. He's seeing it as happening in about 6 weeks.
Col. Pat Lang on his own weblog has resigned himself to the attack, after writing and speaking broadly about the extreme dangers to US troops deployed in Iraq. Long supply line will be vulnerable to Iraq Shia loyal to Iran. Lang also sees the US itself as sustaining some damage from the war, but thinks it would take a lot to kill the US. Frankly, I am not so optimistic. I think we will be lucky to survive intact as a nation after this.
You asked for it:
I don't give a shit what Ben Gurion said, I'm a betar guy, but let me point out something to your demented brain. Ben Gurion wasn't in charge of anything in 1938 and the British were blocking all efforts to escape, along with everybody else. Secondly I know you think the gestopo and the SS were just a happy go lucky crew but I would tend to doubt their veracity, I don't know maybe its just me.
Toughdove:
Stop groveling, they hate you just has much as they hate me. You can trot out your liberalism and peace now credentials all you want. It won't do any good.
you asked for it:
What are you retarded, there was never any deal on the table. What possible evidence do you have that the Germans would have proposed anything like that and more than that kept up their end.
Brenda:
Counterpunch isn't exactly an objective observer number one. And second, do you really believe that Israel wants war with Iran. There going to be the first ones that are hit. What they do want, what I want, and what every sane individual should want is Iran without the bomb. I know you think that Israel and the US are the bad guys here but Iran with the bomb is a serious matter that needs to be stoped
More lies from Pearlman:
"Ben Gurion wasn't in charge of anything in 1938".
Really? Here is Wikipedia:
"Ben-Gurion was at the political forefront of the Labor Zionist movement during the fifteen years leading to the creation of the State of Israel [meaning from 1933-1948] when Labor Zionism had become the dominant tendency in the World Zionist Organization."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben_Gurion
Tough Dove:
You might want to read the 1993 Benjamin Ginsberg book, "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State" He writes in a sympathetic way about some of the issues which are being difficult for you.
Also, I don't know how long you have been reading this blog for, but there's something I want to bring to your attention. We've been subjected to a lot of verbal abuse from defensive Jews, and we have said some pretty cutting things back to them, but I have never seen any racist epithets, or hateful generalities about Jews. I wouldn't be associated with a group that did this.
you asked for it: Was he in charge of the Palestine mandate. No you moron, ( and that is frankly insulting to morons ) He was head of the Jewish agency. Which had NO power over British policy. If they did though British wouldn't have prostrated themselves to a bunch of lunatics like the Arabs
Bill, do you think The London Times is a credible source?
The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran?s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear ?bunker-busters?, according to several Israeli military sources
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310_1,00.html
Here goes to the vice squad:
Play fair (stop using regular posters' nicknames to post anti-Semitic garbage to discredit them) or more embarrassing truths will be coming. Truths that hurt.
Your choice. Me, I'm ready if you want the gloves off.
You asked for it:
The gloves are off, what the fuck does that mean.
Brenda:
Yes, I'm sure that top secret Israeli plans to hit Iran were in the London Times. Because, why not.