Yale conference on anti-Semitism targets Palestinian identity, ‘self-hating’ Jews, and anyone who criticizes Israel

on 64 Comments

This is disturbing. A Yale University center that purports to study anti-Semitism is holding a three-day conference on "the crisis" of global anti-Semitism (ending tomorrow) that is dedicated to the idea that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

The flotilla raid, anti-Semitic. Helen Thomas, anti-Semitic. The very idea of Palestinian identity, anti-Semitic.

That last claim–“The Central Role of Palestinian Antisemitism in Creating the Palestinian Identity"–was put forward Monday, shockingly, by Itamar Marcus, a leader of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank. Marcus has connections to the Central Fund of Israel, which raises money here for the settlers, including their "urgent security needs."

The conference opened with a speech from an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Aviva Raz-Schechter. And Charles Small, director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, which is hosting the conference, said last spring that the confab was about Israel:

The largest number of papers, and therefore reflecting the greatest concern, address contemporary antisemitism and the demonization of Israel and those associated or made to be associated with Israel. There is a paper on issues of Jewish self-hatred and how some Jews, especially intellectuals, are distancing themselves from Israel.

That’s anti-Semitism? Here is the panel on "self-hatred":

Plenary: Self Hatred and Contemporary Antisemitism • Professor Doron Ben-Atar, Fordham University: “Without Ahavath Yisrael [love for the people of Israel]: Thoughts on Radical Anti-Zionism at Brandeis” • Professor Richard Landes, Boston University: “Scourges and Their Audiences: What Drives Jews to Loathe Israel Publicly and What To Do About It?” • Professor Alvin Rosenfeld, Indiana University: “Beyond Criticism and Dissent: On Jewish Contributions to the Delegitimation of Israel”

The speakers’ list is here. Many of the speakers have Israel agendas, including Irwin Cotler, the Canadian politician who has led attacks on the Goldstone Report; Ruth Wisse, the Harvard Yiddishist who has called on young American Jews to enlist in an army of Israel defenders in the U.S.; Barak Seener, who has incited against the Palestinian citizens of Israel as a threat from within; Anne Bayefsky of the neoconservative Hudson Institute, another Goldstone attacker; Mark Dubowitz, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, whose main issue is cracking down on Iran; Anne Herzberg of the NGO Monitor, again an Israel advocacy group; Samuel Edelman of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, another Israel lobbyist; and Menahem Milson of the Elliott Abrams-linked hasbara outfit, MEMRI.

One person who alerted me to the conference, Charlotte Kates, writes: "Amazingly enough from the descriptions, this does not appear to be a conference sponsored by Hillel or other open advocacy groups, but rather by an academic center at the University. It’s particularly interesting that… an academic conference scorning the very concept of Palestinian identity and inviting presenters from NGO Monitor, ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ and MEMRI passes almost without comment at all – and the very same people who attack Palestinian scholars’ academic freedom find conferences such as this to be perfectly acceptable and legitimate."

I don’t think it’s possible to understand this conference without understanding the prominence of Zionist donors in prestige institutional life. The other person who alerted me to the conference, Ben White, rightly focuses on the besmirching of Yale University by the presence of this festival of propaganda: "What is the role of Yale/academia in this kind of exercise?" And what a travesty, he adds, that "fighting anti-semitism – an anti-racist struggle – is being openly appropriated by far-right Zionist groupings, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lobbyists like NGO Monitor, and Orientalist ‘Arab/anti-terror experts’."

Update: A friend points out the role of Richard Landes. He keeps peddling the story that the death of Muhammad al-Durra (the six-year-old Gazan boy who was killed at the start of the intifada) was staged, something that Gerald Steinberg says is now "widely accepted." Landes even set up an entire website more or less dedicated to peddling the conspiracy theory; check out his attempt to present in an even-handed manner his ‘five different scenarios’ for the killing.

64 Responses

  1. RoHa
    August 24, 2010, 10:55 pm

    We already know that everyone and everything is anti-Semitic, so I’m not quite sure what this conference is for. Is it to explore the links between anti-Semitism and Jewish self-hatred?

  2. ehrens
    August 24, 2010, 11:54 pm

    This is precisely the type of mobilization of “elites” that the Reut Institute recommended in order to create a “firewall” against Israel’s “increasing delegitimization.”

    link to youtube.com

  3. syvanen
    August 24, 2010, 11:54 pm

    After Yale rejected Juan Cole for a position in their history dept. (after the dept offered him a job) and given that Harvard offered Ruth Weiss a professorship isn’t it obvious where those institutions stand. That is where the donations originate.

  4. MRW
    August 25, 2010, 12:01 am

    This is getting to be beyond the pale, but there is a viciously delish way of undercutting these racists: wear a t-shirt with ‘I am an anti-semite’ on the front and ‘The semites: [with all their names in a list]’ on the back. If I were there, I’d make my own with a MagicMarker.

    What are they trying to do?? Get the students before classes start next week, during orientation week?

  5. yourstruly
    August 25, 2010, 12:06 am

    The purpose of the conferenc is to set the Gold Standard as to what constitutes antisemitism. Apparently the definition will be wide, any criticism of Israel &/or support for the Palestinian cause. The conference, will garner tremendous coverage. Afterwards Israel’s supporters will put similar pressure on other colleges and universities, with their goal being to put an end to any and all criticism of Isreal in our post-high school institutions of learning. Will they get away with it? Depends on whether or not enough people protest said hate-mongering event at Yale University, where Zionists are out to brand anti-Zionists antisemitic.
    How can this be? Hey, goes way back…Remember, the Indians were the villains, so too the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Iraqis, the Afghans – all bad guys, with Iranians, Venezuelan, the villains in waiting. Will they get away with it? Not if there’s a peaceful* mass protest at the conference site, in which the truth gets out.

    *with anyone who even suggests violence considered to be an agent provacateur unti proven otherwise.

  6. Antidote
    August 25, 2010, 12:15 am


    Auditorium Keynote: Rabbi David Nesenoff, RabbiLIVE.com: “After I Interviewed Helen Thomas: Journeying From Conflict to Resolution”

    Rabbi Nesenenoff? Keynote speaker at Yale??? what a farce

  7. VR
    August 25, 2010, 12:35 am

    Yale is trying not to be outdone by Harvard. It is two of the so-called institutions doing service for their colonial project, in competition for the recognition and largess of a moneyed elite. A race to the bottom, in showing how far they can go on the downward spiral of atrocities to get what they want. Filled with lies and malice, twisting definitional changes making right wrong and wrong right. It is the tip of the iceberg, showing how much in trouble this country is in today.

  8. sherbrsi
    August 25, 2010, 12:41 am

    It is amazing the extent that Zionist faux-intellectuals go to to demonize any and all sort of opposition to Israel or its motivating rationale. Take Irwin Cotler, highlighted by Phil here, who says that Israel must be defined as the “collective Jew.” In a desperate attempt to grant Israel de facto immunity and exceptionalism for its actions, he is conflating a political body (the state of Israel) with a physical body (world Jewry).

    These Zionists, for their myopic agendas, are redefining historical racism to include political and humanitarian criticism of a state engaged in routine violence, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. These limited and self-serving definitions of anti-semitism are being pushed even more fervently and with a greater air of legitimacy (being shrouded in polls, conventions and think-tank groups). Now, Yale’s hosting of this congregation is most certainly a sign that the Zionists are losing monopoly over the discussion over this conflict and have set about to reassert the boundaries of “acceptable discourse” on Israel and Palestine. In the end, however, and much like most of Israeli policies, this will only hurt Israel’s cause more as Israeli crimes are, as per the advocacy of Zionist academia, made to be seen as Jewish crimes.

  9. Donald
    August 25, 2010, 12:45 am

    Apparently this crowd thinks that concern for Palestinian human rights is evidence of anti-semitism. This is what happens when racists pretend to be against racism.

  10. Sin Nombre
    August 25, 2010, 5:40 am

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “And Charles Small, director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism….”

    Life imitating art: I forget the book but maybe 15 years ago or so there was a hilarious one about a Professor of “Hitler Studies.” One suspects that these Yale folks are beyond embarrassment though.

    Next up, a Yale Initiative For The Interdisciplinary Study Of Antisemitism Studies.

  11. hughsansom
    August 25, 2010, 6:59 am

    After the September, 2009, release of the Goldstone Report, pro-Israel forces scrambled to counter the threat that facts and truth pose to Israel’s occupation and colonization: Congress passed its blind resolution in November; conferences were organized; new propaganda campaigns were contrived (especially the campaign against Iran).

    This Yale conference is one of several that were very rapidly set up in ‘response’ to the Goldstone Report — call it spin-control. There was one at Fordham (including Samuel Edelman and Martin Kramer) on April 27, 2010. And I believe Columbia may also have had such a conference (or another institution in New York City). There was a London conference that included the same Irwin Cotler.

    Also in New York City, the so-called Lawfare Project was launched. David Schizer, Dean of Columbia Law School, attacked Goldstone at that while contemptuously dismissing the exclusion who might challenge the rabidly pro-Israel dogma.

    The strategy since the Goldstone Report’s release has been to re-emphasize long-practiced tactics: the libelous equation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism; the systematic, malicious and racist delegitimization of the entire Palestinian people; the inflation of contrived threats, especially Iran.

    That the idolaters of Israel can’t produce anything new tells us a great deal. They are intellectually impoverished (if not barren outright). They are dishonest, widely prone to bigotry, happy to fan flames of bigotry even if not strictly bigoted themselves, corrupt.

    And they are failing. Despite their ‘best’ efforts, the European Parliament endorsed Goldstone in March, 2010. We saw the Gaza Flotilla in May. Awareness of Israeli crimes certainly seems to be growing (but I have my doubts about that — witness the crusade against a lower Manhattan Islamic community center).

    Israel is losing a war — now a 43-year war of attrition — losing a propaganda campaign to truth, losing what it clearly takes to be a demographic war. Sadly, Israel may be embracing a strategy of MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction. Many Israelis, and their American supporters, seem determined to destroy everything west of the Jordan River if they can’t have it for themselves.

  12. LanceThruster
    August 25, 2010, 7:13 am

    And yet at HuffPo statements such as this are a regular occurrance, but to try to post saying most people could see how offensive it is if it was reversed gets blocked. Who benefits?

    “Their [the Palestinians] case of JUDEOPHOBIA is every bit as strong as Hitler’s.”

    see: link to huffingtonpost.com

    • Chaos4700
      August 25, 2010, 9:10 am

      I applaud you for your patience in sticking around on Huffington Post. I’ve gotten thoroughly disgusted with HuffPo’s total inability to police itself of anti-Arab / anti-Muslim hate speech.

      • LanceThruster
        August 25, 2010, 10:17 am

        Now it’s largely to be a nag over how much gatekeeping they do. It is clear there are many others who also try to express their views rationally on these issues, but get screened. Even when entire posts aren’t screened (I go back and submit paragraphs individually) attempts at discussion are ulcer inducing because large chunks of it are missing and it looks as if something was not addressed. People make idiotic, bigoted, and/or strawman posts, but replies taking every element of their statements to task with valid citations disappear. I can’t even get generic snark up (i.e. “Why do you post something that makes no sense and then claim it proves you’re right?”)

        I was actually shocked they let my dig at DKos go up in a piece by Subcommander Markos.

        I’m not fond of how the delay of mod approval bogs down exchanges here. I would quibble with almost every decision not to post something I submitted pretty much because I wouldn’t have submitted it in the first place if I thought it did not meet the guidelines.

      • chet
        August 25, 2010, 1:21 pm

        It’s also interesting (and disheartening) how the censors at Haaretz have almost completely blocked the posts of pro-Palestinian “regulars” since Cast Lead.

  13. Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel
    August 25, 2010, 8:00 am

    The term “self-hater” is so namby-pamby, so diaspora. I much prefer the Hebrew “destroyer of Israel – knife in the back of the nation”.

    • MHughes976
      August 25, 2010, 9:24 am

      Would this term bear any literary relationship with the ‘stab in the back’ so beloved of Hindenburg and Ludendorff?

      • Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel
        August 25, 2010, 9:59 am


        The first expression (destroyer of Israel) is biblical (see 1 Kings 18). I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the second part is of German origin.

    • Chu
      August 25, 2010, 4:14 pm

      I prefer the latter also. Has much more teeth, don’t you think?

  14. Les
    August 25, 2010, 8:11 am

    It sounds like a tea party for American Jewish Zionists. Is it being funded by the Koch brothers?

  15. Oscar
    August 25, 2010, 8:19 am

    It’s remarkable — a circling of the wagons. Feels like a desperate fringe group that knows it’s being marginalized, that the world is changing and legitimate criticism of Israel needs to be converted into red-line anti-Semitism. Hasbara of the worst kind. Using the Yale brand name to legitimize this intellectually dishonest conference is an outrage.

  16. Siegfried al-Haq
    August 25, 2010, 8:44 am

    I saw Charles Small speak once at a public event and had a conversation of some length with him. A couple of things: first, he’s not a member of Yale faculty. His academic position is with Southern Connecticut State University — his role at Yale is purely administrative. Second, I didn’t find him to be very intelligent at all. He had given a talk on “Islamic anti-semitism”. The talk was ludicrously incoherent, leaping from a snippet of religious text from a medieval jurisprudent to a cartoon from a Syrian newspaper to some other random claim about dhimmis, dropping a decontextualized line about Edward Said and “postcolonialism” in for effect. The bottom line of his talk was: the second Holocaust is neigh, Jews will be slaughtered by Muslims, assisted by postcolonial scholars, if there is not immediate action (such as bombing Iran). One other solution he proposed was more funding of centers for the study of anti-semitism like his. The audience (this was at a public venue) was quite hostile to him, I don’t think anyone there took a word he said seriously. A couple of us cornered him afterwards. One-on-one he was surprisingly deferential and seemed to quickly back off his previous bluster, eventually trying to get us to go for a drink with him.

    Again, what was most surprising was how poorly he made his argument. In fact a smart approach could possibly paint a much more compelling picture for his thesis than he did. All his material was just cut and pasted from MEMRI, and the structure of his talk was childish, even moronic. Afterwards at the reception everyone I overheard was talking about how risible and laughable his presentation had been. Later I sent an email to a friend who teaches at Yale to ask about Small. He was embarrassed and said that there is not a little bit of upset among his colleagues there concerning Yale’s affiliation with this center and with Small personally. But he said there was a lot of money at play and so everyone was just hoping he would cause the least amount of damage possible.

    • Oscar
      August 25, 2010, 9:32 am

      Great insight, Siegfried. Thanks for the backstory.

    • Colin Murray
      August 25, 2010, 9:58 am

      He was embarrassed and said that there is not a little bit of upset among his colleagues there concerning Yale’s affiliation with this center and with Small personally. But he said there was a lot of money at play and so everyone was just hoping he would cause the least amount of damage possible.

      I hope he does the largest “amount of damage possible. Yale administrators should be embarrassed by their affiliations with these racist lunatics. I understand that universities don’t run for free and that fund raising is important, but Yale leadership needs to decide exactly where to draw the line. This event shows clearly shows that they are whoring the credibility of their good name to extremists. “You give us bags of cash and we’ll let you put the Yale name and symbol on your letterhead.”

      • Siegfried al-Haq
        August 25, 2010, 10:39 am

        I don’t want to say too much about this, but I can tell you there’s a lot of handwringing about the decidedly non-academic direction of the center. Lots of embarrassment and finger pointing. My understanding is that Small is not seen as part of Yale proper – no invitations to parties, no introductions at symposia – and not a few people there are unhappy about this outfit. We’ll see what happens.

    • Jaffr
      August 25, 2010, 10:35 am

      The propaganda focus on Arab/Palestinian “anti-Semitism” is a response to the growing knowledge about Zionist history and the Nakba among educated and liberal Americans. Israel defenders understand that people of good will, who deplore anti-Semitism and racism of all kinds, are asking the logical question: Why did the Palestinians have to pay the price for European persecution of the Jews?

      So we see more hysteria about “the Nazi Mufti” and Jewish persecution in the Arab world, as well as attacks on the idea of a historic tolerant Islamic rule in Spain, etc. Look for much more of this from the usual Hasbara suspects. . .

  17. upsidedownism
    August 25, 2010, 8:50 am

    I’m sorry i missed this important conference.

    I noticed in the syllabus that there was a BBQ. There were also parking instructions.

    Unfortunately I could not find any information on the antisemitism of BBQ’s and the antisemitism of parking instructions. I’m sure these were among the topics discussed.

    How long before mondoweiss.net gets shut down? Also in the lecture topics were the following:

    The Internet and the Proliferation of Antisemitism
    • Professor Abraham Wagner, Columbia University: “Antisemitism in the Internet Era”
    • Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center: “Digital Antisemitism”
    • Mark Dubowitz, Foundation for Defense of Democracies: “Terrorist Media ”

    • lysias
      August 25, 2010, 10:48 am

      Abraham Wagner sounds from his Columbia School of International & Public Affairs bio to be a real warmonger:


      Abraham Wagner teaches in the areas of national security and intelligence and is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. At SIPA, he teaches on how the evolution of technology has impacted on the use of military force, development of national security strategy, and intelligence operations. In 2009, he initiated a new course at SIPA on national intelligence estimates and their impact on national security. He also gives lectures on national security and counter-terrorism issues.
      Wagner writes and consults on national and homeland security issues, with a focus on technical issues, such as the evolving threat from cyberterrorism, issues related to electronic surveillance, and nuclear proliferation. He also serves as Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism and serves as a consultant to several U.S. Government agencies.

      Wagner’s publications include Domestic Intelligence: Needs and Strategies (2009); Terrorism and Surveillance: The Technical and Legal Context (2007); Terrorism, Global Security and the Law (2007); Meeting the Terrorist Challenge: Coping with Failures of Leadership and Intelligence (2007); Cyber-Terrorism: Evolution and Trends (2004); a four-volume series (with Anthony Cordesman) Lessons of Modern War (Volume 1: The Middle East, Volume 2: The Falklands and Afghanistan, Volume 3: The Iran-Iraq War; and Volume 4: The Golf War), and Lebanon in Crisis (1975). He has also published several book chapters, including “Cyberterrorism and the Internet,” in numerous articles, and op ed pieces for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe.

      Wagner received his BA from Syracuse University; MA and PhD from the University of Rochester and JD from the University of Chicago Law School. Previously, he was an Adjunct Professor of International Relations at University of Southern California and also teaches at the Inter-Disciplinary Center in Herzilya, Israel.

      Since Wagner is only an Adjunct Professor at the School of International & Public Affairs, I wonder in which of his other roles he spends most of his time.

      • lysias
        August 25, 2010, 10:53 am

        Abraham Wagner seems to regret that it has become impossible to deny security clearances to homosexuals:

        The third and most troublesome aspect of the problem has been the enormous increase in the sheer number of people with security clearances. One recent estimate put the number of Top Secret clearances in the U.S. at 864,000 while the number with lower level Secret clearances is likely in the millions. Giving a million people access to the nation’s secrets is simply a disaster waiting to happen. Clearance processing for the most sensitive secrets, such as compartmented intelligence data, has generally involved a thorough background investigation along with a polygraph examination and other screening tools. Such thorough processing is very costly, time-consuming and simply cannot be applied to the vast majority of all clearance candidates.

        At the same time changing social mores have forced clearance criteria to change as well. In the 1970’s drug use, homosexual activity and other “lifestyle” criteria were automatic bars to high level classified access. As the nation became more accepting of different life styles, so did the security system, and for good reason. Many life style choices no longer created the blackmail and security risks they once did. One result, however, was to bring into the secure world a far larger number of individuals who were unhappy about their treatment in the military or by their employers and others, creating a different type of risk than the one feared in earlier days, as the most recent episode of a massive leak has shown.

        I guess he believes the rumors the Pentagon has been spreading that Bradley Manning is gay.

    • Psychopathic god
      August 25, 2010, 10:59 am

      if BBQ ain’t pulled pork it’s not worth eating.

      now, if you want to discuss vinegar-based BBQ vs. tomato-based BBQ, that conference will have to be held at U VA (vinegar) or Duke (tomato).

      • Philip Weiss
        August 25, 2010, 11:09 am

        psychopathic, i dont know where you got the impression that this site favors Duke. this site favors Tarheels of UNC. Pls change your allegiance

      • Psychopathic god
        August 25, 2010, 11:16 am

        Cavaliers here, Phil.


      • demize
        August 27, 2010, 7:07 pm

        DRY RUB! That is all.

  18. Taxi
    August 25, 2010, 9:37 am

    Quite precious these bunny zionists aren’t they?

  19. Psychopathic god
    August 25, 2010, 10:37 am

    yesterday I watched the documentary film, The Restless Conscience,

    it traces the origin and development of the domestic anti-Nazi underground, The Restless Conscience highlights the conflict between an individual’s responsibility to a personal ethical code and to the national political system. The film addresses a crucial issue: the mass extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany’s governmental instruments, and the response of the German resisters.

    The Restless Conscience is the story of human beings facing choices of conscience and will. Their struggles – within their own ethical codes and against the various manifestations of the Nazi State – provide a microscopic cross section of German society in turmoil during the 30 and 40s.

    I recommend the film to you. It is available thru Netflix & Amazon.

    The people running the Yale conference, and their fellow travelers at all levels of American governance and institutional authority, are behaving in a very dangerous fashion. They will not voluntarily desist.

    What are we willing to do to change their behavior?

  20. Psychopathic god
    August 25, 2010, 11:14 am

    interesting cross-fertilization going on: Israeli university professors are increasingly under scrutiny. Muzzlewatch reports that the Israel movement is being financed by the same people who pump money into Hudson Institute:

    Hudson’s co-founder, the Israeli academic purge and the subversion of US Middle East policy Evidence is mounting that the Institute for Zionist Strategies (IZS) — an Israeli NGO at the forefront of an ongoing campaign to purge Israeli Universities of faculty and programs deemed “left-wing” — is a creature of The Hudson Institute, a major Washington based neoconservative think-tank, which played an active role in shaping the Bush administration’s Middle East policies.
    Hudson is the primary financial backer of the IZS, providing at least half of the organizations’s total reported multi-year funding, but the connection does not end there.
    Max Singer, co-founder of the Hudson Institute, its former President and current Senior Fellow, is also the IZS’s Research Director.

    Haggai Ram, author of “Iranophobia,” cited the censorship of academics, such as himself, who failed to go along with the Israeli state military/political narrative, as a prime motive in writing “Iranophobia.” Ram is at Ben Gurion University, one of the primary targets of Israeli academic purge.

    Did Max Singer or Hudson Institute have anything to do with the Yale conference?

  21. Max Ajl
    August 25, 2010, 12:01 pm

    On Ben White’s comment that “fighting anti-semitism – an anti-racist struggle – is being openly appropriated by far-right Zionist groupings, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lobbyists like NGO Monitor, and Orientalist ‘Arab/anti-terror experts.”: this is incorrect. Fighting anti-semitism is not an anti-racist struggle because racism is intertwined with power relations. A black man in 1920s South Carolina could have called the local sheriff a honky all he wished, but that would not be racist. On the other hand, when the local white terrorists call that black man a nigger, they are being overtly racist, not least because they have nooses and guns and a legal system that would have packed them up should they have chosen to kill that black man for calling the sheriff a honky. Racism flows down the gradient of power, not up it, and even standard dictionary definitions–normally totally unreliable when discussing these terms–essentially agree. Anti-semitism is prejudice or bigotry, not racism, which is not to say it couldn’t again rise to that level, although I don’t think it likely.

    As a corollary, fighting anti-semitism has not been “appropriated” by far-right Zionist groupings, in the same way that fighting terrorism hasn’t been “appropriated” by the Bush-Obama administrations. Far-right Zionist groupings don’t care about anti-semitism, they act in a way that multiplies it by identifying Jews with Israel in a conflation whose dismissal is now verging on cliche: now, class, Jews are different from Zionists, who are different from Israelis, etc. Zionism naturalizes anti-semitism, characterizing it as an essential and inextricable component of modernity. Far-right Zionist groupings accept and encourage that naturalization. They say they are fighting anti-semitism, and I can say I am practicing non-violence while throttling pacifists. Doesn’t make it true.

  22. Jim Haygood
    August 25, 2010, 1:26 pm

    ‘Ben White rightly focuses on the besmirching of Yale University by the presence of this festival of propaganda: “What is the role of Yale/academia in this kind of exercise?” ‘

    Yale University invited the notorious British war criminal, Tony Blair, to lecture at its School of Divinity.

    Alma mater of such moral exemplars as George W. Bush and the Clintons, Yale has long since inured itself to the burden of intellectual prostitution to the moral expediency of power.

    When my son was accepted to Yale, I told him he’d have to pay his own way if he wanted to rub shoulders with its aspirational undesirables. He wisely went elsewhere.

  23. Miriam
    August 25, 2010, 4:52 pm

    Interesting to learn that fundie psychos find no limits to giving vent to examples of their hateful creativity…..as folks like me are no longer merely pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist, self hating terrorist sympathizers….but a new pejorative epithet has been offered me….that I’m merely an “Alibi” joo.

  24. jonah
    August 25, 2010, 5:13 pm

    Indeed, self-hating Jews do certainly exist. From a psychological point of view, this undeniable fact has its origin in the repression of fear generated by anti-Semitism, a reality which certainly and undisputably also exists in the world. This repressed fear, however, as each repressed object from conscious mind, continues to act – astutely distorted – from the unconscious on the conscious subject, creating the typical diversionary mechanism of projection onto an external object that can distract the conscience from the “guilty” act of repressing the original fear.
    A sure sign of the presence of the syndrome of Jewish self-hatred is the one-sided and almost obsessive criticism of Israel, under the mask of international humanitarianism, joining – even leading – the widespread chorus and clamour. Israel, we should not forget, is identified by the (inconscious) anti-Semitism as the pariah state, taking the place of the classic figure of the scapegoat given by the Jew.

    These are subtle mechanisms, and certainly there are those who will foolishly laugh at it. The argument, in truth, will not please the censors.
    It is inconvenient to do self-analysis …

    • David Samel
      August 25, 2010, 11:06 pm

      Wow, Jonah, that is some serious psycho-babble. It looks cribbed, but if this represents your own analysis, you deserve high marks for originality.

      The bottom line is this. Israel is built on a foundation of Jewish supremacy over non-Jewish inhabitants of the land. If I reject my undeserved privilege, calling me a self-hating Jew is equivalent to calling a pro-civil rights Southerner in the 1950’s a self-hating white man. It’s just plain dumb. This whole self-hatred nonsense is BS cooked up to portray criticism of Israel as the sign of a diseased mind.

      If you need further proof, ask my wife if she thinks I hate myself. She could use a good laugh.

      btw, Jonah, I noticed you used the word “inconscious” rather than “unconscious,” and “undisputably” rather than “indisputably.” Such inconsistent mis-use of the letters i and u no doubt reflects a troubled childhood filled with involuntary transference and identity confusion. Don’t bother to deny it.

      • thankgodimatheist
        August 26, 2010, 3:40 am

        “I noticed you used the word “inconscious” rather than “unconscious,” and “undisputably” rather than “indisputably.” Such inconsistent mis-use of the letters i and u no doubt reflects a troubled childhood filled with involuntary transference and identity confusion. Don’t bother to deny it.”

        Now I’m laughing..

    • VR
      August 25, 2010, 11:55 pm

      “A sure sign of the presence of the syndrome of Jewish self-hatred is the one-sided and almost obsessive criticism of Israel…”

      On the contrary Jonah, the refusal of criticism of Israel on its current course, and even condemnation of the atrocities, is a sure sign of deep seated self-hatred. Embracing what is done by Israel as Jewish self-determination is the epitome of antisemitism, the racist hatred and the murderous colonial enterprise is an abomination. To think any differently is not only self-delusion but the privilege of a sociopath operating with impunity. It is sheer insanity if you do not distance yourself from this present course, and curse it for being done in our name.

    • thankgodimatheist
      August 26, 2010, 3:34 am

      “the pariah state, taking the place of the classic figure of the scapegoat given by the Jew.”

      Call me naive but I always assume that those who “scapegoat Israel” (whether Jews or not) do so not because Israel “represents the figure of the Jew”because it represents theft and ethnic cleansing.
      And no, I’m not laughing at your childish attempt at psychoanalysis..I find you as whole sinister enough to refrain..

      • jonah
        August 26, 2010, 10:56 am

        No, thankgod, you are disingenuos. You don’t “scapegoat Israel because it represents theft and ethnic cleansing”, you scapegoat Israel because of the very fact that it exists. This and exactly this makes your mindset problematic – and sinister, indeed.

      • eGuard
        June 12, 2011, 1:05 pm

        No, no and no.

    • annie
      August 26, 2010, 7:19 am

      It is inconvenient to do self-analysis …

      well jonah, i support you in your quest for self discovery (!!!). i highly recommend you check out the last link in this important article.

      The argument, in truth, will not please the censors.

      oh spill it all out, if they were displeased we wouldn’t be reading your psycho babble.

    • Chu
      August 26, 2010, 8:39 am

      Quite a lofty idea you propose. Just because some other fellows have a difference of opinion with your views, you make this passive-aggressive claim that self hating people are just not as strong as you are. That is what you saying, is it not?

  25. jonah
    August 26, 2010, 1:16 am

    David, I told that these processes are subtle. I don’t expect that anyone can grasp them – at least not self-hating Jews, whose inconscious pretty soon “decided” to repress unpleasant facts. This can bring some relief for the conscious subject, but leads inevitably to projections, in this case obviously against Israel. Mooser asked once in another thread the rhetorical question why should the successful Jewish Americans have to pay for the faults of Israel, the tiny … country. The political discourse reflects more than you may think hidden psichic realities. To acknowledge this is the beginning of a process of self-identification that no all are able or willing to confront with.
    By the way, my mother tongue is NOT English, you can not expect that my spelling is always correct. So your pseudo-point is absolute nonsense. This doesn’t mean that my childhood was always untroubled: to grow up in a Christian land as a Jewish boy can be problematic, but at least this makes you become aware of reality and you do not are indisposed against introspection and your true identity.

    • David Samel
      August 26, 2010, 11:24 am

      jonah, I was not really making fun of your English, and have no desire to nitpick with people who speak and write English much better than I can do in any other language. I was making fun of your remote psycho-analysis as a blanket critique for anti-Zionist Jews. The problem is not that we are refusing to acknowledge these devils in our head. It is that we refuse to acknowledge or privileges over the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. That is not a sign of sickness or mental disease or defect, but a political choice based upon our concepts of justice and morality.

      As it happens, I engage in plenty of introspection and always find myself completely faultless. That’s one thing I have in common with the IDF. More seriously, you seem to feel that “true identity” is based on accident of birth. I think we all have to decide what kind of people we want to be, and not let our ethnicity define that for us. I am not running to escape my heritage, but simply trying to chart my own course rather than let the expectations of others do that for me.

      • jonah
        August 26, 2010, 4:39 pm

        David, I was referring explicitly to the problem of self-hating Jews who criticize – actually demonize – Israel, I’m not speaking about non-Jewish Israel’s critics and foes, whose hatred for Israel is very often mixed with anti-Semitism.
        I mentioned above the example of Mooser who in another thread was loudly complaining that the wealthy American Jews, who had been so successful in the United States, would have to pay for the actions of Israel. “Why must I pay for them, for that little … country?”, he was asking rhetorically.
        He is not the only Jew who argues this way: Tony Judt wrote in The Alternative: “Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do. … The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.”
        Very revealing is what Noam Chomsky told in an interview about Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism (Excerpted from Chronicles of Dissent, 1992):
        “Where I grew up we were virtually the only Jewish family….. In Philadelphia. …. There was a really rabid anti-Semitism in that neighborhood where I grew up as a kid and it continued. By the time I got to Harvard in the early 1950s there was still very detectable anti-Semitism. … There were very few Jewish professors on the faculty at that time. There was beginning to be a scattering of them, but still very few. ….. ”
        “Over the last thirty years that’s changed very radically. Anti-Semitism undoubtedly exists, but it’s now on a par, in my view, with other kinds of prejudice of all sorts. I don’t think it’s more than anti-Italianism or anti-Irishism, and that’s been a very significant change in the last generation. …. Besides that, the Jewish community has changed socially and economically. It’s now become substantial, not huge in numbers, but given its numbers it’s a substantial part of the dominant privileged elite groups in every part of the society — professional, economic, political, etc. ”
        Here we can read a specific reference to the idea of the Jewish community as a dominant priviliged group in all parts of society – an idea that we often hear also as open anti-Semitic charge against the so-called Jewish dominance of the media and the financial system in U.S.
        Interesting now the following excerpts:
        “The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement …” There is a “Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of the “Jewish community,” but it’s not just the Jewish community; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.”
        And finally: “The U.S. supports Israel as long as their interests are being served and preserved, but the moment that those interests” will end, “it’ll be finished, in fact, anti-Semitism will shoot up. Apart from the moral level, it’s a very fragile alliance on tactical grounds”.

        In other words, anti-Semitism in the U.S. isn’t at all “on a par with all other kind of prejudices of all sorts”, it is in Chomsky’s opinion only latent and can virulently resume because of Israel and the support by the “Jewish community”, hence it can affect the Jews living in the U.S.A.

        These three examples show the veiled fear of an anti-Semitic resurgence. This fear is projected onto Israel so as to advance the blame on the potential scapegoat, discharging all responsability in front of the majority.
        About the social and psychological explanation of Jewish self-hatred:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        I hope the webmaster will pass this posting through, despite its length.

      • Chu
        August 27, 2010, 9:24 am

        thanks for the link to the 1992 Chomsky interview. No doubt he targets the liberal Jewish community for their questionable support for the State of Israel.

        “The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect.”

  26. homingpigeon
    August 26, 2010, 5:24 am

    There is nothing anyone can say about this qadiyyah (useful word: issue, concern, controversy, The Issue – Palestine), or about the Jewish people in general without it being potentially construed in some way, shape, or form as being anti-Semitic. And that includes what I just wrote.

    But I too participate in this phenomenon. I submit, as should we all, that Zionism is Jewish self-hatred, and support of Zionism by goyim is anti-semitism.

    Discuss among yourselves.

  27. jonah
    August 26, 2010, 6:49 am

    again … unconscious, not inconscious. But probably it even doesn’t pass through … the superego filters of mondo.

  28. tree
    August 26, 2010, 11:53 am

    No one is “scapegoating” Israel. Scapegoating means blaming someone or thing for something for which it is not responsible. Israel is being blamed for things for which it is responsible-ethnic cleansing, a brutal longstanding occupation, and oppression of those who do not belong to its favored ethnic or religious group.

    What is sinister and morally questionable is supporting any of the above simply because it is being done by your chosen affinity group, jonah. Perhaps if you are going to delve in to psychoanalysis you should start with questioning your own motives first. If what is being done by Israel were being done TO Jews I’m sure your attitude would be one of condemnation. So the question you need to ask yourself is why do you accept things that are done by Israel when you would be condemning them if they were done by anyone else. Perhaps your own sense of self is so shakey that you have to unquestioningly overidentify with an oppressive government simply because you think it is made up of people just like you. When white people did that in South Africa and the Jim Crow American South they were accurately called racists. Think about it, jonah. Are you covering personal feelings of inadequacy by excusing certain repressive actions merely on the basis that those who are responsible for that repression share the same ethnic background as you?

    • jonah
      August 26, 2010, 5:03 pm

      “Are you covering personal feelings of inadequacy by excusing certain repressive actions merely on the basis that those who are responsible for that repression share the same ethnic background as you?”

      No, tree. I’m looking at the facts. Fact is that the Palestinians and Arabs aren’t willing to recognize a Jewish state in Middle East, fact is that they tried again and again to weaken and destroy the state of Israel through terrorism and war, fact is that Israel withdrew from its conquered territories and dismantled all its settlements, when there was a serious prospect of lasting peace (even for a cold peace such as with Egypt) and a honest partner for peace on the other side. Nothing to do with “personal feelings of inadequacy”, rather with a desire for honesty and peace.

Leave a Reply