On Thursday my co-editor and I spoke about our Goldstone Report book at Suffolk Law School in downtown Boston. There were maybe 15 people in the room and in the third row there were four or five Israel supporters. You could tell. One had on a yarmulke. Then when we started talking they would sit back and roll their eyes or grin or groan. It was kind of amusing in a Lil Abner way. As a speaker I try to channel positive vibrations, though, and I started keying on a woman's face in the back row. She was large and seemed Asian. She nodded when I spoke about the killings of Palestinian children, and offered me other encouragement.
During the Q-and-A the hasbara-ists lit into us. One talked about the so-called occupation, and went through a litany of Arab attacks on the Jewish population in Palestine and Israel. Another talked about what Americans would do if rockets were fired from Tijuana at San-Diego.
Finally the woman raised her hand and was called on.
"American Jews live in a dream world. Do you ever wake up?" "Who are you addressing?" an older guy said. "I'm addressing what I hear constantly. American Jews all speak the same, they have the same retort. Everyone gets the same script. Nobody thinks outside the box. Nobody thinks about who's on the other side that they're killing."
Our moderator jumped in and said it was inappropriate to talk in such a blanket manner about Jews. The woman continued, saying, "I see a slow-drip genocide. I see Israel as committing a genocide..." And there are no consequences because Israel has "bought off the media and bought off the Senate and the Congress."
I asked the woman if it was meaningful to her that the three co-editors of the Goldstone report book we're pushing are Jewish. She said it was, and that she's impressed by the American Jews who work for peace, she thinks they're up against a lot.
It was a disturbing encounter. It cast a pall over the event. And still the question of Jewish orthodoxy about maintaining a monolithic community in support of Israel to the outside world is a real issue. There are many fissures in that monolith. But there's still an orthodoxy. Jeff Blankfort once wrote a paper about American Jewish "responsibility" for Israel's crimes, and I have written that Palestinian statelessness is an American Jewish achievement. I feel I'm going to be wrestling with this question for a long time, hopefully in a more gentle manner.
Still I found the woman's comments disturbing. They seem all the more reason to try and organize Jews against the occupation and the denial of Palestinian rights, all the more important to help Jews wake up.
Anti-semitism is a powerful tool in the hands of Israel and the pro-occupation Jews in the United States. Such a powerful tool, that it must be resisted whenever it shows up in the guise of Palestinian solidarity.
Ah, so Palestinian solidarity equals anti-Semitism! Good to know, Clenchner, I’ll be on the look-out! Funny how it happened that way, huh? Probably had something to do with the Mufti.
Would you call that overt or “covert” anti-Semitism.
Clenchner, go back to hasbara school.
I’m sorry, Phil, sometimes I do find your writing murky and inchoherent (He should talk! PW) but are you saying the comments by that woman were indeed anti-Semitism?
yes
Wow, you have got one hell of a low threshold! I congratulate you. Well, I gotta be fair, Phil (and thanks, very much, for answering, and so promptly. It’s very generous of you) I might have said the same thing, about two years ago, before I started reading Mondoweiss.
BTW, did you get the “large” “Asian” woman’s name, tell her what you planned to write, and ask for her point of view? Not that it’s any use with large Asian anti-Semite women of course.
MOOSER- Boy, are you onto something here! What, according to Phil, did she say?
“American Jews live in a dream world. Do you ever wake up?” “Who are you addressing?” an older guy said. “I’m addressing what I hear constantly. American Jews all speak the same, they have the same retort. Everyone gets the same script. Nobody thinks outside the box. Nobody thinks about who’s on the other side that they’re killing.”
How is that different from what Phil has said again and again? The big difference, of course, is that SHE’S NOT JEWISH! Warning! Danger! Goyim out of line! The amazing thing is that Phil can’t see it! Or can he, and is being manipulative? The reality is that most American Jews have been co-opted by Zionism.
So, when Phil is unclear and only comes clear when asked to the point, we get the point and that then the questioner, Mooser noone else, finds it worth a compliment?
This site, I still get the impression it is a we-jews one. Sorry for interfering (though I won’t shut up).
EGUARD- Mooser’s “compliment” to Phil was in regards to his prompt response to Mooser’s question, nothing more. As for the rest of Mooser’s comment, I’m surprised that Mooser’s none-too-subtle sarcasm went over your head. Mooser holds Phil to account like no other Mondoweiss commenter.
“Mooser noone else, finds it worth a compliment?”
I always try to be complimentary. My mother told me a million times “If you haven’t got something nice to say, don’t say anything!” And she was right!
“is that SHE’S NOT JEWISH! “
“Well”, he said, biting his lip and looking pensive and thoughtful (hard to do with a dewlap) “It would be different if she was married to a Jewish man, than it might be allright”
Know your place, goy!
(Joking)
How is that different from what Phil has said again and again? The big difference, of course, is that SHE’S NOT JEWISH! Warning! Danger! Goyim out of line!
Bingo. You’re exactly right. It’s never appeared to me that clearly that what Phil keeps saying over and over again, he does not feel comfortable hearing in the mouth of the goyim. And what most Jews are afraid of concerning Phil Weiss is precisely that: that he opens the door to this kind of talk among goyim. Along the lines: “If Phil Weiss who is Jewish can say that, why can’t I?”
To be fair, I understand that using “Jews” instead of “some Jewish people” or “most Jewish people” is regrettable. And I’m very much against generalization. Yet, nullifying this woman’s comment and labeling it “antisemitism” means “you unwashed masses should not tackle the issue unless you master all the required oratory precautions”. In other words, John Mearsheimer, good, John Doe, bad.
Phil, but didn’t she take the generalization back when she conceded – “she’s impressed by the American Jews who work for peace, she thinks they’re up against a lot.”
I see these weren’t her exact words, but it sounds like her position is this: The generalization was made in anger and under the pressure of speaking before a lot of people, and when she cooled off she took back the generalization.
Do you remeber what where her exact words afterwards?
Because it is important, racist generalizations are always wrong, and it’s alright if you are upset, even if she didn’t hurt somebody physically.
Was she wrong? Do you READ the comments section on your own site? Do you have any idea what an echo chamber Zionist Jews operate in?
I am sure it isn’t anything like the echo chamber anti-Israel/Jews operate in Chaos (ie Mondoweiss).
Zionists tend to criticize things in the Israeli government that they don’t agree with while you guys just blame the Mossad or foreigners.
Chaos,
“Do you have any idea what an echo chamber Zionist Jews operate in?”
Per Phils quote, she was not talking about “Zionist Jews” but about “American Jews”.
…which would have nothing to do with the fact that AIPAC and the ADL and scores of other Zionist organizations paint an image that no Jew isn’t a Zionist.
I keep saying it and I’ll say it again. Anti-Zionist Jews need to take Judaism back from the Zionist zealots. Right now, they almost exclusively control the image of the American Jewish population.
Chaos,
So you’re saying: She talked about “American Jews” in general, but her image of American Jews is largely influenced by AIPAC ADL etc. who themselves claim that they speak for all “American Jews”.
This makes sense. And as I said further up, the woman later conceded the role of Israel-critic American Jews.
“yes” won’t do it, Phil. What exactly was anti-Semitic about her statements? Or was it maybe just an uncomfortable truth?
American Jews all speak the same, they have the same retort. Everyone gets the same script. Nobody thinks outside the box. Nobody thinks about who’s on the other side that they’re killing.”
Black people all speak the same, they have the same retort. Everyone gets the same script. Nobody thinks outside the box. Nobody thinks about who’s on the other side that they’re killing.
Mexicans all speak the same, they have the same retort. Everyone gets the same script. Nobody thinks outside the box. Nobody thinks about who’s on the other side that they’re killing.
you can’t hear it?
Context. She was obviously referring to the people in the audience, who “all spoke the same.” Which, as we have seen hear, is often the case.
good point.
Bollocks.
I wouldn’t presume to question an African American about the nuances and context of a racist comment made to him or her.
I’m an easily identifiable Jew. I have been on the receiving end of covert and overt anti-semitism. It’s unpleasant. I can’t say whether this woman is or isn’t an anti-semite, but I wouldn’t presume to question the reaction of the writer.
There are too many people here who genuinely believe that the actions of the Israeli government or the political beliefs of anyone mitigates some common or garden race hatred. It doesn’t.
It is important to people like Chaos and, to a similar extent, Mooser, to reduce people to make them easier to understand and therefore despise or, in Mooser’s case, mock. They believe that if you’re a Zionist then that’s all you are. Your opinions on any subject are suspect and even irrelevant because of your political beliefs. This is the same kind of reductionist thinking that is behind fundamentalism whether Jewish, Muslim or Catholic.
Yes, I am saying that Chaos is a fundamentalist. He has a peculiarly unsophisticated view of people and their beliefs. He is here every day. He learns nothing new and he maintains the same opinion on every subject.
It is key importance to people like that that there is no such thing as antisemitism in 2011. This is because he cannot conceive of a world where some of the fears expressed by some Zionists in defense of their actions may be real. He is not sophisticated enough to argue that those real fears may not justify the response because that is too nuanced and considered. He has to argue that the real fears are totally unfounded, even invented. Anti-semitism is a myth or it’s caused by Zionists, or it’s part of a Jew-media plot.
I don’t know if this article shows an instance of antisemitism or not. It’s hard to tell from here, but the rush to insist that it doesn’t is a reflection of a narrow and unsophisticated readership.
This was an incidental piece, at best.
So who are you? Woody Allen? Seriously.
No. I mean that I wear a skullcap, you buffoon.
Although I should have guessed that in everything I wrote accusing you of being incapable of reasoned discourse that that’s the sentence you would pick up on.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chaos4700.
“I’m an easily identifiable Jew.”
Try getting some new T-shirts. That whole shoot-the-fetus thing is in such bad taste, anyhow.
Sorry, sorry. Okay I just want to assure everyone there is absolutely no projection in GuiiltyFeat’s statement. Yeah, and that “covert” anti-Semitism, that’s the worst kind!
Look, Guilty, I can’t send everybody white shoes and a sterling-silver cocktail shaker, I’ll go broke.
Look, you meant to write “overt” or probably “overt and horrific” but you made a typo, it happens, I shouldn’t have jumped on it. “Covert” my God!
Oh, you did write “overt”! Oh wow, we got us a live one! How did you get out of… oh never mind, honey, mix me another ether-and-laudanum.
Some of my relatives suffered “overt” anti-Semitism too. I used to think it was fatal, but thanks to you, Guilty Feat, I now know different.
By the way, Guilty, you can just get a toupee to hide your bald spot. I carry mine proudly, and use the sun’s reflections to contact TelSat.
Chaos, I’m ashamed of you! How dare you not know how to immediately identify a Jew! What are you, some kind of anti-Semite!
BTW, Guilty, what do you do when it’s windy? I mean, if the yamulke blows off, how will people know you are a Jew? What if they are shorter than you, and can’t see the top of your head? And if they didn’t know you were Jewish, what might happen?
have i told you lately how much i adore you mooser.
;)
You’ve lost me I’m afraid. I said overt and covert anti-semitism. Are you aware of what these words mean?
Overt anti-semitism is when people spit at me or punch me while shouting “take that, yiddo”.
Covert anti-semitism is when you are born and educated in England to English-speaking parents and you make an innocuous comment while attending an English university and another English person says “well it’s not like that in OUR country.”
As for the wind, I use girls’ hair grips to keep it on my head.
Mooser, dude, I’m happy that being Jewish was never an issue for you. I think that’s awesome. Why do you find it so difficult to respect my experiences?
Oh? And what was the comment you made?
“what do you do when it’s windy? I mean, if the yamulke blows off, how will people know you are a Jew?”
ROFL :-)
“Overt anti-semitism is when people spit at me or punch me while shouting “take that, yiddo”.”
What do you call it when Jewish Israelis spit at Christians in Jerusalem?
I caught a whiff of CNN the other night, with some pundit (possibly Asian?) opining that Anti-Arab sentiment in the US and elsewhere ‘is not a one-way street’ but a reaction to ‘what Arabs do’ (paraphrase). Imagine any such statement made about anti-Israel sentiment, let alone anti-semitism. All hell would break loose, and Foxman et al would issue condemnations left, right and center, asking for heads to roll. Sad, really. Pathetic, too.
Overt anti-semitism is when people spit at me or punch me while shouting “take that, yiddo”.
where and when is it that you’ve experienced such behavior? i mean the question sincerely.
GuiltyF, you poor thing. Why dont you stand up and fight instead of ‘feeling’ persecuted? It’s what your taught in life, so you respond according, like a coward. If you get beat up, you eventually heal and get ready for the next fight.
Chu, I have never said or written that I feel persecuted. I don’t.
“What do you call it when Jewish Israelis spit at Christians in Jerusalem?” What an odd question.
I call it revolting and racist. What else would I call it? What could you possibly know about me that would lead you to believe anything else?
“where and when is it that you’ve experienced such behavior? i mean the question sincerely.”
And yet your asking it still sounds so aggressive.
The last time I was punched in the face was in London coming out of the cinema with some friends many years ago. I’ve been spat at in London and, oddly enough, one time in Budapest.
Why would you want to know these things? They’re not terribly interesting. I only mentioned them to clarify what I meant by overt anti-semitism which Mooser seemed to think was the funniest thing he’d ever heard.
i’m not certain how the question comes off as ‘so aggressive’. ‘where’ and ‘when’ are simple journalistic questions in response to your factual allegations. in any case, such acts are very interesting/important, presumably having some bearing on the state of anti-semitism in the locality where they took place.
WE DON’T. But you pulled a Witty and made the conversation about you! You! You! and how your suffereing is so much more privileged over the rest of us, supposedly.
ANNIE- First of all, when someone comments extemporaneously, the words which pop into their mouths are frequently course and unrefined. Secondly, I think there may be a lot of truth in what she says. Her experience has likely been with organized Jews, many of them Zionists. That she should hear the same talking points and message over and over again is not surprising. This is what she is reacting to. I would suggest that her comment isn’t in the same league with David Mamet when he claimed that “The world hates the Jews. The world always has and will continue to do so.” Yet, when has David Mamet ever been labeled as an anti-Gentile chauvinist?
GUILTY- If you are looking for some examples of vicious anti-Semitism, look no farther than the abuse heaped upon Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and the late Israel Shahak by the organized Zionist brown shirts who don’t tolerate criticism of Israel by public intellectuals.
“I only mentioned them to clarify what I meant by overt anti-semitism which Mooser seemed to think was the funniest thing he’d ever heard.”
No, not the funniest, not at all. Not by a long shot.
Chaos,
He was responding to this question:
please dude just chill out!
Someone was just banned here, iirc, for suggesting that “what the Jews do” might have something to do with antisemitism.
Keith, do you understand the concept of anti-semitism?
Racism is a generalization. It often tries to use the actions of the few to characterize the intentions or desires of the many.
How can any reaction to an individual, based on the writings of that individual be racist?
If someone were to read Chomsky and say all Jews were twerps, then that would be racist. Just as if someone were to read Finkelstein and say all Jews are articulate and smart, that would also be racist.
If someone reads Chomsky and heaps abuse or praise on Chomsky, then that cannot be fairly described as anti-semitic.
Make sense?
“No, not the funniest, not at all. Not by a long shot.”
Then could you please explain your reaction to my use of the word “overt” it seemed to crack you up so much that you wrote three posts about it.
It seemed to me like you simply didn’t understand my use of the word. Did I misunderstand something?
(Feel free to add another of your zingers in your response, you’re cracking everyone else up.)
“What do you call it when Jewish Israelis spit at Christians in Jerusalem?” What an odd question.
I call it revolting and racist. What else would I call it? What could you possibly know about me that would lead you to believe anything else?
——–
What an odd reply and insinuation. My question was rhetorical. Of course one would call it ‘revolting and racist’. So why do you need the concept of anti-semitism in the first place, as if different rules applied to spitting at people on account of their ethnicity or religion? That was my question, and I don’t need to know anything about you to realize that you, and a great many others, are indeed applying that double-standard. I don’t approve of double standards and double morality.
Please clarify. In what way have I applied a double standard in calling all racially motivated attacks revolting.
What an odd thing to deduce from my applying the exact same standard in two different incidents.
GUILTY- If an organized group of gentiles were to harass you by saying that it would have been better if you had died in the Holocaust, and attempted to get you fired from your job because of something you had written critical of Gentiles, what would you call it?
The first part is anti-Semitic. The second part is a personal attack.
GUILTY- So when organized Zionists write hate mail to Finkelstein and Shahak telling them the world would be better off if they and/or their parents had died in the Holocaust, what would you call that?
And there are no consequences because Israel has “bought off the media and bought off the Senate and the Congress.”
Qualify your statement Weiss. What did Netanyahu mean when he said that American is a thing to be moved easily? And what of the routinely shameful American policies and policymakers that you cover here on this site, who deny the presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank, who deny the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, who deny the Palestinians any right or recognition to their land or state, and justify any and ever Israeli atrocity either by omission or explicit justification of widespread violence?
There are countless examples, many just on your site.
This woman put two and two together, nothing else.
Actually, my attitude towards anti-Semitism changed as I grew up. When I was young I was terrified of it. But after I got out in the world, and found out what kind of and the intensity of prejudice towards blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and so many others, exists in America, I would have been very insulted and worried if there wasn’t some anti-Semitism, too. If those bastards like you too much, you’re in trouble. Shows we haven’t been completely subsumed and suborned anyway.
And if I feel too bad I just slip on my white shoes and have a cocktail.
thanks mooser. i want you to write your life story. and im not alone. pls get in touch if you’re ever inclined that way
“i want you to write your life story. and im not alone. pls get in touch if you’re ever inclined that way”
You bet! In fact, I think we can do this right now!
“i want you to write your life story. and im not alone.”
Don’t threaten me! I don’t care how many of you there are, I can’t give you something I haven’t got, and you’ve named two, a life, and a story. And there still is a Fifth Amendment, you know!
“pls get in touch if you’re ever inclined that way”
I was born Jewish in post-WW2 America, but was converted (at swordpoint, of course) to poverty. Turned out the conversion only half-took so I ended up a poor Jew. I might be the only one left.
Mooser, seriously (now that is an oxymoron) Phil is a professional writer and recognizes good writing. His interest means something. I agree with him. Even if most of my sentences come across as clunkers I do appreciate those skills.
“and recognizes good writing.”
And, I’m sure, knows bald-faced plagiarism when he sees it. He’s just wants to turn me in and get the reward.
He’s been very patient and tolerant with me, and I appreciate it.
I’ve told him before: it’s your site, and if ever you feel a comment of mine isn’t worthy of it, just don’t print it. But apparently he’s not inclined to do me any favors. I guess it wouldn’t be fair to Witty.
Mooser, I may have discovered your ancestor:
link to wsjhistory.com
No, that’s not my family. I think my ancestry can be traced back to Joseph Silver. He’s a famous man, a historian named Charles Van Onselen wrote a book about him called “The Fox and the Flies” I’m not sure, and I certainly don’t put on any side about it, tho.
Not me. I want to animate it. :D I imagine it would be like Peanuts meets the Book of Job.
@Chaos,
This needs to happen. NOW.
I think it was Groucho Marx who said that he wouldn’t want to join a club that accepts “people like me”.
“I wouldn’t want to join a club that would have me as a member.”
ME. Not, “people like me.”
I don’t know. Maybe it’s a generational thing, maybe it’s because I’m so damn unique. Maybe because I’m a halfbreed and wasn’t culturally indoctrinated. But I don’t feel any discomfort when I hear things like this. I feel as alienated by Jews as I do by most other groups. Individuals are taken on an individual basis for me, but I find it suspect when someone needs a group identity to define them. To deny that there is a kernel of truth in what the woman said is to be obtuse.
“To deny that there is a kernel of truth in what the woman said is to be obtuse.”
Well, Phil did say she was “large”.
“…An antisemitic moment…”
Interesting, because she not Jewish? Because she may have ‘accidentially’ classed all Jews not waking up? Because no non-Jew is even allowed to talk about the huge Jewish identity game and $$$ bribes that finds its way into our political way of life (and media).
“…”bought off the media and bought off the Senate and the Congress.”…”
So she’s not allowed to say anything when she sees something fishy? She’s not allowed to bring up Jewish money in politics (Boston MA included), and the media – but you are? That she might have had the brains to listen what Goldstone had to say prior to agreeing to work for the UN, and now with Goldstone’s op-ed that her suspicions may have been right all along?
link to mondoweiss.net
So she’s not allowed to say anything when she sees something fishy? She’s not allowed to bring up Jewish money in politics (Boston MA included), and the media – but you are?
you don’t get it. it wasn’t that she saw something ‘fishy’ it was that what she saw , she expressed it about all jews. it was that she didn’t see the jews outside the box. there are lots of them.
i think she hears a jewish ‘group voice’, or the lobby voice and that is what she is responding to. and why is that surprising when that group does try to speak for all jews. but it’s sad and it’s anti semitic all the same because she thinks it means all jews are like that voice and they aren’t.
but she has a point about that lobby voice. they all argue pretty much the same and stick to those talking pts. maybe she just doesn’t hear the more individual voices as ‘jewish’ per se. she hears another voice but she hears it in the same chorus as me or phil or anyone and it just sounds like another individual. there’s a collective jewish voice that’s very loud and represented and distinguishable. that’s the voice she is talking about but when she references it she should realize and remember there are thousands and thousands of jews outside of it and not have to be reminded.
“it was that she didn’t see the jews outside the box. there are lots of them.”
But the Jews in the box are the ones who push themselves into our vision. They make the most noise. They seem to be the overwhelming majority.
I know there are Jews outside the box because I have discovered them while investigating the I/P problem. People who don’t have the same level of interest, or do the same research, are not going to notice them.
People who don’t have the same level of interest, or do the same research, are not going to notice them.
or maybe not notice them as jews. i spent my whole childhood not knowing a bunch of my friends were jewish. it just never came up or if it did it flew right over my head. i’m not kidding. how would i know? they didn’t look or dress or act any different than everybody else and they certainly didn’t all act ‘the same’. my parents never told me they were jewish. i didn’t know what jewish was. i didn’t know til i was older 1/2 my friends were jewish.
But the Jews in the box are the ones who push themselves into our vision.
yes they are, they try to speak for them all like ’99 percent of jews are zionists’ or ‘the VAST majority of jews are…’ etc
“they try to speak for them all ”
And since we hardly ever hear the others, we Gentiles get the impression that they do.
“or if it did it flew right over my head.”
That was the yamulkes, flying away on a windy day. I know, you thought the tefillin and thought it was like some kind of special Jewish i-pod. Yamulkes are at least cool, and I have many happy memories associated with yamulkes. Think of Mormons, they are supposed to wear an entire union suit.
“Tefillin” makes me think of kosher non-stick frying pans.
“you don’t get it.”
No, it seems you don’t seem to get it, or can’t read pass the first couple of lines of the post. What’s your agenda?
Good for her for raising her voice (so few non-Jews do, especially in a meeting that’s predominately Jewish) — If you actually bothered to read the rest of what Phil wrote you would realize she doesn’t believe all Jews don’t think outside the box…! However, the Jews that predominately establish themselves in politics, and who are supposedly liberal (and there’s enough of them) definitely do have the same talking points — and are at the ready to either smear those who even dare to criticize Israel, or downplay Israels actions.
e.g. Marcy Winograd’s campaign really showed what AIPAC’s ground troops could do.
The I-Lobby isn’t just the rich bigwigs in AIPAC — it’s hundreds of organizations throughout the States, with troops on the ground who setup shop in synagogues and campus, organize phone lines on mass to campaign and threaten public entities like NPR to not broadcast anything negative about Israel (I’ve ‘many’ of met them) — all aimed to specifically to shut down critics of Israel. This is what the public hears, this is what this woman is hearing — and she called it out. Jewish voices from every corner trying to tell the rest of us how ‘special’ Israel is, how ‘special’ they are. Well, it’s damn right disgusting what Israel is doing and if Liberal Jews continue to misinterpret (including you it seems?) the frustration that good people are trying to express that we have had enough of the lies, and manipulation, and footing the bill for this diabolical enterprise.
The 2SS is dead (come on — It’s DEAD) — and for those who say Israel is not committing genocide (albeit slowly) then what would you call it? They treat the Palestinians like dogs, they destroy and bulldoze their homes, crush their economic development, restrict their education, medical access, steal their resources, and when they have no where else to go — and they try to fight back — Israel kills them. It sick. I’m fed up with all the excuses, and I’m really fed up with hand-wringing. The Palestinians are being snuffed out before our eyes — and we still have to talk about standing behind a bloody Jewish genocidal State?
As an aside: It’s interesting that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been made head of the DNC.
“…Wasserman Schultz, 44, was chosen for her strength as a fundraiser and as a television messenger and for her clout in the crucial swing state of Florida, the sources said…”
link to politico.com
Wasn’t she the one that sided with Netanyahu over Obama when it came down to settlements, and prefers Floridian Republicans than progressive Democrats (ref Howie Klein)– as well as being bff with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen when it comes to Israel. It never bloody ends!
but it’s sad and it’s anti semitic all the same because she thinks it means all jews are like that voice and they aren’t.
That’s not true. Read the article again, she acknowledges them and is thankful for them.
“I asked the woman if it was meaningful to her that the three co-editors of the Goldstone report book we’re pushing are Jewish. She said it was, and that she’s impressed by the American Jews who work for peace, she thinks they’re up against a lot.”
But she knows that they are severely outnumbered by the Zionist orthodoxy. it’s not anti-semitic to acknowledge that a large number of Zionists are calling the shots, are hateful, violent and warmongering, and they hold prominent and persuasive positions in the media and politics.
While she may be generalizing, she is not off the mark in her assessment (although I disagree with the genocide against Palestinians part, it is not without merit).
E.g. Boston ‘AIPAC/Israel (‘Jewish State’) Politics:
Grossman defeats Polito in Mass. treasurer race
November 2, 2010
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Steve Grossman* will be the new state treasurer in Massachusetts in Massachusetts.
link to boston.com
Former AIPAC president hopes to oversee Iran divestment
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
08/04/2010 04:13
link to jpost.com
*A great gatekeeper for the cause — when it came to allowing only pro-israel candidates into the Democratic party.
“…Amazingly, even Steve Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, says he would support Lieberman running as an Independent if he loses to Ned Lamont in the Dem. primary. “[T]here has not been a greater champion of Israel and the well-being of the Jewish people,” Grossman said…”
link to observer.com
Phil, aren’t you contradicting yourself, though?
On the one hand you consider the woman an anti-Semite, yet on the other hand there is this:
How does Adam Horowitz feel about it, I’m curious? Does he share your sentiments?
avi, really, you are missing the point. ‘impressive jews working together for peace’ can be lumped together on account of their collective impressiveness (did I mention how impressive they are?) however it is upsetting to weiss that a large asian woman (clumsy code for ‘goy’) would level derogatory accusations at the larger american jewish community, accusations that are identical to those that he regularly makes on his own website. (and how does he know that this large asian woman is not a canadian jew, for example. people are constantly mistaking americans for canadians, and the other way round, in my experience, never taking the time to get to know us north americans as individuals.) try as he might, mr. meritocracy can’t get past the ‘positive stereotypes good/negative stereotypes bad’ illogical dichotomy that is a feature of his minority psychosis.
agree, marc…
well, chu, great minds and all that.
RE: “she’s impressed by the American Jews who work for peace, she thinks they’re up against a lot” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: It is difficult to “speak truth to power”, but it is far more difficult to speak truth to powerful kinfolks!
Phil , I think that you may have judged the woman a bit too harshly as an Anti-Semite. You quote her as saying that Israel bought off the media and the Congress. Israel, not “the Jews”. That’s an important distinction.
On the other hand, she did accuse Israel of carrying out genocide, no less, which proves, to put it mildly, that she’s misinformed.
Misinformed? Really? Do you suppose those hundreds of dead children your army slaughtered a couple years ago have been telling her lies all this time?
Seeing that the Palestinian population is increasing, and their economy growing, and their standard of living rising – that would make the Israelis the most incompetent perpetrators of genocide in history.
Oh those Palestinians! So many surplus hospitals! I suppose you did them a favor, bombing those things. They’re like weeds!
Seeing that . . . incompetent . . . genocide blah, blah, blah.
fascinating. so palestinian civil society in gaza is thriving on account of . . . what, exactly? the gentle, guiding hand of israel? and WB palestinians are better off than ever as the WB is increasingly pocked with settlements and palestinians’ access to resources is increasingly restricted in favor of jewish WBers.
really, jons, you could do better. you’ve taken one word (‘genocide’) and used it in an attempt to turn history on its head inferring that things have never been better for palestinians (‘why everthing is looking up! the sky’s the limit!’) when that is not the case at all.
People under occupation will seek liberation, even if under the occupation their standard of living has improved. That’s perfectly understandable.
Of course I’m in favor of ending the occupation and the settlements , so that Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. My problem was indeed with that one word -genocide- which is a term that should not be used where it’s not warranted.
i assume you are aware scholars part ways over the definition of the term. would you like to change the official (international law) definition of the crime of genocide?
Try that one on for size again, jon, when a single day goes by where an Israeli Jew isn’t driving a Palestinian off of their property to either A) claim it or B) raze it.
Pretending that your people aren’t waging deliberate pogroms against the Palestinians makes you a willful collaborator.
Phil’s writing is not murky, so much as satirical humor. He is also commenting on accusations of himself as being anti-semitic in some manner. Maybe I’m wrong, and he is really murky and less than aware of his commentary, and I am just reading my own projections into his comment.
Phil’s thesis here is that immoral behavior in the name of Jews results in anti-semitism, in Jews being identified as the problem.
And, there lies his, Adam’s, Lizzy’s responsibility, to articulate proposal.
The Mondoweiss response to the Goldstone report has been odd to my mind, a hatchet job on Judge Goldstone, whom they lauded and used frankly, in their long theme.
There is no evidence of re-thinking, so much as evidence of rethinking tactics, but not content.
There is still the enabling of Hamas, by Phil and Adam’s perpetual silence on Hamas on this site. Silence when Cast Lead was brewing, no mention of Hamas shelling civilian towns, and escalating.
It is dangerous. That murders occur is an indication. A theator director murdered, reported for allowing men and women to perform together, and in the masks of pigs of all things.
Goldstone might have been coerced. I wrote to Phil privately that I intuited that his family might have been personally threatened.
Or, he might have changed his reasoning, and posted his op-ed for the effort of convincing Israel to submit to international law, evidentiary collection, due process in court.
That smart people here don’t consider anything but nefarious motivations is a FAILURE, not an insight.
The problem with you, Witty, is you don’t take anyone or anything seriously except your own overbearing pomposity.
“I wrote to Phil privately that I intuited that his family might have been personally threatened.”
Got a high opinion of Jews, don’t you Witty! Okay, okay, now I’ll play you a nice version of “Israel, the Gem of the Middle East” (Sung to the tune of “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean”)
“I wrote to Phil privately that I intuited that his family might have been personally threatened.”
Whose intuition his family lacked?
Phil,
I think you raised a huge and very important issue and I hope this thread has some legs.
I think there are several sources for anti beliefs or prejudices, be they based on blackness, hispanic-ness, asian-ness, women-ness, gayness, age-ness, or Jewishness:
1. Collective appearance: to the extent that any of those protected groups look, speak, act or live differently from the mainstream they may be perceived as inferior or threatening. These beliefs and fears are largely irrational and harmful. Fortunately, the emphasis on multi-culturalism has lessened that effect in the US as has normal social blending, intermarriage, etc.
2. Envy based on perceived monetary and professional success and social and political influence. I think this is a particular problem for Jews as by-in-large they are far more successful and influential than most in virtually all professions and career fields (with the possible exception of NFL down linemen).
I think the problem here is that some behavior, success, or influence may be worthy of criticism, while most of the rest is nothing more than irrational prejudice which can result in unfair and even ghastly outcomes. For instance, if a particular religious culture practices genital mutilation or the selling of young daughters as brides, these practices may engender righteous criticism and prejudice. If a particular group gains entry and influence in the professions, media or politics by crony-ism, bribery or other illegal conduct, that too could engender righteous criticism and prejudice. So some forms of criticism of protected groups are valid and should not be described as unfairly discriminatory.
I think most Jews tend to see any criticism of Jews as anti-Semitism without making distinctions whether a criticism may have some validity. Some of that has become a tool to deflect valid criticism. Criticism of Israel and the role US Jews play in its support is typical of the areas where valid concerns for irrational, invalid anti-Semitism is conflated (intentionally or unintentionally) with invalid concerns based on actual bad conduct on the part of US Jews and/or Israelis.
My guess is that the Asian woman you described was expressing valid, but over-generalized concerns about the opinions and conduct of most US Jews with regard to Israel. She certainly didn’t seem to be using the words of a Jew baiter or irrational anti-Semite. I think you should have cut her some slack. Sure her comments were over-generalized, but they probably accurately described the true state of the vast majority of the US Jewish community with regard to Israel. i.e. Most US Jews are over-protective of Israel and largely in denial about its actual conduct. Most Jews toe the party line out of a genuine concern for the viability of Israel.
One of the unintentional side effects of the opening up of the I-P debate is that it has and will engender a lot of valid criticism of both Israeli policies and conduct and the US Jewish community’s role in enabling and protecting that conduct by its huge influence over US politics and the US government. That will engender a lot of valid criticism of Jews while unfortunately also pleasing and stoking the fires and arsenals of true irrational anti-Semites.
One of the problems of success by hard core Zionists in Israel and the US is that their success in turning the US into their patsy, enabler and financier of immoral and unlawful conduct by Israel may one day blow up in their faces when the true cost to the US becomes clear to its citizens. If Israel and its lobby gets blamed for the likely bad outcomes, it won’t be just Israel and AIPAC that gets blamed. The blame may well be placed on US Jews for both fair and unfair reasons. A public outcry and backlash against US Jews could get ugly.
The solution to me is in getting the mainstream Jewish community informed and involved in the debate and the movement to change Israel so it reflects the values of both Judaism and the US. I think campus involvement is a key as is outreach to every US synagogue and every US Jewish community center. Once the mainstream Jewish community knows and accepts the truth about Israel’s conduct, it won’t long tolerate it. If the US Jewish mainstream points out the harm Israel and its lobby’s conduct and policies are causing the US and acts to lessen that harm, there will be no public outcry and backlash against US Jews; more the reason to quickly get this debate going in the mainstream Jewish community.
I had an epiphany of sorts a couple of days ago when it occurred to me that a single state solution was already in place and had been for 44 years, what I called the Zionist apartheid Jewish state of Greater Israel which includes the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I won’t attempt to provide my rationale for this statement as it is well described in earlier Mondoweiss threads this past weekend. Much to my amazement, a comment I made on this in the middle of one of the very long threads concerning Jerry Slater’s defense of Zionism and whether it was compatible with justice for the Palestinians, was picked up by a sharp-eyed Mondoweiss editor who then converted it into its own thread based solely on my comment:
“The Current One-State Reality in Israel-Palestine”:
link to mondoweiss.net
My point in that long thread in which I put on a strong defense against many commentators, is that it is all over but the shouting and that debates about future one or two state solutions are futile as neither Israel nor the US is willing nor politically capable of changing the reality that Israel is an apartheid state and intentionally has been for 44 some years. That my statement is accurate is confirmed by the comments of Mike Huckabee during his last trip to Israel, by today’s statements by Eliot Abrams that Jordan must be the state for the Palestinians, and by others, all noted in previous Mondoweiss articles.
My personal belief is that the reality of Israel being a long time apartheid state must be put at the forefront of the I-P debate and must be carried into the mainstream US Jewish community, much as did the brave youngsters of JVP did last year during Netanyahu’s speech at the GAJFA conference in New Orleans . Their actions first awakened in me the thought that the only realistic solution to the I-P problem was in taking the debate to the mainstream Jewish community. I then wrote a passionate article about the actions of the JVP GAJFA Five:
“A Long Line of Annoying Jewish College Kids”:
link to savingisrael.wordpress.com
I ended with a call to arms to all those heroic Jews of my age who were center stage stalwarts in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s in our own then apartheid South. It was a call to these Jewish heroes of our own civil rights struggle to rise again for a just cause and take the battle for Israel’s soul to the mainstream US Jewish community. Unfortunately, despite promises by you and by Annie, my passionate article never saw the light of day on Mondoweiss.
On that churlish note, I will end with a longish excerpt from that article in what is already a very longish and somewhat self-indulgent comment by me:
I think Phil did, off hand, raise a huge issue, and it’s one I’ve been bracing myself for, and frankly, dreading. When the debate over the Israeli-Palestine issues reaches a certain critical mass (if it does) and becomes fuel for our American national discourse, it will be treated in our discourse in the same manner as the other issues are!! And if that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, especially if you are Jewish, it should. Look at the level and quality of the discourse on other issues around rights, war, peace, gender, spending, morals, you name it. The nature of our discourse, held through the media is to seek the lowest uncommon demoninator. And turn everything into a Manichean melodrama.
It’s going to be a mess.
And, what’s worse, as has been more than adequately demonstrated in these comment pages, Zionists have no desire to raise the level of that discussion, and every interest in dragging it down.
If I were Phil (which I’m sure he’s very grateful is not the case) I would buy myself an ‘inureance’ policy. Or at least an endurance policy, he’s gonna need it.
It’s going to be mess. And the pot has been simmering for decades.
Even if there is a 2ss in the next decade, the discussion is only beginning for many about the why the government/media have protected and support a neo-colonial client state against it’s own self interests. Knowing the reasons relating to WWII and the Holocaust is one thing, but allowing this state to move forward unchecked, fomenting danger for all parties involved throughout the 1980′s to the present day is another entirely separate issue.
It definitely scares me. However, the alternative is to bare our throats to the AIPAC’ers and let them do what they want with our civilization. The Israel Lobby is highly corrosive to rule of law, our civic culture, and our economy. What will happen to our country if the AIPAC’ers aren’t checked scares me more. Also, we Americans simply don’t owe to anyone toleration of their level of misconduct.
I think a “national discourse” is certain to happen. We are well on our way. What matters now is how the conversations are guided so that the people having them leading up to the “critical mass”, i.e. those spreading knowledge and understanding, have accurate information from which to form opinions. Otherwise, simplistic explanations WILL lead some to antisemitism who might not have gone there otherwise.
American Jews fearful of or interested in understanding gentile viewpoints should ask themselves what data most gentiles receive from MSM from which to form judgments about Zionist activity both here (the Israel Lobby) and in Israel. We are bombarded with the notion that Judaism and Zionism are essentially the same thing, e.g. “the American Jewish establishment” for the Israel Lobby and “the Jewish state” for Israel. What conclusions would you draw if you were a gentile trying to understand the Lobby and Israel with overly simplistic and erroneous data?
It may be that the woman who spoke up at the meeting wasn’t intrinsically antisemitic, but didn’t have data from which to express a more nuanced opposition to American Jewish support for Israeli crimes such that she didn’t come across as antisemitic. Her agreement that “it was meaningful to her that the three co-editors of the Goldstone report book … are Jewish” suggests to me that she left the conversation with a personally verified datum on which to chew: not all American Jews support Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
I think communication problems are partially a result of the high level of abstraction commonly used, e.g. “Judaism equals Zionism” or “a Jew is either a Zionist or not and all Zionists are exactly the same.” It seems to me that there is a “continuum of Zionicity” that needs to be analyzed to better categorize people and ideas. Not only could this be a wedge to crack open the orthodoxy, but it should be preferred that, when we reach a true national discourse, gentiles are able to at least differentiate between pro-ethnic-cleansing/Israel-first Zionists, less radical Zionists, and non-Zionist Jews.
The idea of post-Zionism is all fine and good for a conversation within the American Jewish community, but the ugly reality is that, unless miraculously unforced the Israel Lobby closes up shop and the Israeli government decides to stop robbing and murdering Palestinians, eventually someone is going to be held responsible within the court of public opinion. It is obvious that it would be better if the predominate label for the guilty party were “extremist Zionists” rather than “Jews”.
This will necessitate a split in the American Jewish community. There is a hardcore of the pro-ethnic cleansing/colonization, eretz-Israel-first crowd that will never compromise. I hope their numbers are few. Irregardless, let them take sole responsibility for their actions.
didn’t have data from which to express a more nuanced opposition to American Jewish support for Israeli crimes
Therein lies the problem. “Didn’t have data from which to express a more nuanced opposition.” Nuanced. Tippy-toe. Scratching your left ear with your right hand. The problem is expecting that everyone should have that code and use it, when the issue is a much larger humanitarian one that (1) gets lost in all that filigreed nuance, and (2) makes a mockery of noble thought and action.
I direct you to my post here where I copy snippets from what the 31 American Jews wrote who petitioned President Wilson to bring their protest against the formation of a Zionist State to the Peace Conference in Paris. There are saying nothing less than what that Asian woman said, except that they said it 92 years ago.
link to mondoweiss.net
Colin Murray, this is an excellent comment. I’ve sometimes tried to raise the same warnings, but haven’t done it as well as you have here.
It is obvious that it would be better if the predominate label for the guilty party were “extremist Zionists” rather than “Jews”.
Sorry, but when and if the day of reckoning for Israel and Zionists comes, it will be just as ugly as the current phase of Islamophobia and Muslim-hatred that has gripped America, if not worse given Israeli/Zionist manipulation and “intimate involvement” in domestic and foreign American affairs, to put it mildly.
“When the debate over the Israeli-Palestine issues reaches a certain critical mass (if it does) and becomes fuel for our American national discourse, it will be treated in our discourse in the same manner as the other issues are!! And if that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, especially if you are Jewish, it should.”
What exactly do you mean by that? Who do you believe is going to harm Jews? Also, do you believe that Zionism is the only issue that other Americans could have with the Jewish community?
So how is this more accurate view of American Jews to be promulgated, if all the media are in Zionist hands? (Is “all the media are in Zionist hands” one of the inaccurate views that needs to be corrected?)
“Irregardless”!
I don’t think I’ve actually seen anyone use this non-word before.
link to wsu.edu
>> “Irregardless”!
>> I don’t think I’ve actually seen anyone use this non-word before.
Really? It’s common enough here in Canada. Along with – unfortunately – the increasingly poplular “The thing is, is that…”