‘New York Times’ implies anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic

US Politics
on 91 Comments
Shlomo Sand Israeli scholar
Shlomo Sand, Israeli historian

When Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski refer to “books like The Invention of the Jewish People and March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” should we assume that these are just ignorant journalists making a grossly inappropriate association, or are they purposefully trying to mislead their readers?

In their New York Times hatchet job on Ron Paul we are told that “white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed.”

White supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists? In the minds of these reporters, anyone who promotes the idea that Israel should become a state of all its citizens — Jews, Arabs and others — apparently looks like a political bedfellow of the likes of Stormfront or the Militia of Montana.

The article reports on the appeal that Ron Paul has among some white supremacists and survivalists and yet says nothing on the anti-Zionist element. Rutenberg and Kovaleski were apparently content to merely insinuate that there is a link between criticism of Israel and racism.

The closest they come to providing evidence of such an association is the article’s opening sentence where the two books are linked.

March of the Titans: A History of the White Race is by Arthur Kemp, an advocate of white separatism and foreign affairs spokesman for the ultra-right and racist British National Party. Kemp is a Holocaust denier and was “linked to the murderer of the South African Communist party and ANC leader Chris Hani in 1993,” The Guardian reported in 2009.

The Invention of the Jewish People, first published in Hebrew in Israel with the title, Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi?, is by Shlomo Sand, Professor of History at Tel Aviv University. The book was a bestseller in Israel for several months before being translated into French and English.

Tony Judt wrote: “Shlomo Sand has written a remarkable book. In cool, scholarly prose he has, quite simply, normalized Jewish history. In place of the implausible myth of a unique nation with a special destiny – expelled, isolated, wandering and finally restored to its rightful home – he has reconstructed the history of the Jews and convincingly reintegrated that history into the general story of humankind. The self-serving and mostly imaginary Jewish past that has done so much to provoke conflict in the present is revealed, like the past of so many other nations, to be largely an invention. Anyone interested in understanding the contemporary Middle East should read this book.”

Of course Rutenberg and Kovaleski would be unlikely to attach much weight to Judt’s assessment of Sand’s book — Judt was after all one of those dubious anti-Zionists.

The irony about linking anti-Zionists with anti-Semities is that Zionism is a philosophy that has obvious appeal to anti-Semites. Encourage all the Jews to move to Israel — why would the anti-Semites object?

Indeed, the emerging political convergence on the extreme right has been between anti-Semites and Zionists and that’s an unholy alliance that probably finds Ron Paul the least appealing among the GOP presidential hopefuls.

About Paul Woodward

Other posts by .


Posted In:

91 Responses

  1. seanmcbride
    December 26, 2011, 2:06 pm

    Can anyone identify any significant differences between Jewish nationalism, white nationalism, Arab nationalism, Japanese nationalism, etc.? All ethnic nationalist movements tend to look alike and promote the same narrow xenophobic (and often racist) values. It’s the nature of the beast. And messianic ethno-religious nationalist movements tend to be exceptionally bestial — they foster a high level of self-righteous fanaticism.

    Put another way: what is the difference between Avigdor Lieberman (a Jewish nationalist) and David Duke (a white nationalist)? Why is one brand of ethnic nationalism more acceptable than the other?

    • Krauss
      December 26, 2011, 6:06 pm

      It’s very easy, Sean. One group has power, and legitimizes it’s own destructive tendencies when persuing nationalist directives. The other has not any power, in any organized form, and as such it’s destructive tendencies are not on full display since it cannot persue what a segment of it’s population would want to persue.

      There is no moral argument here, just a different in power.

    • Newclench
      December 26, 2011, 6:23 pm

      “ethnic nationalist movements tend to look alike and promote the same narrow xenophobic (and often racist) values.”
      That’s not quite true. Nationalist movements break down into all sorts of categories. Irish nationalism included a great many Protestants and wasn’t exclusionary at all. South African nationalism was inherently inclusive – it was the antidote to tribal and racial differences. Could anyone argue that African American nationalism is somehow the sibling of racist American white nationalism? (I suppose one could, but that’s an awfully ahistoric interpretation….)
      Nationalism is just another ism, with adherents existing along a spectrum of intensity and extremism. The violent fringe variants are no more natural and odious than the respectable and progressive versions.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 26, 2011, 7:18 pm

        That’s not quite true. Nationalist movements break down into all sorts of categories.

        the subject wasn’t ‘nationalists’movements. it was ‘ethnic nationalist’ movements. some of the examples you gave are not, by definition, ethnic nationalist movements. link to en.wikipedia.org

        Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the “nation” is defined in terms of ethnicity.

        while Ireland is ethnic nationalist in it’s immigration policies (i think, for the most part) it is not exclusively catholic. israel defines it’s ethnic nationalism thru religion. so perhaps your point was ethnic Nationalist movements break down into different categories. but certainly not all sorts of them.

      • Newclench
        December 27, 2011, 12:35 am

        What does this have to do with policies? Many ethnic nationalist movements have no legal mechanisms to propose or enact policies – because they aren’t in power. (Um… Biafra comes to mind.)
        Meanwhile, I’ll continue feeling somewhere between warm and tolerant towards Palestinian nationalism. Even if they enact a restrictive immigration policy someday.

      • Avi_G.
        December 27, 2011, 10:47 am

        Newclench says:
        December 27, 2011 at 12:35 am

        What does this have to do with policies?

        Policies are the legal manifestation of ideology.

        Meanwhile, I’ll continue feeling somewhere between warm and tolerant towards Palestinian nationalism. Even if they enact a restrictive immigration policy someday.

        Unlike Jewish nationalism which manifested itself in Zionism, Palestinian nationalism is not ethnicity or religion based. In fact, anyone who lived in historical Palestine can become a Palestinian citizen, Jews included.

        Palestinian nationalism is inclusive in the sense that Christians, Moslems, and Jews are treated equally, as citizens.

        And unlike Jewish nationalism, Palestinian nationalism does not privilege any Moslem or Arab over other ethnic or religious groups. With Zionism, any Jew can claim Israeli citizenship based solely on the fact that he or she is a Jew. Worse yet, non-Jews who are/were born on their own land, can very well be denied citizenship.

        A Palestinian state, however, will have immigration policies that treat all applicants equally, without privileging Jews over any other group.

        The only reason you are hostile toward Palestinian nationalism is because it does not privilege you — an immigrant from the United States — over another group. Imagine having to go through an immigration process similar to the one undergone by immigrants to the US. You would have to wait years until you became a citizen, not so with Israel. As a Jew, anyone can become an Israeli citizen overnight AND receive several lucrative financial and economic incentives, whereas immigrants to the US must work long and hard to establish themselves.

        So it’s no wonder that any threat to such a privilege is met with hostility. I’m certain that Palestinians do not need your approval for their nationalism, or for their policies.

      • hophmi
        December 27, 2011, 1:24 pm

        “Palestinian nationalism is inclusive in the sense that Christians, Moslems, and Jews are treated equally, as citizens.”

        Does Hamas share that view? Cmon Avi, don’t be naive.

      • hophmi
        December 27, 2011, 1:27 pm

        “while Ireland is ethnic nationalist in it’s immigration policies (i think, for the most part) it is not exclusively catholic. israel defines it’s ethnic nationalism thru religion.”

        No, it doesn’t. If we’re going by the Law of Return, Israel defines itself through the legacy of persecution of Jews by others. That is why the criteria (since 1970, at least) for entry is one with a Jewish grandparent, not one who is halachically Jewish.

      • Newclench
        December 27, 2011, 2:08 pm

        You really should stop putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth.
        Specifically: I’m not hostile to Palestinian nationalism. And in due course, when they enact laws privileging the right of return allowing descendents of refugees to become citizens over and above other kinds of immigrants it will be perfectly sensible.
        If you think ‘Palestinian’ isn’t an ethnicity that we really have nothing to discuss. It’s a nonsensical position. Like many other ethnicities it can be a bit porous on the margins, but…. yeah, Palestinians are ethnically defined. They are Arabs from Palestine. Or maybe ‘Arab’ is no longer an ethnicity either?

      • kapok
        December 27, 2011, 2:49 pm

        “If we’re going by the Law of Return, Israel defines itself through the legacy of persecution of Jews by others.”

        That’s plan A. You’re forgetting the fall-back position(intoned with utmost gravity): From time immemorial .

    • Charon
      December 26, 2011, 6:41 pm

      IMO, there is no difference between those forms of nationalism and all nationalist movements are just racist and supremacist ideologies in disguise.

      Many people don’t understand what nationalism is. They confuse it with ethnicity and culture. For example, don’t confuse an American with proud Italian ancestry and traditions for nationalism. It’s not nationalism. It’s not self-determination. When Witty writes about his personal definition of Zionism and says we all have the right to self-determination, I have no idea what he is trying to say. Self-determination as in free will? Free will is at the individual level, not national. Or is it self-determination as in national sovereignty? The latter can be related to nationalism, but not without dual loyalty. If you claim to be Zionist because of self-determination, that’s the same as saying you’re an Israeli, not an American. Pick one or gtfo IMO.

      Nationalism IMO is acceptable in a secular nation like the US. Americans are one people but it’s based on our citizenship and not our race, religion, or ethnicity. All other forms of nationalism are unhealthy and will lead to problems for those who subscribe to a different nationalist ideology. The PTB promotes nationalism along our differences as part of the divide and conquer strategy. It makes it a lot easier to bait multiple parties into a conflict.

      BTW, this NYT article is weak. It’s not even an op-ed. What a low point for the NYT.. Mention Jews and Whites in the first sentence.. going for the sleeping masses hoping that their brains label Paul as a racist antisemite.

      • RoHa
        December 29, 2011, 12:10 am

        “Witty writes about his personal definition of Zionism and says we all have the right to self-determination, I have no idea what he is trying to say.”

        Nothing coherent. As I’ve said before, he uses terms like “self-determination” becuase they sound positive, not because he has any clear idea of what they mean.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      December 26, 2011, 7:09 pm

      So do you want to tell us that Palestinians struggle to preserve, defense their own country , language, traditions, customs, symbols, history, religion etc. is a part of Palestinan Nationalism, and should be frowned upon??
      Race is something that you don’t choose. You are born into it.
      You may choose, later in life your religion, your country of living, the language that you speak, traditions that you preserve, but your race is something that you can not really change. You are born with it and you die with it. So it is good to be rather on friendly terms with it.
      People have the right and should protect and take care of something that is close to their hearts. Not on the expense of other human beings, though.

    • hophmi
      December 27, 2011, 1:33 pm

      Sure. Jewish nationalism has resulted in much less death and oppression than the other three. It has resulted in a country that is far more diverse, ethnically, racially, and religiously than any of the other three.

      And while David Duke lives in the United States, a country that has faced very little upheaval or security threat in recent years and has no reason at all to fear his neighbors, Avigdor Lieberman lives in a country that has experienced the targeting of its civilians on a fairly constant basis since its founding, has gone through several wars with its neighbors, and has faced genocidal rhetoric by its much larger neighbors (and continues to face it).

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2011, 2:18 pm

        “Sure. Jewish nationalism has resulted in much less death and oppression than the other three”

        Oh, so there is an acceptable level of death and oppression that a nationalism can inflict. So, tell me, exactly how many Jews can be killed and how many Jews can be oppressed for how long under Palestinian nationalism and have it be acceptable to you?

      • RoHa
        December 29, 2011, 12:13 am

        Avigdor Lieberman lives in a country that has been targeting Palestinian civilians on a fairly constant basis since its founding, has started several wars against its neighbors, and has not merely indulged in genocidal rhetoric but also carried out ethnic cleansing on a large scale (and continues to do it).

  2. ToivoS
    December 26, 2011, 7:11 pm

    I noticed this NY times piece earlier today. The lesson I garnered is that the establishment is approaching hysteria in the resonance of Ron Paul’s message of non-intererence in other countries civil wars. To link anti-Zionism with white racism is beyond extreme. But to link Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas with either is simply absurd. Of course it makes sense that many who value American interests over those of foreign powers may tend to support Paul; I disagree with him on so many issues but I must admit supporting him because of his non-interventionist ideology. There is even a possibility that I will vote for him even though the rest of his policies are unsupportable.

    • Bandolero
      December 26, 2011, 10:56 pm

      @ToivoS

      Maybe you consider to help Ron Paul in the primaries?

      link to bluerepublican.org

      The primaries and caucasuses are the events where Ron Paul needs support most urgent to change the bellicist nature of the Republican Party.

  3. dumvitaestspesest
    December 26, 2011, 7:43 pm

    Zionism is a classic example of Jewish supremacy ,chauvinism , jingoism and what have you. They cry “wolf ” everytime somebody dares to point that to them, and make the person, who is pointing, a bad, anti-Semitic (nad white supremacist) guy.
    Good, old tactic. Less and less efective , people don’t fall for it anymore.

    • ToivoS
      December 26, 2011, 9:20 pm

      Less and less efective , people don’t fall for it anymore

      Agree completely with the first half of this sentence. But not the second half. There could very well be enough people who do fall for it to completely undermine Paul’s campaign. This NY Times article is significant — they fear Ron Paul and they are coming very close to equating his political movement with antisemitism and racism. I hope it doesn’t work but given that the NY Times is pushing this line is going to make it very difficult to build a political movement whose goal is for the US to stop fighting in everyone else’s civil wars.

      This is the problem. I opposed the Vietnam War — Oh that means you support communism. I opposed the war against Serbia — Oh that means you support Milosovich. I opposed the afghan war — Oh that means you support the taliban. Not to mention being a Saddam Hussein supporter for opposing the Iraq war. Next war Iran — oppose it is to a be labelled a supporter of one of the most reactionary religious governments on this planet as well as Israel’s enemy. Now Ron Paul is going to be equated with white supremists and antisemites for suggesting we get out of the ME. However this debate turns out the powers at the NY Times are turning up the heat and they will engage in these well worn (and, face it, successful) smears against the antiwar movement going back over a century (yes, American socialists that opposed WWI experienced the same slander with respect to Germany).

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 26, 2011, 10:05 pm

        The mainstreammedia will try to glue a label of whitesupremacist/anti-Semite/pacifist on Ron Paul’s back. That’s what propaganda do.
        They make up a new label ,and then repeat it over and over ,ad naseum ,to the public.
        It’s like charming a snake with the same melody played all day and night.
        They hypnotise the public with well known melodies:
        ” war with Iran is unavoidable and necesassary”,
        ” we must support Israel unconditionally “.
        Now the new tune is added :
        “those who oppose it are anti-Semites and white supremacists”.

        Btw. I, luckily ,don’t have cable TV ,so I’m pretty resistant to the “medial propaganda tunes”, but I’m sure some people will start, after a while ,repeat those tunes like well tought parrots.
        Some people are very prone to medial hypnosis.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 26, 2011, 10:44 pm

        I seriously think there should be a major campaign to boycott MainStreamMedia.
        Watching TV should be totally uncool/unfashionable.
        I know, I am in a La La Land.
        For many people it’s a major addiction.

      • Bandolero
        December 26, 2011, 11:15 pm

        The Ron Paul campaign was aware that the attacks from the lobby will come hitting hard long before the 2012 campaign started at all. The idea is to turn the attacks around and even gain momentum by such attacks. Ron Paul is going to send the message that he is the one and only “anti-establishment candidate”. Message: if you want to have the pigpen in Washington cleaned up, vote Ron Paul.

        Steve Deace just penned a piece about the Ron Paul strategy 2012:

        The Buchanan Treatment Won’t Work on Ron Paul

        Should Ron Paul win the Iowa Caucuses, the media narrative is the Republican Party establishment will go scorched earth on the quirky libertarian Texas Congressman, just as they did Pat Buchanan back in the day.

        But unlike that successful kamikaze mission of yesteryear, this one won’t work. In fact, if the Republican Party establishment chooses to go down that road they might just propel Paul to the nomination.

        At the moment many voters across the USA are totally fed up with the establishment and it’s going to be no different during 2012. Now the New York Times attacks Ron Paul. The New York Times is – no doubt – a news outlet by the establishment. Such vicious attacks in the New York Times and other estabishment media can give Ron Paul more credibility that he really is “the anti-establishment candidate.”

        And even if he doesn’t win, Ron Paul will most probably change the GOP dramatically if he can get far enough to get a major role in June in Florida. See Peter Beinhart: How Ron Paul Will Change the GOP in 2012

        Since the Iowa caucuses generally reward organization and passion, I suspect Paul will win them easily. That would likely propel him to a strong showing in libertarian New Hampshire. Somehow, I think Romney and the Republican establishment will find a way to defeat him in the vicious and expensive struggle that follows. But the dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul sufficiently to ensure that he doesn’t launch a third party bid. And in so doing, the GOP will legitimize its isolationist wing in a way it hasn’t since 9/11.

        That’s why the zionist warmongers are in panic. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win he may well change the political landscape anyway.

  4. Richard Witty
    December 26, 2011, 9:24 pm

    Although the article did not speak to the headline:

    Anti-Zionism (as distinct from criticism of policies), is often a form of anti-semitism.

    There are varying descriptions of what anti-semitism is:

    1. The hatred of Jews by virtue of their “race”, the family that they were born into. Jews in the left are subject to this anti-semitism, and are therefore sympathetic to opposing this unearned condemnation and often persecution.

    2. The hatred of Jews by virtue of their voluntary association, their continued identification and external association as Jewish. The left is on the fence as to this form of anti-semitism. Some indulge in it, in thinking and communicating that Judaism at all is understood as archaic, superstitious, racist, and that therefore anyone that currently practices such a superstitious practice, life, philosophy is an enemy.

    3. The hatred of Jews’ asserting our identity as Jews, then extends into the form of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. The question of whether Jews should have a state rather than just a confidently free residence, and the question of whether any Palestinian should ever have been displaced by Jewish residence or state are potentially valid questions with a potentially alternative just outcome. When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive, then the attitude that the Jews associating as Jews (even “new Jews”) to the thickness of a state, became abhorrent to the left and the Palestinian solidarity right.

    Zionism is a form of Jews associating as Jews.

    The hatred of “enough Zionism” is an anti-semitism, as relevant as addressing the individual conflicts remain.

    A hatred of Jewish association.

    The hatred may not have originated in Jew hatred, and emerged from a different path. To the extent that a Palestinian, a Palestinian solidarity, the left, the right, or anyone that has come to hate those Jews that desire to associate in the form of self-governance, are expressing a form of anti-semitism.

    Sadly, unlikely to be considered seriously, for the conflict or tension with other noble values, and the failure of imagination to realize nation and democracy by its proponents and by its critics.

    The key distinction is between hatred and criticism. They are different originally, but don’t always stay different.

    • ToivoS
      December 26, 2011, 11:03 pm

      Ugh the fool has joined this discussion. Oh no, anti Zionism is not necessarily antisemitism but it is a gateway drug. Me, your guardian witty, is warning you of the danger. Fine, fine, please go somewhere else with your advice.

    • Bandolero
      December 26, 2011, 11:50 pm

      @Richard Witty
      You wrote:
      “When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive”

      I understood history the way that Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat” was written well before “the 1920′s and 1930′s” and the plan set into motion. From the distance I even heard the rumour that in 1917 there was kind of a Balfour declaration in which the British occupiers aligned themselves with European immigrants into Palestine.

      But it’s hard to understand for me, that under such circumstances the natives in Palestine didn’t like zionist immigrants more than the British occupiers in “the 1920′s and 1930′s.” But I heard, some immegrants had really good relations to the natives. An influental jewish guy called Jacob Israël de Haan seemed to have been such a case. But somehow, as far as my historical understanding is, a guy named Avraham Tehomi killed Jacob Israël de Haan in 1925 on the order of zionist leader Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, because friendship with the natives was deemed a danger for zionism by the Haganah in these times. And, so the rumor is, the murder of Jacob Israël de Haan was then blamed upon natives.

      I heard besides people like Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and Avraham Tehomi there were others crambling around in Palestine in these times, among them a guy calling for the violent zionist occupation of the western wall under British protection. I forgot the name of that honoured guy, it’s probably not worth mentioning anyway, but I heard that the son of his private secretary carries nowadays the fine title “prime minister of Israel.”

      I guess that’s how evil the natives were in Palestine in these times, it was clearly “harrassment of Jews by Palestinians.”

      Did things change from then to now? Or did I misunderstand history?

    • Cliff
      December 27, 2011, 1:12 am

      Richard Witty said:

      The questions of title should be addressed, including assertions that originated pre-1948. And, as it is CRUEL to dispossess civilian residents [Witty only means the Jewish colonists living on stolen Palestinian land facilitated by a brutal 45-year long military occupation] , other remedies to any imperfection of title should be sought through other means than dispossession.

      ****Richard Witty on the Nakba:

      I, like Morris, do conclude that in 1948, the need for haven and for self-governance, and the possibility of it, were so compelling as to make ends justify means.

      I cannot possibly imagine myself undertaking the means of either intense ethically disciplined warfare (against guerillas, a difficult task), nor cruel terror.

      And, maybe that is opportunistic on my part. I don’t eat meat (and haven’t for 40 years) partially because I am unwilling to kill, or even to ask others to kill on my behalf. So, maybe my appreciation of that willingness on the part of Zionist pioneers is hypocritical.

      I don’t think so. Need is compelling. The art in politics by those actually committed to non-violence is to construct paths by which war is unnecessary.

      After war, comes some quiet, with inevitably compromised results. Why not skip the animosity and go right to reconciliation and clarity.

      LINK: link to mondoweiss.net

      ****Richard Witty, trivializing the Nakba as ‘academic’, while simultaneously comparing the removal of ILLEGAL JEWISH COLONIES to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their historic homeland by Jewish terrorists during the 1948 war (during WAR):

      It means that mass forced removal is still forced mass removal.

      Are you serious North?

      Don’t go to the convenient collective hatred theme. Lots of people hate groups that they think don’t belong in a place, for plausible even legal reasons.

      But, the remedy of forced removal of a population, in the present (not in some academic 1948) is a wrong, if not overtly fascist.

      Please find another approach.

      You propose invoking “international law” but would prohibit their individual day in court, in the name of “human rights”.

      LINK: link to mondoweiss.net

      ****Richard Witty saying intentional murder is “never justified”:

      They were murdered in 1920 because of the bigotry of those that associated all Jews with their fears.

      It was politically motivated, ideological, not all that different from much of the ideology cited here by some of the maximalists.

      Rationalized by some stimuli to bigotry. Never justified.

      Is intentional mass murder of teenage boys EVER justified? That anyone would attempt to, is sickening.

      LINK: link to mondoweiss.net

    • lyn117
      December 27, 2011, 1:47 am

      “Zionism is a form of Jews associating as Jews. ”

      Sure, and the KKK was a form of white people associating as white people, as were many exclusive clubs that barred blacks, native Americans and frequently Jews. Similarly, zionists bar most natives of the land Israel claims from citizenship in the zionist political entity there, and they’ve frequently killed people simply because they weren’t Jews, because they inhabited and have a more valid claim to inhabit the land zionists want. I really don’t see any difference between the KKK and zionist organizations other than the specific ethnic group, both are racist to the core, both are bent on denying rights of people not in their ethnic group to the point of mass murder. It isn’t a matter of hating.

    • Sumud
      December 27, 2011, 2:37 am

      When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive, then the attitude that the Jews associating as Jews (even “new Jews”) to the thickness of a state, became abhorrent to the left and the Palestinian solidarity right.

      You’ve got your timeline a bit mixed up there Richard. The harassment of Palestinians by jews – their clear intentions being to usurp Palestine for their own purposes – pre-dated any conflict between Palestinians and jewish immigrants to Palestine, by some decades. Their quest to take over Palestine began before the 1920s and 1930s, don’cha know that by now…?

      You’re such the lame revisionist, just *so* perpetually dishonest.

    • Talkback
      December 27, 2011, 5:22 am

      “When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive …”

      It was the other way around. First there was the demands, then the riots. Read for example the Palin Report after the riots in 1920:

      “69. The following are the considered opinions submitted by the Court:

      1. That the causes of the alienation and exasperation of the feelings of the population of Palestine are:-

      (a) Disappointment at the non-fulfilment of promises made to them by British propaganda.
      (b) Inability to reconcile the Allies’ declared policy of self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, giving rise to a sense of betrayal and intense anxiety for their future.
      (c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
      (d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
      (e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
      (f) Anti-British and anti-Zionist propaganda working on the population already inflamed by the sources of irritation aforesaid.

      2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis.”

      link to en.wikisource.org

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 7:54 am

        I don’t know which came first, the chicken or the egg, do you?

        In 1920, a Syrian sufi named Qassam, organized a series of “demonstrations” that escalated to the mass murder of non-Zionist students and residents in Hebron.

        The message was “Jews get out”, stimulated by Zionism, but not directed at Zionist policies, programs, or Zionists.

        That that occurred was a tragedy for the new Palestinian affirmation movement.

        Sumud,
        Are you sure of “clear” purposes, or just believing what you’ve been told.

        I’m aware of assaults on kibbutzim, over an extended period, that resulted in the conclusion that defensive, rather than cultural and residential, efforts were necessary.

        I wasn’t there. I don’t know ‘who started it’.

        If words or publications are rationally interpretable as ‘they started it’, then the words that are spoken here and in BDS supporting citcles are initiating war on Israel. I think that that is the wrong standard to apply.

        Let words and writing be just words and writing.

      • yourstruly
        December 27, 2011, 9:02 am

        who started the conflict between palestinians and occupiers? same people who started the conflicts in the “new world” between natives and european occupiers – the occupiers. invariably that’s the case when uninvited trespassers try to take over someone else’s homeland.

      • Sumud
        December 27, 2011, 7:55 pm

        If words or publications are rationally interpretable as ‘they started it’, then the words that are spoken here and in BDS supporting citcles are initiating war on Israel. I think that that is the wrong standard to apply.

        Yet AGAIN: the goals of the BDS Movement are threefold:

        1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
        2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
        3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

        It’s telling that you consider the request that Israel comply with international laws and treaties – which Israel has agreed to observe and abide – as a declaration of war.

        Yet AGAIN, you illustrate that you are simply a jewish supremacist who believes Israeli jews should be permitted to operate outside all legal and moral norms.

      • john h
        December 27, 2011, 8:10 pm

        I wasn’t there. I don’t know ‘who started it’.

        None of us were either. This is just another of your lame excuses and an avoidance of the obvious answer, the one you yourself gave: The message was “Jews get out”, stimulated by Zionism.

        Let words and writing be just words and writing.

        Yeah Richard, let’s forget about recorded history, let’s forget about inconvenient facts, let’s call that just believing what you’ve been told.

      • hophmi
        December 27, 2011, 8:44 pm

        How do you define “all Arab lands?” Out of curiosity.

      • Sumud
        December 27, 2011, 10:38 pm

        How do you define “all Arab lands?” Out of curiosity.

        Me personally, or the BDS Movement?

        The text on BDS I used is an exact quote of the 2005 BDS call. Point 1 (as I read it) is about Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, point 2 is about Palestinian Israelis and point 3 is about Palestinian refugees. BDS is a rights-based movement and has no aims as to whether Palestinian rights are respected in a one- or two-state outcome. But, the fact it references Israel as an existing state and calls upon them grant Palestinian Israelis full equality seems to me that it is more inclined to a two rather than one state outcome.

        On the BDS Movement’s Introducing the BDS Movement page they present a more precise wording of their goals, the first point specifically references post-1967 occupied Palestinian lands:

        “1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall”

        As to what *I* think, it is that Israel’s colonisation project in the West Bank has been a huge success (on it’s own terms), but that it has absolutely killed any chance of an independent, viable Palestinian state ever coming into existence. I refer to 1967 as Israel’s Great Gamble, the mistaken belief that they could replicate their 1948/49 success at invading and occupying Palestinian territory outside Israel, and get away with it.

        Mandate Palestine is now a single apartheid state called Israel, and I’m opposed to apartheid, naturally.

    • LeaNder
      December 27, 2011, 8:06 am

      The question of whether Jews should have a state rather than just a confidently free residence, and the question of whether any Palestinian should ever have been displaced by Jewish residence or state are potentially valid questions with a potentially alternative just outcome. When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive, then the attitude that the Jews associating as Jews (even “new Jews”) to the thickness of a state, became abhorrent to the left and the Palestinian solidarity right.

      Which literature would you suggest for more information about the New Yishuv’s attempts at having: “a confidently free residence” in Palestine, versus a Zionist state to be founded on their ground, guaranteed by imperialist masters? You ignore the imperialist tradition with it’s idea of using “Jews” or “the Semites” as some kind of toehold in the Orient. A secular idea Zionism heavily depended on it feels? Just as you basically assume rather stupid population that didn’t realize that the Zionist’s plan was to take over the land?

      Why do you think that most emigrants went to the US and not to Palestine before the 30s? …

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 8:48 am

        LeanDor,
        Not sure how that consideration addresses assaults on civilians.

      • Donald
        December 27, 2011, 7:34 pm

        “Not sure how that consideration addresses assaults on civilians.”

        Which assaults? The only ones that concern you are the assaults on Jewish civilians. Ahad Ha’am wrote in the 1890′s of Zionists who would treat Arabs with contempt and beatings.

        Both sides are guilty of violence–what you will never admit is that your beloved Zionist leaders came to the area with the very common late 19th/early 20th Century belief that non-Western people had no right to self-determination. The fact that Arabs were the majority population in Palestine and didn’t want it to be a Jewish state meant that they were an obstacle to be worked around.

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 9:03 pm

        The significance of the question was in the transition from not needing a state, just residence, to needing a state for protection from random assaults on civilians, you know collective punishment.

      • Talkback
        December 28, 2011, 8:36 am

        Oh I see, Richard. The need for a hostile separation project is because of the hostile reaction to it.

    • yourstruly
      December 27, 2011, 9:16 am

      jews associating with jews is a fact of life. jews occupying another people’s homeland and ethnic cleansing the natives (palestinians), that’s a crime against humanity.

    • American
      December 27, 2011, 12:35 pm

      “Zionism is a form of Jews associating as Jews.
      The hatred of “enough Zionism” is an anti-semitism, as relevant as addressing the individual conflicts remain.
      A hatred of Jewish association”…..witty

      Gawd!….if the world was 1/1000 as obsessed with hating Jews as you are with yourself witty they would be extinct already.
      Let Israel quit doing what it’s doing and it’ supporters quit doing what they are doing …..and the only people left talking about the Jews would be Jews themselves.
      The Jews, Israel and Zionism would disappear from the national and international issue and debate list overnight.
      Much to the horror of the ADL, the holocaust industry, the zionist and Israel.

  5. seanmcbride
    December 26, 2011, 9:28 pm

    Another point: neoconservatives and Christian Zionists continue today to spew a much greater torrent of Islamophobic hate speech in the mainstream media than those repulsive remarks that appeared in Ron Paul’s newsletters years ago (and which were reportedly instigated and penned by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell).

    When are the mainstream media going to renounce and apologize for their own behavior and demand renunciations and apologies from the bigots for whom they have provided a platform? The double standards here are absurd.

    In the last GOP debate Michele Bachmann warned about the dangers of a “world caliphate” — a propaganda meme that could have been lifted directly from Nazi anti-Semitic tracts, with the substitution of Muslims for Jews. Rupert Murdoch continues to provide Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer with an opportunity to promote the most extreme forms of Islamophobia. Why isn’t the New York Times discussing this issue?

    The New York Times could begin by delving into all of Newt Gingrich’s Islamophobic statements and associations during the last year or two. Get crackin’, Times. There is a goldmine of material to explore on this subject.

    • hophmi
      December 27, 2011, 1:23 pm

      “In the last GOP debate Michele Bachmann warned about the dangers of a “world caliphate” — a propaganda meme that could have been lifted directly from Nazi anti-Semitic tracts”

      Except that while there is no evidence, and never was, that Jews called for any kind of world domination (a ridiculous notion on its face for a people that constitute under under a quarter of a percent of the world population), there are a number of prominent Muslim scholars, representing considerable minority movements in the Muslim world, a world that encompasses around twenty or twenty percent of the world’s population, who have said things like that, and the aim of a world Caliphate is an express aim of Al-Qaeda and other similar-minded Salafi groups. More moderate Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood theorize a Caliphate, though they generally advocate non-violent methods of institution in contrast to Al-Qaeda’s use of violence.

      Islamophobia like this is silly, stupid, and based on fear. But worries of a Caliphate are not based on nothing in the way in the way theories of Jewish world domination were fabricated out of whole cloth.

      It’s deeply unfortunate that hate figures like Spencer and Geller use this to smear all Muslims, but to suggest that this is in any way reminiscent of Nazi antisemitic tracts, and wholly fabricated documents like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is to make an obscene comparison.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2011, 2:13 pm

        “Islamophobia like this is silly, stupid, and based on fear. But worries of a Caliphate are not based on nothing in the way in the way theories of Jewish world domination were fabricated out of whole cloth.”

        Oh, what a load of nonsense. You, yourself, concede that the idea is a minority within a minority. It is a nothing; it is exactly the same as the idea of a world Jewish domination, because they have basically the same chance of coming true. (And by this I mean the boogie man view of a Caliphate, which bigots like Geller paint as being the end of the world.)

  6. Ambiv
    December 26, 2011, 10:49 pm

    “Indeed, the emerging political convergence on the extreme right has been between anti-Semites and Zionists and that’s an unholy alliance that probably finds Ron Paul the least appealing among the GOP presidential hopefuls.”

    “To link anti-Zionism with white racism is beyond extreme.”

    In what universe are these writers living?

    It was stupid and ignorant for the Times reporters include Shlomo Sand’s book in the same category as Arthur Kemp’s. But to deny that David Duke, the StormFront, Lew Rockwell (who is admittedy more lucid and less offensive than the first two) and others on the far right are passionately anti-Zionist is, well, ignorant. It is part and parcel of the ideology of both white supremacists and some very vocal radical libertarians. Check out David Duke ranting about “the insanity of Christian Zionism at link to youtube.com. Spend three minutes poking around the Web and there are many other examples.

    That doesn’t meant it is wrong to oppose Zionism or Israeli policies. But it is wrong to deny that progressives who do so sometimes use the same rhetoric and logic as right wing extremists with whom they otherwise disagree. Doesn’t that trouble anyone here?

    • hophmi
      December 27, 2011, 1:07 pm

      “But it is wrong to deny that progressives who do so sometimes use the same rhetoric and logic as right wing extremists with whom they otherwise disagree. Doesn’t that trouble anyone here?”

      No, Ambiv, it doesn’t seem to, unfortunately.

    • Woody Tanaka
      December 27, 2011, 1:36 pm

      “That doesn’t meant it is wrong to oppose Zionism or Israeli policies.”

      That is nice of you to concede as much.

      “But it is wrong to deny that progressives who do so sometimes use the same rhetoric and logic as right wing extremists with whom they otherwise disagree.”

      Exactly what “rhetoric and logic” specifically you are talking about?

      Because the progressive approach to the issue tends to start and stop with the notions all humans have equal rights, that Palestinians have human rights which the Israelis are not recognizing or respecting, that they have an absolute entitlement to their full human, political legal rights and equal treatment under the law, without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

      I don’t really recall Stormfront being terribly concerned with equal treatment and full human rights for all of the people between the Med and the Jordan, as is the progressive case.

      “Doesn’t that trouble anyone here?”

      What is troubling to me is that you would make one reasonable statement and then follow it with an assumption, buried in another statement, which is not only directly contrary to your first, but implicitly assumes that the opposition to Israeli’s actions from Progressives, David Duke and Stormfront are essentially interchangeable. Maybe David Duke and Stormfront have adopted some progressive opinions, but I doubt it. Doing what you did here is bullshit.

      • MHughes976
        December 27, 2011, 2:38 pm

        If anyone produces an argument that is logically valid the only thing to do is accept its validity, since logic is the same for all. You don’t have to accept its truth, because the premises may be false. But no premise – no proposition – is proved false by the fact that horrible people agree with it. Anyone who uses rhetoric, ie attempts to persuade, will tend to use the same methods, often called tricks. Tricks to watch out for include the famous ‘tu quoque’ – ie the attempt to rebut a critique of Me by changing the subject to similar actions by You. Also the famous Guilt by Association. We see these quite often on MW.

      • Ambiv
        December 27, 2011, 3:47 pm

        Exactly what “rhetoric and logic” specifically you are talking about?

        I’ll give you one example in a moment, but first want to note that there is a problem here and I don’t have any suggestions about how to solve it. The problem is that it is really a very small step from the rhetoric and logic of David Duke and his cohorts and a lot of the rhetoric and logic that I routinely find posted here. It was probably inaccurate of me to use the blanket term “progressives,” because it implies that only progressives find their way to this site. Regardless, what bothers me is the denial, the sense I have that MDW fans don’t recognize that one can take a collection of tropes and assertions –many of them with many grains of truth—and organize them in a way that feeds directly into the classic anti-Semitism that blames much of what is wrong in the world on an international Jewish conspiracy. Or if they do recognize that, it doesn’t seem to bother them.

        I find that disturbing even though I agree with much what is routinely asserted here about Israel’s war crimes, its unconscionable treatment of Palestinians, settlement expansion, etc. So I think it is important for progressives who are focusing on the I-P conflict to go out of their way to distance themselves from far right nut jobs and denounce them. And it is also important not to dismiss each and every complaint about anti-Semitism as alarmist or oversensitive or as a way to censor criticism of Israel. If you do that, you make a potentially important constituency that agrees with you about Israeli policy leery of joining you.

        I don’t believe Philip Weiss agrees with David Duke. And I believe he has struggled to sustain his blog’s candid conversation about Jewish power without allowing it to slip into territory that he himself believes is dangerous. But I don’t think this blog has succeeded in doing so. I repeat, I haven’t a clue about what to suggest. But that isn’t going to prevent me from identifying the problem, and asking if others here are also disturbed by it. You might believe the typical “progressive” take on the I-P conflict begins and ends with the call for universal human rights –if it did, I would have no hesitation about embracing it wholeheartedly. But it usually doesn’t begin and end there.

        You wanted examples of “rhetoric and logic.” [David Duke link removed by editor] Look at Duke he calls for, after identifying all the Jews in the banking and financial industries as “Zionists” and describing those institutions as “Zionist robber banks.” It is, alas, not a large leap from what I often read on this site to his pronouncements:

        “o—We must break the Zionist control of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, IMF and World Bank.
        o—We must break their power on the Globalist media.
        o—We must break their corrupt political influence.
        o—Zionism is not a Palestinian problem but a world problem.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 29, 2011, 10:52 am

        Ambiv,

        I would say that the issue here is that you have fallen prey to the idea that if something is subjectively “close” to something that you believe is bigoted, that it is inherently improper. That is simply not so. Because as much as you may not want to recognize it, there is a crucial distinction between “Jew” and “Zionist.” And so long as someone is criticizing Zionists, then the burden is on you to produce evidence that the person is really criticizing Jews as Jews. (That is the fallacy of your Duke comparison. From what you have written, Duke was labelling all Jews as Zionists, but the poster here was concerned about the power exercised by Zionists. If you don’t see the distinction, please say so and I’d be happy to explain further.)

        Because there is simply nothing improper or wrong or bigoted or untoward about criticizing Zionism or Zionists as Zionists. It is an ideology, nothing more, and it is not exclusively Jewish; in fact, I would bet that there are more Christian Zionists in the US than there are Jews in the world. And the day we are not permitted to criticize Zionism is the day we are not permitted to criticize Communism or Nazism or fascism or any other ideology.

        So while you appear concerned about things that are, in your mind, “not a large leap” from improper comment, please be conscious of whether it is objectively so close or whether it is your subjective interest in the question that only makes it appear so. And, second, also recall that it is also not a “large leap” from the edge of a building and the abyss. But a difference between them does exist and it is an important distinction.

  7. CloakAndDagger
    December 26, 2011, 10:58 pm

    Folks,

    Ron Paul needs another $2 million before December 31. The last money bomb raised over $4.5 million to cover the expenses of winning IA and NH. That was a great success and the surge in both IA and NH are very encouraging. Just for an additional $2 million (taking the total to $6.5 million), it would cover the expenses of SC, FL, and NV – a very efficient campaign if you ask my opinion. Compare this to the $1 Billion that Obama – a sitting president – will spend on his campaign.

    Please help get him nominated. We will thank you and the generations that come after us will thank you.

    The time is now.

    Here is his mail to everyone:

    During my entire time in Congress, I have often stood alone.

    Whether it was opposing unconstitutional legislation or simply being willing to speak out for our fundamental freedoms on the House floor, there have been countless times when no one was willing to take on the establishment with me.

    That’s just one reason I’m so grateful to have the support of millions of grassroots patriots like you.

    To tell you the truth, I’ve never needed it more.

    Isn’t it amazing how nasty and vicious the establishment gets when its talking heads and anointed champions are scared?

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise, yet I still find myself just shaking my head at the levels to which they’re willing to stoop to keep you and me from being able to enjoy the full blessings of freedom.

    But you know, there’s one key truth we must not forget.

    They wouldn’t be this angry if we weren’t winning.

    Quite simply, they know I’m not alone anymore.

    Everyday Americans, from small business owners, to stay-at-home moms, to veterans, to young people struggling to get a start on their dreams, are joining with me.

    Our campaign is surging just as voters get ready to head to the polls.

    As they take deeper looks at my opponents, they’re realizing that the other candidates are only offering more of the same.

    Whether it’s supporting the $700 BILLION TARP bailouts and the individual mandate central to ObamaCare, or failing to stand up for life, or threatening our Second Amendment freedoms, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich’s records leave little to stand out from the policies of Barack Obama.

    The American people want – and deserve – real change. And the Republican Party needs to nominate someone who won’t have to spend their general election campaign apologizing for their past positions.

    We now face one final hurdle before Iowa, and that’s the end of the quarter fundraising deadline on December 31.

    I’m setting a goal of raising $2 million this week so we can finish this quarter strong.

    Please help me reach this important marker.

    I know you’ve been digging deep to give me the resources I need to win, and believe me, your generous contributions are paying off each day with every phone call we make, every piece of mail we send, and every ad spot we purchase.

    All of our success would be impossible without your backing.

    • ish
      December 27, 2011, 8:07 am

      And hopefully decent, progressive minded people will do everything in their power to keep this far rightwing nutjob out of the white house.

      • ToivoS
        December 27, 2011, 6:04 pm

        ish, Ron Paul is not headed to the whitehouse. One need not worry. The significance of his campaign is that he has distinguished himself from fellow Rs because of opposition to America’s intervention in the affairs of other nations. If he can carry that message inside the Republican Party and show significant support then that is a hugely significant political story. It might mean that a genuine antiwar candidate might be taken seriously in the future.

        Chalmers Johnson in his last book argued that American politics was so broke — given the deep penetration of military thinking into our society and economy — that it could not be repaired short of bankruptcy or a devastating military defeat. That is an argument I couldn’t deny. Paul’s campaign is a hint, just a hint that there are political forces inside the US are not that broke. It goes without saying that the antiwar voices on the left or on the right are too insignificant to have much impact. But maybe if the two sides worked together on this they just might be able to attract a significant following among independents to make a difference.

        In any case, the Paul campaign is a very interesting experiment into new possibilities .

      • ish
        December 27, 2011, 7:56 pm

        I hear you Toivo. But all your arguments were made about Obama in 2008 and we saw how that worked out for those of us who support the Palestinians. I think in fact that Paul’s campaign is not a signpost of something better but a signpost of ideological bankruptcy in America. And Paul’s ounce of decency in the international affairs arena does indeed come with a lot of truly horrifying baggage. Obama at least paid lip service to things like, you know, civil rights. Movements like OWS which veer left do give me hope that something significant is changing in the US; but support of Paul is a rightwing derailment. And frankly, I find it very very hard to get past the fact that Paul is a nutbag; I think the numbers of people trying to twist themselves into pretzel shapes to avoid that obvious fact is damaging not liberating.

      • Donald
        December 27, 2011, 8:47 pm

        I’d never vote for Paul, ish. But I am glad that someone in one of the parties is making a case against US foreign policy. You say Obama paid lip service to civil rights–well, Paul pays lip service to anti-imperialism. It’s good that someone does.

        As for ideological bankruptcy, well, yeah. What else is new? Sure, the Republicans are even crazier than usual. The only other thing that’s different is that instead of a leftwinger like Nader criticizing our bipartisan foreign policy, now it’s a rightwinger. In a way I almost prefer it that way. Nader was such a threat to Democrats most of them went insane whenever he opened his mouth. For the moment I think Paul has a better chance of getting a few anti-imperialist ideas into the conversation than Nader ever had.

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 9:07 pm

        The problem is that to call Ron Paul an anti-imperialist is a misnomer.

        He regards money as speech, so there is no possible accountability to the Israel Lobby.

        He regards the roll of the president to be to constitutionally execute the laws of the land, by the legislature, so if there is no restrictions to campaign and lobbying contributions, then the Israel Lobby gets a free ride in Congress with a constitutionally compelled president.

        He regards the UN as an abuse on American sovereignty and believes that it only has a mediation role in the world, not any international law that national law is in any way subordinate to, thereby eliminating the accountability of international law (no enforcement powers).

        He is an anti-imperialist only from the bully pulpit, but not in fact.

      • ToivoS
        December 27, 2011, 10:08 pm

        Poor witty does not understand: He is an anti-imperialist only from the bully pulpit, but not in fact.

        I suppose if you accept Lenin’s definition of imperialism in “Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism” you might say that. But there is another meaning and that is to use sovereign military might to support capitalist investments in foreign nations. Ron Paul supports a concept of the free market that if an investment overseas goes south, do not expect the government to bail you out.

        Witty you are excused for your ignorance, as you have admitted here before you were just a mindless advocate of crazed leftist positions. But try to get up to date, libertarian concepts of the free market are not the same as you must have been taught in your Leninist days.

      • ToivoS
        December 28, 2011, 2:57 am

        ish says “I hear you Toivo. But all your arguments were made about Obama in 2008″

        Not sure what you mean here. I thought Obama was going to win. I wasn’t really deluded in what he represented then. I certainly hoped for more, but didn’t expect it.

      • Richard Witty
        December 28, 2011, 5:34 am

        Your confused Toivo.

        How does your comment address what a Paul administration would be in fact?

        He does regard money as a form of free speech, so no checks on the Israel Lobby or any for that matter. He declared that he would veto legislation that limited political speech.

  8. piotr
    December 27, 2011, 12:36 am

    “Zionism is a form of Jews associating as Jews.

    The hatred of “enough Zionism” is an anti-semitism, as relevant as addressing the individual conflicts remain.

    A hatred of Jewish association.”

    For starters, an antipathy based on conduct is not “hatred”. For example, one can legitimately oppose an ideology that is incompatible with the notion of universal human right regardless of the degree of popularity that this ideology has in a certain ethnic group. One can deride the notion of universal human rights as naive and obsolete: some shortsighted idiots stumbled upon a nicely sounding phrase when they were writing a seditious pamphlet titled “Declaration of Independence” without a shred of loyalty toward the Crown that less that twenty years prior defended them against the French (and the Indians). Given rich experience that followed we can safely bury the idea that “all humans are endowed by their Creator …”.

    Yet the idea is not inherently anti-Semitic. The question remains, what authorities can one chose to decide, sine ira, that Zionism is incompatible with that idea? I guess that “duly elected democratic representatives” that form a parliamentary majority can be such a source. It is not a perfect source, but it is not an act of hateful blindness to treat that source seriously. An lo! NGOs that defend human rights are declared enemies of Zionism?

    Or take Dahiya doctrine that I personally find perfectly repulsive. Many self-professed advocates of the Zionist state claim that it is absolutely essential to the survival of that state. Mind you, it is not a mere theory but a codification of practice. One can conclude that the world would be better of without a state that must use such means for its survival.

    One can make good arguments against such conclusions, namely that Israel can survive as a Jewish state without resorting to daily minor (but persistent) shit and constant readiness to commit major atrocities or simply unprovoked aggression (as they threaten now in the case of Iran), to the contrary, it can be fully democratic, without harsh limits imposed on ethnic minorities and intra-ethnic opposition, and without subjugating millions in a harsh regime. My impression is that many people who make such claims are propagandists who do not believe it. Others, and here I would count Richard Witty, are “heretics”, a minority among Zionists, and thoroughly despised by the majority.

    Of course, a minority opinion may be correct. I would amplify it: it is usually a minority that is right on a subject. But is in not an act of hatred to believe the majority of Zionists on the subject of what Zionism is, can be and will be.

    • Richard Witty
      December 27, 2011, 7:57 am

      “Enough Israel” will be the view that ends up prevailing, hopefully. It is the view of the majority of Israelis that I’ve spoken to.

      There are fanatics that hold that greater Israel is their right, and those that criticize liberal Zionists here, in a way collaborate with those right-wing Israeli fanatics in disempowering those that advocate for the green line as border, some reasonable basis of right of return, and advocacy for applied equal rights for all within Israel (and within Palestine as well).

      • Cliff
        December 27, 2011, 4:21 pm

        Why are you posting 11k comments on an anti-Zionist blog, Dick?

        Why not help spread the message of ‘enough Israel’ to the people in power (Israelis)?

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 4:43 pm

        I have something to say.

      • Cliff
        December 27, 2011, 5:44 pm

        Dick,

        We know you have something to say. You’ve made 11K comments.

        But if you sincerely want to affect change, why would you make those 11K comments on an anti-Zionist blog?

        You’ve already said that anti-Zionism can sometimes be the same as anti-Semitism (True) except that your post colors most of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

        But back to the point – hophmi calls MW an extremist blog. He calls Phil Weiss an extremist.

        Do you believe you’re going to affect change on an extremist blog, authored by an extremist author?

        Why wouldn’t you talk to the religious zealots in Israel? Or the Greater Israel Liberals/Conservatives? Why not a group that has more immediate power?

        Are you here because you think the impetus for change is on anti-Zionists?

        Do you believe anti-Zionists are as powerful as Zionists? Do you believe Palestinians are as powerful as Israelis?

        In all your years of spamming this blog, have you made any progress with any anti-Zionist commentator here?

        I say that because, Zionists here are a minority and have come and gone frequently. We really only have you, hophmi and eee with occasionally appearances of the other trolls like jonah.

      • Richard Witty
        December 27, 2011, 9:11 pm

        Adam has stated that the world reads Mondoweiss.

        So, between Phil (who vacilates in his views) and the world, I have something to say, which I’ll continue to.

        One factor is that I believe that the dissenting community on this issue has been utterly inneffective in realizing change, except for change for the worse, in stiffening the backbone of likud, noting the presence of overt subversive anti-Zionist approaches (subverting the existence of the state of Israel).

      • Cliff
        December 28, 2011, 4:30 am

        I’m not asking you what Adam thinks or states.

        I am asking you whether you think your message is better aimed at anti-Zionists or Zionists.

        So do you think anti-Zionists are as powerful as Zionists?

        Do you think Palestinians are as powerful as Israelis?

        Is your message making any in-roads with anti-Zionists on MW? Or with Phil Weiss or Adam Horowitz?

        Do you believe this blog is read by ‘the world’? And if so, what does that phrasing mean exactly?

        If you believe the dissenting community has been ineffective then why are you focusing 11,000+ comments on an ineffective medium for change?

        If we are ineffective then you are by definition, effective. Since it is your camp which is expanding settlements, killing with impunity, censoring the opposition in the real world, etc. etc.

        Do you believe the anti-Zionism of the comment section here (the majority) and/or the views of the authors of articles @MW are ‘extremist’ as hophmi says?

        If so, why do you continue to post among extremists for as many years as you have? This last question goes back to an earlier one: do you think you’ve made any progress with the notable/majority anti-Zionist community here at MW?

      • ToivoS
        December 28, 2011, 11:01 pm

        witty insists he has something to say to the world so he says this:

        There are fanatics that hold that greater Israel is their right, and those that criticize liberal Zionists here, in a way collaborate with those right-wing Israeli fanatics in disempowering those that advocate for the green line as border, some reasonable basis of right of return, and advocacy for applied equal rights for all within Israel (and within Palestine as well).

        As a native American English speaker I have trouble understanding this gibberish. And you think you are talking to the world? Oh what delusions you live with.

      • pjdude
        December 28, 2011, 10:32 am

        to bad enough Israel is all of palestine for them. no Israel would be better that everyone could have all their real rights and not fake ones you like to promote.

  9. yourstruly
    December 27, 2011, 8:43 am

    here we go again. israel-firsters are nervous because the settler-entity’s public image is suffering. what to do? oh, yes, play the antisemitic card. after all it’s always worked before, so why not now? something perhaps about the effect of yelling wolf too many times?

    • Ambiv
      December 27, 2011, 9:16 am

      yourtruly.

      I am not an Israel-firster and am sickened by many Israeli policies. I am not nervous because the “settler-entity’s public image is suffering.” I am also an American Jew. And I do get nervous when people who are OBVIOUSLY anti-Semitic by any reasonable definition, like David Duke and people who rant about ZOG, spout their vile rhetoric and so-called “progressives” don’t disassociate themselves from the messengers because they agree with some of the messages. This is NOT the classic “anti-Semitic card” played by the mainstream pro-Israel establisment to squelch legitimate criticism of Israel. So, tell me, is there anything that Duke says about the Zionists that you disagree with? Is there anything about his agreement with some aspects of anti-Zionism that makes you or anyone else here uncomfortable?

      • yourstruly
        December 27, 2011, 11:34 am

        Duke being a fascist discredits his anti-Zionism, but not anti-Zionism itself.

      • Ambiv
        December 27, 2011, 1:25 pm

        Agree.

      • Bandolero
        December 27, 2011, 12:20 pm

        I think David Duke is no much different in his views than Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres, Livni and the likes. All of them spread ugly ethnic nationalism and racist hatred.

        But there is a difference in influence and action. While David Duke is completely unimportant in every matter, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres and Livni have influence and are capable of gruesome actions. Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres and Livni command a state, armed to the teeth, soldiers with nukes, missiles, tanks, warplanes, a stack of propaganda outlets and have millions of followers. Words and actions of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres and Livni do matter much. They killed thousands and thousands of people.

        Words and actions of David Duke do not matter much. Nobody is listening him and he commands nothing. The only reason he gets some attention is that the followers of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres, Livni and the likes in propaganda outlets like the New York Times find him useful to deflect public attention from the gruesome words and actions of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres, Livni and the likes.

      • kapok
        December 27, 2011, 2:45 pm

        tl;dr: How many divisions does DDuke have?

  10. pabelmont
    December 27, 2011, 9:15 am

    Ethnic nationalism need not always be horrible! No, indeedy.

    However, it only fails to be horrible when a single territory contains as its proper inhabitants no-one other than members (in good standing) of that one ethnic nation. Un-mixed. Then these people can form a government and an army, throw up walls against immigration, etc. This is OK, I suppose. Possibly boring (for a resident of an interesting place like NYC) but OK.

    (Proper inhabitants are people who were present in a normal way rather than as illegal immigrants [as many Jews in Palestine were -- recall Exodus] or invaders. The Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine were “proper inhabitants” as far as I know, Joan Peters’ poisonous propaganda efforts notwithstanding.)
    But the “white supremacists” in the highly-mixed USA do not live in an un-mixed single-ethnicity country and it never was such (after the violent arrival of white people after 1500). And the Jewish-supremacists of Israel have no leg to stand on, since they invaded a territory fully-populated (overwhelmingly by non-Jews) in 1948.

    Well, does ethnic cleansing (as the USA practiced 1700-1900) by introduction of disease, by overwhelming armed might, make ethnic nationalism all right?

    Not in the modern era. We do not live in “Biblical Times” any more, We do not even live in the 19th century any more. The UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Conventions against Racism, Genocide, etc., the Four Geneva Conventions, so much, so much, have the people of the world expressed their opposition to ethnic cleansing and other oppressive racist operations.

    Ethnic nationalism in Israel whether of Jews against Palestinians living properly in their midst cannot be excused. Period.

  11. hophmi
    December 27, 2011, 10:52 am

    Well, perhaps is there weren’t so many antisemites among the anti-Zionists, this would be a problem.

    Sand, an historian with no demonstrated expertise in the subject he wrote about in “The Invention of the Jewish People,” was dishonest in the extreme on his website when excerpting the reviews from his book, most of which were negative, with the exception of those written by ideological fellow travelers who themselves had no expertise in what they were reviewing.

    A perusal of the actual reviews, and not his deliberately misleading excerpts, bears this out beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    Again, two scholars with actual expertise in the field Sand writes about panned the book:

    “Sand’s claims were called “baseless” by Israel Bartal, dean of the humanities faculty at Hebrew University, who called the book “bizarre and incoherent.”

    Anita Shapira, an expert on Jewish history and certainly no right-winger, wrote that “”Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear.””

    link to mondoweiss.net

    In this comment, I show how nearly every review excerpt made to seem positive on the Invention of the Jewish People website is in fact quoted from a negative review of the book.

    link to mondoweiss.net

    • Ambiv
      December 27, 2011, 12:01 pm

      “Well, perhaps is there weren’t so many antisemites among the anti-Zionists, this would be a problem.”

      Huh? Curious about what you’re actually trying to say here…

      • Cliff
        December 27, 2011, 12:19 pm

        I think hophmi is saying that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism.

        He has called Phil Weiss an extremist and also called this blog, extremist. Yet he posts here among us extremists! (Not you Ambiv; I think you are in his camp, right?)

        Anyways, it would seem that the clown has come back to entertain us for a short while before once again returning to his bunker. Why is it that hophmi and eee both show up at the same time after a break from trolling?

        Do you guys have a bunk-bed in your bunker?

      • hophmi
        December 27, 2011, 2:33 pm

        “I think hophmi is saying that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism.”

        I think maybe you can’t read English very well. I said that there are many antisemites among the anti-Zionists, and anti-Zionists do little to deal with them, so it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two. I did not say they were the same thing. YOU said that.

        “He has called Phil Weiss an extremist and also called this blog, extremist.”

        It absolutely is.

        “Do you guys have a bunk-bed in your bunker?”

        Yeah, we have a bunk-bed. LOL. We decided it better than the baby crib you apparently live in.

      • kapok
        December 27, 2011, 2:59 pm

        Why is it …? My theory is that having been pwned they slink off and wait for newcomers to this blog to gather, then slip back posting the same BS with the aim of enlisting new recruits.

      • Cliff
        December 27, 2011, 3:31 pm

        I think maybe you can’t read English very well. I said that there are many antisemites among the anti-Zionists, and anti-Zionists do little to deal with them, so it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two. I did not say they were the same thing. YOU said that.

        Nah, I got your meaning.

        You are saying that anti-Zionism – for all practical purposes – is the same as antisemitism.

        It’s cute that you think you have the credibility to parse anti-Zionism. Someone who thinks a Palestinian majority or any meaningful Palestinian consensus, supported Hitler. And someone who never criticizes Israel, instead disassembles at the sight of any and all Zionist crimes/failings with mendacious/spurious/asinine/pretentious garbage.

        He has called Phil Weiss an extremist and also called this blog, extremist.

        If this blog is extremist. If Phil Weiss is an extremist.

        Then why are you still posting here?

        Yeah, we have a bunk-bed. LOL. We decided it better than the baby crib you apparently live in.

        LOL, at least you’ve admitted you are quite literally in bed w/ that lunatic!

      • Cliff
        December 27, 2011, 3:40 pm

        The only thing racist/bigots like hophmi and morons like eee do here is help people in the middle of the road lean toward anti-Zionism.

        I’m a perfect example. Not Jewish. Not Muslim. Not Arab. Not Palestinian. Not Israeli. Just American (and a minority too!). Atheist. Well-educated/upper-middle-class.

        The only people who support Israel are racists/bigots/Christian fundies/political and intellectual cowards and those who don’t know the full story yet (and eventually change their minds once they learn more of it).

        And the reason not many people care, is because of a general problem of apathy. It affects every issue. Factor in Jewish identity and the emotional blackmail that two-faced Zionists use all the time in our political culture – it’s easy to understand the playing field (rigged game).

      • MHughes976
        December 27, 2011, 3:42 pm

        Zionists tend – understandably, I suppose – to use words in such a way that ‘anti-Zionism’ will always turn out to be ‘anti-Semitism’, though precisely stated definitions aren’t that common. People may use words as they like provided they make clear what they’re doing.
        I use ‘anti-Semitism’ to mean unfairness and prejudice against Jewish people. I don’t think Sand questions the Scriptural record because he is prejudiced but because he is popularising the critical theories that have arisen among scholars, even fairly conservative ones, and which deserve to be more widely known – one obstacle being a culture of discretion which is doing great harm. He does tend to favour the most radical among the available range of conclusions, but that is a position well within reason. Standard works, like the Oxford History of the Biblical World or Grabbe’s ‘Ancient Israel: What do we know and how do we know it?’ would show you what I mean. They are rather less radical in their conclusions but belong, if I may put it like that, to the same thought-world.

    • pjdude
      December 28, 2011, 10:35 am

      wow imagine that a guy living on stolen land as a part of that invented people thinks its bs. to bad there isn’t a conflict of interest or anything. anything even remotely critical of ISrael always gets panned. usuallyh by people like you.

  12. seanmcbride
    December 27, 2011, 2:56 pm

    One notices an interesting social dynamic here. Most of us are not ethnic nationalists — we are fully integrated and comfortable members of modern Western democracies. We get along fairly well on most issues — we are not trying to oppress or kill one another over our respective ethnic identities.

    The few Jewish ethnic nationalists here seem to be bogged down in perpetual and embittered conflict with nearly everyone — with Americans and Europeans much of the time, and even with many members of their own ethnic group who are not immersed in ethnic nationalist politics.

    One suspects that this is a general pattern among most ethnic nationalist movements — ethnic nationalists tend to generate the social and interpersonal conflict they most complain about. This is why modern Western democracies have abandoned ethnic nationalism — it’s a real time-waster and energy-waster that creates more problems than it solves.

    I am betting that most diaspora Jews and many Israelis are getting sick and tired of all the conflict, which keeps escalating from year to year. This is not a productive way to live. There are better and more life-affirming modes of political and social organization than ethnic nationalism. Jewish civilization down the line may well write off Zionism as a lost cause and failed experiment that was concocted by one of many false and delusional messianic prophets in Jewish history (in this case Theodor Herzl).

    The more that Jewish nationalism fails, the more deep the hole in which zealous Jewish nationalists dig themselves. Seriously: doesn’t this describe the current disastrous trajectory of Israeli politics and culture? Who can miss it?

  13. American
    December 27, 2011, 3:13 pm

    “The more that Jewish nationalism fails, the more deep the hole in which zealous Jewish nationalists dig themselves. Seriously: doesn’t this describe the current disastrous trajectory of Israeli politics and culture?”

    Yes, describes it to a ‘T’.

  14. john h
    December 27, 2011, 6:37 pm

    Hear Lowkey on anti-Semitism and Zionist Israel, and what we fight for.

  15. Ramzi Jaber
    December 27, 2011, 10:18 pm

    It is the Zionists and the US fundamentalist Christian Zionists that are merging “Zionist” and “Jew” in their discourse to gain advantage. The outcome is quite the opposite: Zionism is causing anti-Semitism.

    The idea of Zionism:
    1) Create a state that gives a particular religion more rights than others.
    2) Call these people the “chosen people”, implying that others are children of a lesser God.
    3) Steal land by using the Bible as a real-estate guide with God as a real-estate broker.
    4) Murder, imprison, oppress, and deport a whole people just because you are the “chosen people”.
    5) Refuse to integrate into other nations where you live and prefer instead to create a ghetto state since you are “unique” based on religion.
    6) Use Nazi atrocities to gain advantage in a different age, different time, different situation.

    The only automatic and axiomatic conclusion to the above policy is anti-Semitism. You cannot protect against anti-Semitism by insisting that you are different, better, special, unique, above the others, and that you cannot assimilate in the countries you live but rather you need a special religious state to “protect” yourself. Defies basic logic.

    Oh, one more thing… Palestinians and Arabs are Semites too!

  16. CloakAndDagger
    December 27, 2011, 11:58 pm

    The IA GOP has decided to move the vote count to an undisclosed location.
    Looks like another vote fraud is under way.

    You can help prevent the fraud:

Leave a Reply