‘After Zionism’ at the Brecht Forum next Tuesday night

After Zionism
After Zionism

Heads up, next Tuesday night, Antony Loewenstein and I will be speaking at the Brecht Forum in downtown Manhattan about the exciting new volume, After Zionism. And what with the demise of the two-state solution and the crisis of the Israel lobby, there couldn’t be a better time.

Loewenstein is particularly ravaging about the new discourse. He says of the typical hasbarist: “[He] wants complete immunity from criticism alongside continuing global diplomatic, political and military support for [Israel's] behaviour. All care and no responsibility. But control of the internet is impossible using the old, tatty tools of Zionist advocates : sympathy for Israel after the Holocaust; Israel lobby pressure on journalists and editors; and little airtime given to coherent Palestinians to make their case.”

From the promotion for the event:

After Zionism brings together prominent thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution.

Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonisation of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably.

This timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Diana Buttu, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 207 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. hophmi says:

    Figures. You’re speaking right after the conclusion of Rosh Hashanah, when no one who observes it can make it.

    • eGuard says:

      As the invitation says: [It] brings together prominent thinkers

      So Judaism not involved. Maybe the book title could have given you the hint.

    • Krauss says:

      Interesting that hophmi is reduced to using ethnocentric arguments.

      You’re out of the moral ones a long time ago.

      • hophmi says:

        How is my argument ethnocentric? You’re speaking about an issue at a time where you ensure that virtually no one who disagrees with your POV will be able to be there. That’s the definition of cowardice.

        • virtually no one who disagrees with your POV will be able to be there

          are you insinuating the only people who support zionism are practicing religious jews? seriously hophmi, that does sound a tad ethnocentric if you ask me.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “That’s the definition of cowardice.”

          Oh, nonsense. The fact that someone doesn’t change their lives to accomodate your superstitions isn’t cowardice on their part.

        • tree says:

          are you insinuating the only people who support zionism are practicing religious jews?

          Yes, that’s what he’s insinuating. He’s also insinuating that no religious Jew could possibly make it to the Brecht Forum in Manhattan for the event when Rosh Hashanah ends at sunset (6:59pm in New York) and the event STARTS at 7:30pm. Because we all know that there are NO Synagogues in Manhattan, or anywhere close by.

          Google Maps

          Why even the members of Beit Simchat Torah, just around the corner, will certainly be incapable of traversing the one block they’d have to travel in only a half hour! Phil! What were you thinking?

          What would hophmi do if he didn’t insinuate yet again that Phil is a bad Jew? He’d lose his sense of purpose.

        • chinese box says:

          virtually no one who disagrees with your POV will be able to be there

          You’ve stated numerous times that Mondoweissers, BDS etc. are an irrelevant fringe movement. If that’s the case, you should have no need to rebut this Brecht presentation.

        • tree- Although sunset is the determining factor for beginning a holiday or the Sabbath, sunset does not determine the end of the holiday or Sabbath. A certain period of time is added after sunset to reach a point in time known as “when the stars come out” meaning the sky is dark enough for the stars to be visible. The length of that period of time is debatable- usually estimated at approximately 35 minutes after sunset, there are those who wait longer and those who wait less.

  2. Why not “After Judaism”?

    A tiny minority of more nominal than real Jews keep asserting that Zionism/Israel is at odds with Judaism – the majority of organized Jewry says otherwise. Numbers make truth: I must infer that the “Jewish state” is the manifestation of Judaism.
    Therefore, supporting Israel makes me a philo-Semite, opposing it an anti-Semite.

    I’m with Karl Popper who said: “The notion of a chosen people is evil.” And:
    “All nationalism or racialism is evil, and Jewish nationalism is no exception.”

    • Bing Bong says:

      And what context was that said in?

      • The quote is from the book “Wittgenstein’s Poker – The story of a ten-minute argument between two great Philosophers” (Wittgenstein – Popper) written by two of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s students David Edmonds and John Eidinow, 2001. On page 84/85 they write:

        “In 1984, commenting harshly on Israeli policy towards Arabs, he [Popper] declared: “It makes me ashamed of my origin’. The notion of a chosen people was ‘evil’.” … Racial pride is not only stupid but wrong, even if provoked by racial hatred. All nationalism or racialism is evil, and Jewish nationalism is no exception.”

        Karl Popper’s parents were Vienna Jews who had converted to Protestantism.

        • Bing Bong says:

          Are you with Popper when it comes to Palestinian nationalism too?

        • Bing Bong says:

          And to put it in it’s proper context it’s originally from Unended Quest by Popper.

          “After much thought my father had decided that living in an overwhelmingly Christian society imposed the obligation to give as little offence as possible-to become assimilated. This, however, meant giving offence to organized Judaism…But…anti-Semitism was an evil, to be feared by Jews and non-Jews alike…[and] the task of all people of Jewish origin [was] to do their best not to provoke it…It was most understandable that people who were despised for their racial origin should insist that they were proud of it. But racial pride is not only stupid but wrong, even if provoked by racial hatred. All nationalism or racialism is evil, and Jewish nationalism is no exception.”

          So Palestinians through fear of Israel should not provoke Israel any longer and do as Popper’s father had done and convert and assimilate as Jewish Israelis? Not likely, perhaps the Arab Israelis could be made to convert to Judaism or be deported though, if you and Popper’s way of seeing things is right? And remember, an alternative Popperian solution like his open society based on, say, a 1 state solution of Jews and Arabs isn’t going to work unless anti-Semitism (or indeed anti-arabism) isn’t present, also not likely, (see above) “anti-Semitism was an evil, to be feared by Jews and non-Jews alike”

          Needless to say Popper’s Jewish assimilationism (and the obvious Arab extension that can be drawn from your decontextualised quote) violates the principles of his liberal open society of tolerance that is supposed to be the alternative to nationalism.

        • tokyobk says:

          Very true, but are you asking all people to give up their nationalism or just the Jews (I don’t know you at all. Its a real question with no snark intended).

        • Djinn says:

          Does Palestinian nationalism involve Palestinians moving en masse to the land of others and forcing them out?

        • Bing Bong says:

          According to Popper and the person quoting him ‘all nationalism…is evil’, which I presume includes Palestinian nationalism whatever that entails regarding Palestinian actions.

          And if you read the context of the quote (assuming the moderators allow it) you might very well ask of Popper and the person quoting him, is Jewish nationalism evil when it’s a result of anti-Semitism and is assimilation the only course of action to take?

        • Some more context. The authors of “Wittgenstein’s Poker” write on page 84:
          ————————————————————-
          “1969 brought an inquiry from the then editor of the ‘Jewish Yearbook’ as to whether, as he was of Jewish descent, Professor Sir Karl Popper would like to be in the ‘Who’s Who’ section, ‘which includes Jews of distinction in all walks of life’. – To this Popper replied that he was of Jewish descent but the son of parents baptized years before he was born; that he was baptized at birth and was brought up as a Protestant. And he continued:
          - ‘I do not believe in race; I abhor any form of racialism or nationalism; and I never belonged to the Jewish faith. Thus I do not see on what grounds I could possibly consider myself as a Jew.’”
          ——————————————————-
          And note: The authors write that Karl Popper declared that “the notion of a chosen people was ‘evil’.”

        • Bing Bong says:

          Thanks but what does this context add to the discussion?

          If you hate all nationalism like Popper then you must hate Palestinian nationalism too. I understand you would want to keep that quiet now.

        • Actually Bing Bong, I do not consider all nationalism as bad. Take the nationalism of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) who started the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They wanted to get rid of Russian-Soviet dominance. Their nationalism, i.e. the affirmation of their own language and cultural tradition and ‘their land’ served to liberate them from the Soviet-Russian yoke. – Same applies to Palestinian nationalism.
          And: As in the case of Palestine and the foreign Jews/Zionists, the Russian population in Estonia and Latvia was settled there by foreign occupiers.

          The Americans should have ‘kicked the Russians back into Russia’ right at the end of WWII as General Patten had suggested – And the Americans should long have kicked the Zionists back to the countries where they came from. – That would have saved the world a lot of trouble.
          —————–
          But this has nothing to do with Karl Popper’s dislike of him being considered a Jew on the basis of his descent, i.e. the “racialist” definition of his identity.

        • In case you didn’t get it Bing Bong:
          A nationalism that is derived from and connected with a notion of superiority is bad: Nazi-Germany’s Aryanism, Jewish-Zionist’s chosen people, Marxist-Leninist’s vanguard theory etc.. Any nationalism that claims a moral, ethnic, or ideological ‘higher right’ to dominate is bad. – That’s Popper’s point. And that’s why he “in 1984 commented harshly on Israeli policy towards Arabs” and declared: “It makes me ashamed in my origin.” – There is a Muslim concept of religious superiority but not a Palestinian national one.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “A nationalism that is derived from and connected with a notion of superiority is bad: …. Any nationalism that claims a moral, ethnic, or ideological ‘higher right’ to dominate is bad. – That’s Popper’s point.”

          No his point is all nationalism reduces to that, eventually leading to racism. The idea of false collectives in general replacing the individual and the universals from individuals in an open society, not false collectives based on superiority. Naturally he would disagree with nationalism based on superiority but that’s hardly the simplistic point being made by one of the 20th C’s most notable thinkers.

          That’s why in the quote you used to claim to agree with, he uses the word “All”. Don’t worry, I do get it, you’ve used a quote which you think pertains to Israel (Jewish nationalism) and now you’re frantically back peddling to avoid a backlash now you realise it can equally pertain to Palestinian nationalism.

        • eljay says:

          A nationalism that bureaucratically grants all people of a nation equality should not lead to racism.

          Bing Bong understands that Palestinian nationalism – like French, Canadian, German or American nationalism – is expected to lead to bureaucratic equality, while religiously-based “Jewish State” nationalism currently does not and likely never will.

          Which makes his attempts to defend the indefensible that much harder.

          Aggressor-victimhood is a tough gig… :-(

        • Bing Bong -
          Let me quote to you something really weird by Martin Buber on the matter of history and the Jew’s ‘spiritual reality’. He says (it’s difficult to translate from the German):
          ————————-
          “As long as the spiritual reality of Judaism is alive, history stays accountable to it, not it to history.” – Jerusalem, spring 1950

          You see: The world and history has to adapt to the ‘spiritual reality of Judaism’ – not Judaism to history and the world.

        • I should have said: ‘The spiritual reality (Geisteswirklichkeit) of ISRAEL’
          (the people and the land). Buber thought that both the Jewish people and their Holy Land were created first – the rest of the world and the gentiles later on. – Hence, the rest of the world is accountable to Israel and her ‘spiritual reality’.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “Bing Bong understands…”

          I was talking about Popper. Not sure what you’re claiming I think or have said here though.

        • Bing Bong says:

          Well Klaus, Germany especially has had to adapt to not murdering millions of Jews because of Israel.

          “I should have said”

          You’re not having much luck with quotations are you?

        • American says:

          “The Americans should have ‘kicked the Russians back into Russia’ right at the end of WWII as General Patten had suggested””..Klaus

          Totally, totally disagree. The US missed a historic golden opportunity by not bringing Russia into the US and world circle after WWII.
          “If’ we had….that’s where a lot of trouble immediatley after and since then could have been avoided.
          Without Russia we would not have defeated Germany. ..and that’s a fact…. that Patton and others did not want to acknowledge.

        • “You’re not having much luck with quotations are you?” –
          ——–
          I was quoting from the preface of Buber’s German book “Israel and Palestine – On the history of an idea” (of both the people and the land).

          He talks about a “religious idea” and a “faith-spirit”. I wasn’t sure whether he meant the religious idea and spirit of Judaism in general or that of the Jews in their Holy Land in particular. I concluded he must mean the latter.
          ——–
          Don’t blame me for misquoting. I went to all length to help you understand Popper’s dislike of both the Jewish “racialist” definition of his identity and Israel’s chosen people “racialist” approach towards the Arab Palestinians.

          Anyway, I’m glad there was someone like you who took interest in Popper.

        • P.S.
          The reason I quoted Martin Buber was that Karl Popper in particular rejected any ideology that claimed a ‘higher insight’ in the course of history and the destiny of mankind (I had said so in a previous comment that didn’t show up).

        • American -
          The US – Russia thing is off topic to this thread. I shouldn’t have brought it up. And it may also sound strange that I blame the Americans for a problem that Germany is responsible for to begin with (this applies also to some degree to the Zionists in Israel).

        • Bing Bong says:

          “I went to all length to help you understand Popper’s dislike of both the Jewish “racialist” definition of his identity and Israel’s chosen people “racialist” approach towards the Arab Palestinians.”

          I didn’t disagree that that was Popper’s view and easily understand his point.

          I too am happy to enlighten you (assuming you understood) regarding the quote you yourself posted and agreed with and then disowned, once I’d made you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

        • - Had Karl Popper an element of Jewish ‘self-hate’?

          ‘Self-hating Jew’ is a mean racist term, but let’s see. Here is another quote from “Wittgenstein’s Poker”, page 84:
          —————————————–
          “What of Popper’s relationship with his Jewish forebears? In his application to the Academic Assistance Council in England for help in leaving Austria in 1936, he described himself as ‘Protestant, namely evangelical but of Jewish origin’. Against the question whether he was willing to have religious communities approached on his behalf, he wrote opposite the Jewish Orthodox section ‘NO’, very firmly. To make his position even more clear, he underlined the word twice.”
          —————————————–
          A Jewish shrink may now conclude that Popper’s harsh criticism of Israeli policy towards Palestinians stems from his Jewish ‘self-hate’.

        • Bing Bong
          Forget Popper and drop the sophistry. What you’re not getting:
          Palestinian nationalism is a way of liberation; Jewish nationalism(Zionism) is a way of supremacy.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “A Jewish shrink may now conclude that Popper’s harsh criticism of Israeli policy towards Palestinians stems from his Jewish ‘self-hate’.”

          Why a Jewish shrink?

          And just, why? Don’t you have any other books apart from W’s Poker that you can irrelevantly quote from over and over again and shoot yourself in the foot with?

        • Bing Bong says:

          And Zionism didn’t liberate the Jews?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “And Zionism didn’t liberate the Jews?”

          No. It is not liberation when you invade a land which belongs to another and to which the invaders have no connection save for liking ancient fairy tales set there, and stealing it from its inhabitants.

        • “Why a ‘Jewish shrink’?”

          Have you ever heard a gentile accuse a Jew who opts out of and rejects Judaism of being ‘self-hating’? – This mean terminology is a Jewish thing. In general, Jews seem to have a preference for the term “hate”. See Judith Butler being called a “commited Israel-hater” by the Council of Jews in Germany.
          ———————————————————————–
          Here is something you said in a comment that didn’t make sense to me:

          -”Well Klaus, Germany especially has had to adapt to not murdering millions of Jews because of Israel.”

          If it weren’t for Israel, Germany would keep killing millions of Jews?
          – Are you paranoid?
          First, we would have to invade and occupy a country with millions of Jews and enlist enough collaborators to kill the Jews. You seem to think we don’t do that because of Israel.

        • I got a second thought Bing Bong as to why Germany doesn’t keep killing millions of Jews. – We are afraid that, in case we do, we get nuked by Israel!
          That’s why we supply Israel with submarines that they outfit with nukes.

        • Woody – don’t you understand the Zionists?

          They didn’t “invade a land” as you say, they “redeemed” it.
          That is the precondition to “redeem” the world and all of us.
          - But maybe, the world doesn’t want to be “redeemed” by the Zionists.

        • Mooser says:

          “Have you ever heard a gentile accuse a Jew who opts out of and rejects Judaism of being ‘self-hating’?”

          Well, actually, I have. But he left with several fleas in his ear, and a nosebleed.

        • Mooser says:

          “I got a second thought Bing Bong as to why Germany doesn’t keep killing millions of Jews.”

          Klaus, you’re having wish-fulfillment dreams again. There aren’t millions of Jews left in Germany.

        • Mooser says:

          “In general, Jews seem to have a preference for the term “hate”.”

          Ya did it to me again, Klaus. You say something I might consider preposterous or even anti-Semitic, but the flood of supporting citations, links, and scholarly evidence puts me right back in my place. I don’t know why I even bother.

        • Mooser says:

          “The Americans should have ‘kicked the Russians back into Russia’”

          Considering that the Russians were on the winning side, and Germany the loser of WW2, I don’t see why Russia shouldn’t have got to have some fun with East Germany for a while. You guys should have thought about the possibility of dismemberment before the war you were positive you could win so quickly.
          Sorry, Mr. German, not our job to protect you from those mean Russians. Even the most cursory look at a map could have told you what you were taking on. Or did Russia stab you in the back?

        • Mooser says:

          “A Jewish shrink may now conclude that Popper’s harsh criticism of Israeli policy towards Palestinians stems from his Jewish ‘self-hate’.”

          My Jewish shrink tell me there is a long, ugly name for that. But he won’t tell me what it is until I pay my bill.

        • Mooser says:

          tokyobk: “Very true, but are you asking all people to give up their nationalism or just the Jews (I don’t know you at all. Its a real question with no snark intended).”

          Reply
          Djinn says:
          “Does Palestinian nationalism involve Palestinians moving en masse to the land of others and forcing them out?”

          Djinn, after that, all I could hear was “tokyobk” galloping away (sounds like somebody hitting coconut shells on a wooden floor)
          I think he’s one of those “not-a-Zionists”.

        • Mooser says:

          “Take the nationalism of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) who started the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”

          Wasn’t that when capitalist elements and gangsters in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia thought they could finally dislodge the duly constituted soviet government and begin sucking the blood of the people again?

        • @ Mooser and whom it may concern

          ” There aren’t millions of Jews left in Germany.” – Mooser
          - There NEVER were millions of Jews in Germany.
          —————————————————————————-
          Here are the statistics from the Statistisches Reichsamt Berlin:

          year of census – Jews by religion /percentage of population

          1871 – 512,000/1,3%
          1880 – 562,000/1,2%
          1885 – 563,000/1,2 %
          1890 – 568,000/1,1%
          1900 – 587,000/1,0%
          1905 – 608,000/1,0%
          1910 – 615,000/1,0%
          1925 – 564,000/0.9%
          1933 – 503,000/0.8% (including Saarland)
          1939 – 222,000/0.3% (German territory of 1937)

          You see Mooser, there never lived close to a million Jews in Germany.

        • German Lefty says:

          Sorry, Mr. German, not our job to protect you from those mean Russians.

          Really? Since when does the USA not feel “called” or “chosen” to interfere in other countries’ affairs and “rescue” other nations? The USA is master in “dictating democracy”.

        • Bing Bong says:

          No it is still liberation for the Jews from thousands of years of persecution and millions murdered. They can now live in Israel instead of dying in Berlin.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “Have you ever heard a gentile accuse a Jew who opts out of and rejects Judaism of being ‘self-hating’? – This mean terminology is a Jewish thing.”

          Like Einstein’s work is Jewish Physics?

        • Bing Bong says:

          “I got a second thought Bing Bong as to why Germany doesn’t keep killing millions of Jews. – We are afraid that, in case we do, we get nuked by Israel!
          That’s why we supply Israel with submarines that they outfit with nukes.”

          A second thought!?

          If you’re not going to kill Jews because of Israel then you needn’t be worried if you supply Israel with nuclear submarines.

          Just as long as you keep in mind ‘don’t kill the Jews’. Maybe you could have that as your third thought.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “First, we would have to invade and occupy a country with millions of Jews and enlist enough collaborators to kill the Jews.”

          You can’t do that any more because of Israel,

          “You seem to think we don’t do that because of Israel.”

          Your motivation for doing that in the first place is your business.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “Considering that the Russians were on the winning side, and Germany the loser of WW2, I don’t see why Russia shouldn’t have got to have some fun with East Germany for a while. ”

          So acquisition of territory as a result of the 6 day war was ok too?

        • Bing Bong says:

          Klaus originally said all nationalism was evil. This includes saintly Palestinian and evil Zionist nationalism. Why he can’t gallop off is beyond me, I can only conclude he has a self hating horse that despises such behaviour about itself.

        • Why don’t the moderators put up my comment to Mooser with the statistics of Jews in Germany from 1871 to 1939? – Are they afraid of the numbers?

        • your comment suggests there are no learned cultural signifiers. accusations of self hatred was not something i was raise around. i wasn’t even familiar with argument based on accusations of hatred (as a tactic) until i started blogging about i/p. not the same as physics.

        • Mooser says:

          “You see Mooser, there never lived close to a million Jews in Germany.”

          Then what the hell are you complaining about, Klaus? And there’s even fewer now, right?

        • Mooser says:

          “Why don’t the moderators put up my comment to Mooser with the statistics of Jews in Germany from 1871 to 1939? – Are they afraid of the numbers?”

          Klaus, once and for all, I consider comments for publication in the order they are received, and for your information, Mr. Impatient, there are lots of other threads going on. Wait your turn.

        • Mooser says:

          “They can now live in Israel instead of dying in Berlin.”

          Ah yes, in Israel, in existential danger from the Iranian A-bomb. Now that’s liberating! And when I think of the harmony which obtains between all types of Jews in Israel, why, how liberating it must be to pay for the settlers and Ultra-Orthodox. What a freaking paradise. Say, Bing Bong, how liberating is it for you in Israel? Why don’t you tell us.

        • ColinWright says:

          Bing Bong says: “Considering that the Russians were on the winning side, and Germany the loser of WW2, I don’t see why Russia shouldn’t have got to have some fun with East Germany for a while. ”

          So acquisition of territory as a result of the 6 day war was ok too?”

          This ignores at least two rather obvious points.

          First, there was no Arab rampage across half of Israel and slaughter of 20% of the population to justify the retaliation.

          Second, Russia has not in fact kept control of Eastern Germany and has relinquished it. In fact, they effectively relinquished title after…(1945-1991) forty six years! So logically, you would seem to be agreeing Israel should pull out of the West Bank and Golan Heights in…(1967+46…) 2013!

          Next year! You’re leaving then, right?

          …all this of course leaves aside the point that no one agreed to Russian domination of East Germany as a matter of right. It’s just that Russia being a heavily armed, autarchic superpower, there wasn’t much to be done about it.

          But Israel can be readily expelled from the West Bank. Assuming the political will to bring that about existed in the US, it could be brought to pass in a few months. We say go, and Israel goes. Witness 1956.

        • “You see Mooser, there never lived close to a million Jews in Germany.” –
          ————–
          “And there’s even fewer now, right?” – Mooser

          We are nearly back to pre-WWII numbers:
          1939: 222 ooo — 2012: 200 000
          ———————————————————————-
          Bing Bong doesn’t seem to have any idea who the Jews were who died in the Holocaust and where they died: Ít weren’t primarily German Jews and they didn’t die in Berlin. – And he doesn’t seem to know that Israeli Jews are moving to Berlin or applying for German passports (it’s the largest number of people with German citizenship outside Germany).

        • Bing Bong says:

          Mooser. So you believe that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel’s existence? Not the normal view round here.

          You’re wrong to think I’m an Israeli or in Israel at this time. The Israelis I know are Holocaust survivors and their descendents, all of which manage to live their lives despite the particular national problems that Israel has to deal with.

          And, incredibly Mooser, they are all essentially very happy and very productive people. By far the most high achieving people I know, architects, opera singers, musicians, surgeons. These achievements, and in the case of the first immigrant’s achievements, initially built from nothing, I would surmise are at least in part a product of their nation and the opportunities it provides.

          In the main (there are a couple of exceptions) they are secular opponents of the settlers and the occupation.

          For them Israel has indeed liberated them from European hatred. Israelis may be hated by a lot of people, but the alternative for them is no Israel and being hatred as Jews elsewhere. I imagine they’ll be sticking with their country thanks, despite your concerns on internal politics and Iran.

        • hophmi says:

          “We are nearly back to pre-WWII numbers:
          1939: 222 ooo — 2012: 200 000″

          1939. In 1933 there were around 522,000. Over half emigrated between 1933 and 1939. We’re nowhere near 522,000 today.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “We are nearly back to pre-WWII numbers:
          1939: 222 ooo — 2012: 200 000″

          1939. In 1933 there were around 522,000. Over half emigrated between 1933 and 1939. We’re nowhere near 522,000 today.

          Um, I hate to break it to you hopper, ol’ pal, but the second World War didn’t start in 1933. It started in 1939. Hence, Klaus’s reference to “pre-WWII” numbers.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Without Russia we would not have defeated Germany. ..and that’s a fact…. that Patton and others did not want to acknowledge.”

          Not only that, but we had no ability, militarily to push the Red Army back to Russia until we had the A bomb (and even then, we couldn’t really use them much tactically.) At the end of the European War, we still had a war against Japan to fight (and very much wanted to get the USSR involved), and the Soviets had both a manpower advantage and an advantage of matériel. They would have kicked Patton’s ass.

        • @hophmi –
          I said “pre-WWII numbers”. The war started in 1939 with the German occupation of Poland.

          Your number of 522,000 Jews in Germany in 1933 is not the census number of Jews by religion, which was actually at the time 500,000.
          (The Saarland in 1933 was under French administration but I added the number of Jews there to the German total.)

          When we take into account that the official Nazi-German definition of a Jew was not just religious but by descent, we have to add to the census number of ‘Jews by religion’ the Jews who had converted to Christianity or didn’t belong to any denomination: The estimate is this for 1939:

          20,000 – Jews by descent (4 grandparents Jews) but not Jews by religion.
          52,000 – Jews with 2 Jewish grandparents (‘half-Jews’) but not by religion.

          When we add these 72, 000 Jews by descent (but not by religion) to the
          222,000 Jews by religion of the 1939 census we get 294,000 Jews in 1939.
          ——————————————————————————————————-
          Even most Germans vastly overestimate the number of Jews in Germany.
          When I ask them to estimate the number of Jews in the 1930s, they say something like ‘some millions’ or ’5 million’ or ‘about 10% of the population’ – when in fact Jews never were much more than 1% in Germany since 1871.

        • hophmi says:

          Yes, lots of people overestimate the number of Jews in the world. But the relevant number is the 1933 figure, not the the 1939 figure.

        • ColinWright says:

          Klaus Bloemker says: “…who the Jews were who died in the Holocaust and where they died: Ít weren’t primarily German Jews and they didn’t die in Berlin…”

          One of the ironies of the Holocaust is that German Jews had a relatively high survival rate compared to other groups of European Jews.

          Primarily this was because because they had ample warning/were driven out of Europe well before the Nazis turned genocidal: I believe something like half of all German Jews escaped the Holocaust.

          That contrasts with Eastern European Jews, who were completely blindsided, and whose first contact with the Nazis was often their last.

        • hophmi says:

          I hate to break it to you, but the Nazis took power in 1933, so WWII began for the Jews of Germany in 1933, as far as I’m concerned.

        • “the relevant number [of Jews in Germany] is the 1933 figure, not the 1939 figure.”- hophmi
          ———————————
          Hell – the relevant number of Jews who faced death is the number of Jews who stayed in Germany until 1941 (that’s when emigration was no longer possible). – The number is about 200, 000. 150,000 died/were killed.
          About 50,000 survived in Germany. Mostly who were married to Germans.

          But where do the 6 million Holocaust victims come from?
          Bing Bong doesn’t seem to know.

        • “One of the ironies of the Holocaust is that German Jews had a relatively high survival rate compared to other groups of European Jews.”
          ————-
          Colin: That’s true but that’s not an irony at all.

          The German Jews were the last in line to get killed. It started with the mass shouting of Russian Jews. – It’s psychologically more difficult to kill your German-Jewish neighbors than to kill slavic backward ‘subhuman’ Jews.

          For the colonial powers, it was psychologically easy to kill the savages.

        • piotr says:

          About Baltic countries: their nationalism, on a bad day, can be as toxic as any. A minor example: there is a word in Lithuanian that is translated as “Polish shit”, and it is still used in heckling. A major example: link to en.wikipedia.org

        • “Nazis took power in 1933, so WWII began for the Jews of Germany in 1933″
          ———————–
          hophmi – Actually, for the German communists the “war” began in 1933.
          They got killed and imprisoned first. Your worldview is too Judeo-centric.

        • hophmi says:

          Oh, we’re playing this game, are we, where any Jew who doesn’t talk about the Communists in the same breath as the Jew is being a chauvinist.

          The Nazis began imprisoning Jews in 1933, and steadily restricted Jews from German society. The first boycotts of Jewish businesses were in 1933.

          Don’t give me this obnoxious BS about me being Judeo-centric. I didn’t deny that German Communists suffered as well.

        • ColinWright says:

          Klaus Bloemker: “The German Jews were the last in line to get killed. It started with the mass shouting of Russian Jews. – It’s psychologically more difficult to kill your German-Jewish neighbors than to kill slavic backward ‘subhuman’ Jews.”

          Well, technically this isn’t true: the ‘last in line’ would have been the Hungarian Jews, I believe.

          More importantly though, while there is some truth to what you say, I think it all had more to do with the onset of the ‘final battle’ mentality that accompanied Barbarossa. Poland had plenty of ‘Eastern’ Jews — and while the Germans had conducted various incidental atrocities among them, they didn’t start in there in earnest until Barbarossa either.

          The Holocaust was a product of an apocalyptic, murderous ethos that broke out in the Western Soviet Union and spread westwards, swiftly evolving into a general plan for the extermination of all Jews. The sequence of its victims was primarily determined by their distance from the center of the outbreak.

          To put it differently, the Jews of Bialystok or whoever had the dubious honor of being first would have been among the first to go not because they were more ‘eastern’ but because they were already in the East.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “… WWII began for the Jews of Germany in 1933, as far as I’m concerned.”

          Yes, and here in the reality-based world, we all know that the War began in 1939. So, really, if you find your panties in a twist because the rest of the world doesn’t agree with the fake facts you’d made up for yourself, please discuss it with your therapist and perhaps he will up your dosage.

        • hophmi says:

          “Yes, and here in the reality-based world, we all know that the War began in 1939. ”

          In the reality-based world, talking about how the Jewish population in Germany is back at pre-war levels while ignoring the fact that the Nazis drove out more than half of Germany’s Jewish population before the war is obtuse.

          ” please discuss it with your therapist and perhaps he will up your dosage.”

          You first, man, you first.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “In the reality-based world, talking about how the Jewish population in Germany is back at pre-war levels while ignoring the fact that the Nazis drove out more than half of Germany’s Jewish population before the war is obtuse.”

          Then make that point. Don’t be an idiot and jump on someone’s factual statement and defend it by claiming that “in your view” the Second World War began six years before it began. (Oh, wait, but that would require you at least pretend that you accept the statement in good faith. Might be your problem…)

          “You first, man, you first.”

          LMAO. I’m sane. I’m certain. I was tested.

        • hophmi says:

          “But where do the 6 million Holocaust victims come from?
          Bing Bong doesn’t seem to know.”

          You’re playing a Holocaust denial game. Moderator should be banning these comments as against the guidelines.

        • “talking about how the Jewish population in Germany is back at pre-war levels, ignoring the fact that the Nazis drove out more than half of Germany’s Jewish population ”
          ————-
          hophmi – You sort of misunderstood me. I didn’t mean ‘everything is back to normal in Germany, let’s forget about the Jews who were forced to emigrate (and those who were killed)’. – I didn’t mean that.

          But for most people it’s a striking and surprising statistic that in 1939 there were just 200,000 plus Jews living in Germany (and that there had never been close to a million Jews in Germany) – and that approx. the pre-WWII number of Jews is now living in Germany again.

        • “The Nazis began imprisoning Jews in 1933″ – hophmi
          ————-
          Yes, but because of they were Communists not because they were Jews.
          It was because of their political activity not because they were Jews.

          You have to understand that the main thrust of the Nazis was against the Communists. Although Hitler’s party was known to be more anti-Jewish than other parties, the strong ‘anti-Bolshevism’ was the key to its success.

          Early on, many Jewish merchants contributed money to the NSDAP because they also feared a Communist takeover of Germany that would have expropriated them. Hitler later on forbid the acceptence of Jewish contributions to his party. Jews did matter – but Communists more.

        • hophmi says:

          What political party do you belong to, Klaus?

          The first boycott of Jewish businesses was in April, 1933. Don’t give me this nonsense about how it was all a fight against Communism.

        • “Don’t give me this nonsense about how it was all a fight against Communism.”

          hophmi – So you think people voted for Hitler’s party primarily out of anti-Semitism. You are entitled to your Jew-centered worldview.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ hophmi:

          You’re playing a Holocaust denial game. Moderator should be banning these comments as against the guidelines.

          Huh? Clearly you lack reading comprehension. Klaus’ question “But where do the 6 million Holocaust victims come from?” refers to the fact that most of those 6 million victims were non-Germans. He didn’t try to downplay the number of victims.

          What political party do you belong to, Klaus?

          Klaus once told me that he voted for the FDP, which is our centre-right party.
          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “You’re playing a Holocaust denial game. Moderator should be banning these comments as against the guidelines.’

          Holy smokes, hopper. You’re turning into a cartoon of yourself. Klaus is pointing out that Ding Dong seems to be of the opinion that the millions of European Jews who were killed in the war were German and not primarily Polish, Ukranian, Belorussian and of the various Baltic states. Turn off the victim faucet before the attic is flooded like the rest of your house.

        • hophmi says:

          “But for most people it’s a striking and surprising statistic that in 1939 there were just 200,000 plus Jews living in Germany (and that there had never been close to a million Jews in Germany) – and that approx. the pre-WWII number of Jews is now living in Germany again.”

          Yes, that’s true. It’s mostly due to the influx of Jews from nearby Ukraine, though.

        • “Klaus once told me that he voted for the FDP”

          I don’t vote at all. I’m an anarchist. Voting is collaboration with the government.

        • hophmi says:

          “hophmi – So you think people voted for Hitler’s party primarily out of anti-Semitism. You are entitled to your Jew-centered worldview.”

          Did I say that? No. So don’t put words in my mouth. And don’t use the term Jew-centered again.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “And don’t use the term Jew-centered again.”

          Who the hell are you to tell him what words he can and cannot use? Klaus is speaking in a second language and he’s clearly expressing the fact that he believes your thinking is Judeo-centric, which anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes reading your posts can attest is 100% balls-on accurate.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          And don’t use the term Jew-centered again.

          You are one of the most ethnocentric and Judeocentric people I have ever encountered on the Internet. Your language tells the tale.

          Which issues do you care about more than Israel and Jewish nationalism?

          Most Americans are not bogged down in ethnic nationalism. Most Americans display few signs of ethnocentrism. They are fully integrated into American culture.

        • German Lefty says:

          I don’t vote at all. I’m an anarchist. Voting is collaboration with the government.

          Don’t try to fool me, Klaus. Here is the comment in which you stated that you used to vote for the FDP:
          link to mondoweiss.net
          You also said: “I considered voting for the SPD (I have voted for the Greens before).”

        • hophmi – We all tend to look back at the Nazi era with a sort of Holocaust-centered view. This overshadows other more important aspects.
          The main consolidation of Hitler’s power was the Reichstag fire in February 1933. Who was blamed for that and put on trial? The communists.

          Also for instance the Nazi’s ‘war on modern art’ used the term “cultural Bolshevism”. This was then often joined with their ‘war on Jews’ using the term “Jewish Bolshevism”.

        • mig says:

          hoph :

          You’re playing a Holocaust denial game. Moderator should be banning these comments as against the guidelines.

          How about innocence of muslim. Freedom of speech ? One thing you can talk about but not the other. And no, i’m not the holocaust denier. If we claim freedom of speech, lets go all the way then.

        • Lefty – How come you didn’t notice that I was joking when saying:

          “I don’t vote at all. I’m an anarchist. Voting is collaboration with the government.”

        • hophmi says:

          “You are one of the most ethnocentric and Judeocentric people I have ever encountered on the Internet. Your language tells the tale.”

          And you’re one of the craziest.

          “Which issues do you care about more than Israel and Jewish nationalism?”

          You’ve asked me this many times. I’ve answered many times. I care more about what happens in the United States than I do about Israel. I don’t vote based on Israel.

          Do not ask me again. This is blog dedicated to the I-P issue. On the basis of this blog, all of you care more about Israel and Jewish nationalism than any other topic.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          Apparently you don’t want to disagree with this characterization of you?

          You are one of the most ethnocentric and Judeocentric people I have ever encountered on the Internet. Your language tells the tale.”

          Why are you so monomaniacally ethnocentric?

          The vast majority of Americans are not ethnic nationalists.

          I care more about what happens in the United States than I do about Israel.

          Point us to your writings in which you express concern for the American interest and American issues — that supposed concern has not been evident in any of your posts on Mondoweiss.

          On the basis of this blog, all of you care more about Israel and Jewish nationalism than any other topic.

          You really don’t get it, do you: most of us care about the American interest, or the European interest, or universal human rights, and other issues which transcend Israel or Jewish nationalism. You are one of the few provincials on Mondoweiss who has failed to integrate into modern Western democratic culture. For you, it’s all about your ethnic interest and nothing else. You are out of step with most of your fellow Americans and human beings.

        • hophmi – you said to me:

          “You’re playing a Holocaust denial game.”
          “Don’t give me this nonsense about how it was all a fight against Communism.”
          ————————————–
          I just talked in a late night bar to a woman who teaches politics at a high school. She told me that she explains to her students the difference between democracy and dictatorship and that Nazi Germany was an example of dictatorship.
          I asked her: “Whom were the Nazis primarily fighting?”
          She agreed that it were the Communists, ‘Bolshevics’.
          Then I asked her: “How about the Jews?”
          She said: “Also, terrible”
          Then I asked her to estimate the number of Jews in Germany in 1933.
          She said: “15%”
          When I told her that the percentage was 0.8%, she didn’t believe me.
          We talked about the Holocaust victims. She thought that I was a Holocaust denier and fascist. (She was somewhat tipsy.)

        • seanmcbride says:

          Hophmi still hasn’t responded to the points in this post.

        • hophmi says:

          “Hophmi still hasn’t responded to the points in this post.”

          Again, I just don’t have the time to rehash the same nonsense with you over and over again Sean. It’s not usually very fruitful, because you’re essentially a conspiracy theorist, and a lot of your arguments are built on quicksand and personal attacks.

          Like this: “Why are you so monomaniacally ethnocentric?”

          and this: “You are one of the most ethnocentric and Judeocentric people I have ever encountered on the Internet.”

          and this: “For you, it’s all about your ethnic interest and nothing else”

          You’ve leveled these charges at me over and over and over again. As have many, many others here. I’ve answered them over and over and over again.

          My existence is not limited to this blog. I post here about the I-P conflict because this blog is largely about the I-P conflict. You don’t know me outside of that space, so your constant baiting and dual-loyalty charges are meaningless, and outside of this space, everyone recognizes them for what they are – the manifestation of a bigoted mind.

          I’m not going to justify my patriotism to you or anyone else. I have a very wide range of interests outside of this issue, as is clear to anyone who actually knows me.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          I’ve answered them over and over and over again.

          You have answered *none* of the key discussion points in any thread on Mondoweiss — you alway run away with your tail between your legs, and then after licking your wounds for awhile return, trying to reboot with a clean slate, but always achieving the same poor results for yourself. Are you a masochist?

          Why are you so much more ethnocentric than most Americans, few of whom are ethnic nationalists for any cause, not to mention obsessed ethnic nationalists? Are you capable of introspecting on that matter in an honest and insightful way?

          Where is there any evidence that you care more about American than Israeli issues and interests? Can you back up this claim with links to Internet posts?

          Why did you drop out of the discussion about Moses Hess without admitting you were wrong when you denied that he was the intellectual godfather of Zionism and Communism?

          Are you in fact capable of parsing, understanding and paraphrasing the relatively simple English in the Wikipedia entry on Hess? On any text written at a higher than high school level? I don’t think you are. Prove me wrong by summarizing in your own words the Wikipedia entry on Moses Hess.

          You are not helping the cause of Israel or Zionism. Few Zionists help their own cause these days.

        • hophmi says:

          “You have answered *none* of the key discussion points in any thread on Mondoweiss — you alway run away with your tail between your legs, and then after licking your wounds for awhile return, trying to reboot with a clean slate, but always achieving the same poor results for yourself. Are you a masochist?”

          Spoken like the self-satisfied person you obviously are. I answer all of them, Sean. You may not like my answers, but I answer most of the crap people throw at me here.

          “Why are you so much more ethnocentric than most Americans,”

          Again, I do not agree with your ad hominem characterization of me.

          “Are you capable of introspecting on that matter in an honest and insightful way?”

          Sean, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes honest and insightful introspection. Everybody has a few niche issues that they care about. They do not have to answer for all of them. And many people take pride in their ethnicity, from Italians who march in the Columbus Day Parade to Dominicans who march in the West Indian Parade to Jews who march in the Israeli Day Parade to Greeks who maintain an interest in Greece, etc., etc. So I simply do not accept your characterization. I’ve told you that umpteeth times now.

          “Where is there any evidence that you care more about American than Israeli issues and interests? Can you back up this claim with links to Internet posts?”

          No. They would require me to reveal my personal identity. I’m not doing that here. But to give you an idea, I’m an Obama voter, and Israel is pretty far down on my list of voting issues. I care much more about the economy, civil rights (I’ve written a number of letters to the editor on gay marriage) the social safety net, and education policy than I do about Israel in this election. I’ve also written many letters against Islamophobia. I also care about foreign policy, but Israel is only one issue among many that I follow. I supported US intervention in Serbia and wrote my college thesis on NATO expansion.

          “Why did you drop out of the discussion about Moses Hess without admitting you were wrong when you denied that he was the intellectual godfather of Zionism and Communism?”

          For two reasons: Firstly, I am quite busy and really did not have the time, and secondly, I think you overstate the case with Hess, given what I know about modern Zionism.

          “Are you in fact capable of parsing, understanding and paraphrasing the relatively simple English in the Wikipedia entry on Hess? On any text written at a higher than high school level? I don’t think you are.’

          Ad hominem. I don’t sit on the internet doing this all day; as it is I spend much more time on it than I should. Hess’s writing was influential in the development of Labor Zionism and socialism. Godfather is too generous, I think. I don’t hear anyone talking about Hess in Israel, not in the way Marx is talked about in Communism or Herzl in Zionism. He wrote a tiny book, and in his lifetime, did not accomplish a whole lot. That’s not enough, for me, to consider of Zionism.

          “You are not helping the cause of Israel or Zionism.”

          Your opinion on this matter does not interest me.

          “Few Zionists help their own cause these days.”

          Actually, in real life, when I am not around here, I’m somewhat well known for being a progressive Zionist who believes in a two-state solution and for being willing to challenge right-wing Zionists in my community. I don’t see you challenging the extremists in your community to disavow antisemitism and their support for Palestinian violence.

          You, as well as everyone here, ought to learn that there is life outside of Mondoweiss, and for someone like me, it’s really a small part of my life.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          When I call you a “moron,” that is an ad hominem statement. What it means is that I think you are a shallow person with weak thinking, reading, writing and analytical skills who is too intellectually lazy to research any subject in depth before mouthing off about it like a child.

          When I call you “ethnocentric,” I am using a precise, neutral and objective term to describe what in fact you are and what is your most salient trait– this is not at an ad hominem attack. It is equivalent to describing you as an American, a Jew, a Jewish Zionist, a pro-Israel activist, etc. These are neutral and value-free categories that truthfully and objectively describe you as you are.

          Ethnocentric people are obsessed with their ethnic issues, ethnic problems, ethnic conflicts and ethnic enemies — ethnic nationalists especially so. You have posted over *4,000* ethnocentric comments on Mondoweiss, most of them consisting of angry and abusive attacks on your ethnic enemies.

          This strikes me as a very important question, one critical to understanding all the ugly, nonstop uproar over Israel: why are people like you, Jeffrey Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz, Abraham Foxman, Douglas Feith, etc. so much more ethnocentric — and ethnic nationalist in outlook — than the vast majority of Americans?

          Why?

          I really want to know. You should be an expert on this subject since you yourself are a conspicuous example of an intensely ethnocentric person who is deeply bogged down in ethnic nationalist politics.

          Why are you the way you are? Why are you so out of sync with most Americans? Think about it.

          At the moment, this is the only issue I am interested in discussing with you. I would like to explore it in depth.

        • hophmi says:

          “What it means is that I think you are a shallow person with weak thinking, reading, writing and analytical skills who is too intellectually lazy to research any subject in depth before mouthing off about it like a child.”

          Your opinion does not matter to me a great deal. I have all of these skills, but not the time or desire to waste them on the stuff you write.

          “When I call you “ethnocentric,” I am using a precise, neutral and objective term to describe what in fact you are and what is your most salient trait– this is not at an ad hominem attack. ”

          You’ve not proven it in the least, and ethnocentric is neither neutral or objective.

          “It is equivalent to describing you as an American, a Jew, a Jewish Zionist, a pro-Israel activist, etc. These are neutral and value-free categories that truthfully and objectively describe you as you are.”

          This is perfect example of why I don’t like the way you think.

          Yes. American, Jew, Jewish Zionist, and pro-Israel activist, are fairly neutral and descriptive categories. Ethnocentric is a subjective judgement, and is a smear. It is not objective truth to define me as ethnocentric. It may be your belief and the belief of people here, but it is subjective, not objective.

          “Ethnocentric people are obsessed with their ethnic issues, ethnic problems, ethnic conflicts and ethnic enemies — ethnic nationalists especially so.”

          Again, another subjective-laden judgment dressed up as objective. You make a declarative statement that sounds objective. But you include a subjective judgement – obsession – which belongs to your mind, not an objective measure.

          I’m not obsessed with my ethnicity – I care about it, and it is part of my identity, as it is for many people, but tagging it as an obsession is highly subjective, and in my case, highly inaccurate.

          “You have posted over *4,000* ethnocentric comments on Mondoweiss, most of them consisting of angry and abusive attacks on your ethnic enemies.”

          Another subjective statement dressed up as objectivity, along with a lie. You say I’ve posted 4000 comments here. That’s objective. The notion that they are all “ethnocentric” is your subjective judgment. The notion that “most of them are angry and abusive” is simply a lie. The notion that I regard people here as my “ethnic enemies” is both a subjective judgment and a complete lie.

          “You should be an expert on this subject since you yourself are a conspicuous example of an intensely ethnocentric person who is deeply bogged down in ethnic nationalist politics.”

          Here you buttress your highly subjective judgments by repeating them over and over and over again to create the impression that your subjective judgment is an objective truth, your way of using “Big Lie” theory, I guess. Having previously tagged me as ethnocentric, you repeat again that I am “an intensely ethnocentric person” who is “deeply bogged down in ethnic nationalist politics.” All subjective, not objective.

          “Why are you the way you are?”

          A question I feel no obligation to answer unless everyone here is answering it, which they are not.

          “Why are you so out of sync with most Americans? Think about it.”

          Another leading question which contains in it the false assumption that I am out of sync with most Americans. It’s false, because you’ve not shown that I am “out of sync with most Americans” and indeed, in my political opinions, I clearly am not. Most Americans do not hold views on Israel significantly different from my own, and most do not subscribe to the theory that one who supports a political cause in a foreign country is an “intensely ethnocentric person.”

          In fact, there is a real case here that you are engaged in a big projection, because like many here, your views on the I-P conflict are in fact, not accepted by most Americans. Most of the views on Mondoweiss are, in fact, fringe political views in the United States. It is a fringe political view that Israel should give way to a single state. It is a fringe political view to argue that Jews were responsible for the Iraq War. It is a fringe political view to argue the Jews have too much power in finance. Most of you are far on the left of the political spectrum. And it is a fringe political view to believe that someone other than the terrorists were responsible for 9/11. Therefore, most of you are out of sync with the American people.

          Why is that Sean? Why are you out of sync with the American people?

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          Yes. American, Jew, Jewish Zionist, and pro-Israel activist, are fairly neutral and descriptive categories. Ethnocentric is a subjective judgement, and is a smear. It is not objective truth to define me as ethnocentric. It may be your belief and the belief of people here, but it is subjective, not objective.

          The term “ethnocentric” is not a smear — it is an objective description of people who are ethnocentric — who are preoccupied (or, in your case, obsessed) with their ethnic issues, problems, conflicts and enemies — especially enemies.

          By any reasonable definition of the term, Jewish pro-Israel activists and militants like you, Jeffrey Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz, Eric Cantor, Joe Lieberman and thousands of other prominent Americans are ethnocentric — that is the best term to describe your personalities and political agenda.

          All ethnic nationalists are by definition ethnocentric — ethnic nationalism is an ethnocentric endeavor.

          If Andrew Sullivan were preoccupied with Irish ethnic nationalist issues, and wrote about nothing else (as Jeffrey Goldberg writes about nothing else but Jewish and Israeli issues), he would be ethnocentric by any reasonable definition of the word. But Andrew Sullivan isn’t ethnocentric — his mind, spirit and imagination are much bigger than that.

          So I ask you again, hophmi: what drives your extreme ethnocentrism? Why is there not a speck of evidence on Mondoweiss or anywhere else on the Internet that you care about any issue other than your ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist issues? Why do you care so little about the rest of the human race, most of whom barely give Israel a thought?

          Most Americans are not obsessively ethnocentric, as you are — and they are certainly not strident ethnic nationalists, relentlessly focused on the problems and interests of a foreign government. Ethnic nationalism is fundamentally un-American, and most Americans get that. Americanism is all about rising above ethnic and religious nationalism. You are way behind the cultural curve.

          Have you figured out yet that it is self-defeating to get into arguments with ethnic outsiders about your ethnic nationalist issues? Those kinds of arguments are impossible to win since they are based entirely on an emotional attachment to narrow and selfish ethnic interests — an attachment which ethnic outsiders can’t reasonably be expected to share.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          Why are you out of sync with the American people?

          I am very much in sync with the American people:

          1. Most Americans are not ethnocentric.

          2. Most Americans are not ethnic nationalists.

          3. Most Americans are opposed to an Iran War.

          4. Most Americans put the American interest far above the Israeli interest or the interest of any other foreign government.

          5. Most Americans think the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were immense mistakes and failures.

          6. Most Americans care about many other foreign nations more than they care about Israel. (For instance, I feel a stronger cultural and emotional attachment to Western Europe than I do to Israel.)

          7. Most Americans are more preoccupied with domestic than foreign policy issues.

          8. Most Americans don’t get into arguments with ethnic outsiders about their ethnic issues.

          Can you point us to a few of your 4,000 plus comments on Mondoweiss that are not ethnocentric? Most of them consist of angry and abusive attacks on those whom you perceive to be the enemies of Israel and “the Jews.” You are out of step with most Americans.

        • hophmi says:

          “The term “ethnocentric” is not a smear — it is an objective description of people who are ethnocentric”

          Here’s the wiki definition of ethnocentrism: “Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity’s unique cultural identity. Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.”

          So it is a smear, and more importantly, it is not an accurate description of who I am. As I said, most people exhibit some sort of ethnocentrism (ethnocentricity?) To define someone as “ethnocentric” suggest that they are excessively provincial.

          “it is an objective description of people who are ethnocentric — who are preoccupied (or, in your case, obsessed) with their ethnic issues, problems, conflicts and enemies — especially enemies.”

          I am not “obsessed” with my ethnic “issues.” You seem to suggest that anyone who thinks about the problems of one’s ethnicity is “obsessed.” Stay away from the subjective judgments.

          “By any reasonable definition of the term, Jewish pro-Israel activists and militants like you, Jeffrey Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz, Eric Cantor, Joe Lieberman and thousands of other prominent Americans are ethnocentric — that is the best term to describe your personalities and political agenda.”

          Again, you’re simply making a series of subjective judgments here, none of which you’ve supported. You use demagogic language (i.e. “by any reasonable definition”), inflammatory language (“militants”) and simply unsupported and unsupportable language (i.e. references to “personalities”). You don’t know any of these people personally. In fact, the fairest conclusion from your activity here is to conclude that it is you who are obsessed with them, based on the inflammatory and personal language you use to describe them.

          “All ethnic nationalists are by definition ethnocentric — ethnic nationalism is an ethnocentric endeavor.”

          Again, another conjecture you do not support with facts. No, it is not at all true to suggest that all “ethnic nationalists” are by definition ethnocentric. If that is true, anyone who belongs to a nationalist grouping that is based around an ethnicity is ethnocentric. Greeks are ethnocentric. Poles are ethnocentric. Russians are ethnocentric. All of these countries are places where a single ethnicity predominates. Read the definition. Ethnocentrism is a function of how you view others, not how you view yourself and people who identify similarly to you. I don’t evaluate others relative to my own Judaism. I judge people based on the content of their character.

          You, on the hand, have demonstrated over and over and over and over again that you judge people based on the religious and ethnic grouping with which they identify. You repeatedly ask for the ethnic background of others. You make long lists of people who are united (sometimes not, since you make mistakes) by one characteristic – their ethnicity – and argue that based on that ethnic identifier alone, conclusions can be drawn about their minds and hearts. That fits the definition of bigotry. The question is why you do it.

          “If Andrew Sullivan were preoccupied with Irish ethnic nationalist issues, and wrote about nothing else (as Jeffrey Goldberg writes about nothing else but Jewish and Israeli issues), he would be ethnocentric by any reasonable definition of the word. But Andrew Sullivan isn’t ethnocentric — his mind, spirit and imagination are much bigger than that.”

          Again, you make very faulty assumptions here. Firstly, Jeffrey Goldberg does not “write about nothing else but Jewish and Israeli issues.” Secondly, you forget that the I-P conflict is a controversial issue, and therefore, more people will write about it than other issues. In the NY Times, a couple of days ago, an Indian writer wrote about it. Jimmy Carter has written about it several times. It is natural that Jews, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, should take an interest in their coreligionists. But that does not in and of itself make them more ethnocentric than others. They aren’t judging others relative to themselves as Jews.

          “So I ask you again, hophmi: what drives your extreme ethnocentrism? ”

          And I tell you again, stop with the accusations and the subjective judgments, because I simply do not accept your views. I am not extremely ethnocentric, and you haven’t remotely proven that I am.

          “Why is there not a speck of evidence on Mondoweiss or anywhere else on the Internet that you care about any issue other than your ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist issues?”

          There is plenty. But it is under my own name, and I am not revealing that here. This is an issue I care about. It does not make me ethnocentric. It means, that like everyone else, I take an interest in my coreligionists. It is you who is obsessed. Because I do not see you asking these question of Muslims who are obsessed with the Palestinian issue.

          “Most Americans are not obsessively ethnocentric, as you are ”

          I am not obsessively ethnocentric, and you have not proven that I am.

          “and they are certainly not strident ethnic nationalists”

          I am not a “strident ethnic nationalist,” and you have not proven that I am.

          “relentlessly focused on the problems and interests of a foreign government.”

          I am not “relentlessly focused on the problems and interests of a foreign government” any more than you are or anyone else here is.

          “Ethnic nationalism is fundamentally un-American, and most Americans get that. ”

          This is more unsupported and unsupportable nonsense. I don’t accept the term “un-American.” It’s demagogic. In fact, most Americans who belong to a religious group take an interest in the activities of their coreligionists, and most who have immigrant or ethnic backgrounds take an interest in the activities of others of their national and ethnic origins. It is natural to do so.

          “Have you figured out yet that it is self-defeating to get into arguments with ethnic outsiders about your ethnic nationalist issues?”

          Have you figured out yet that outside of this tiny room, your views are highly unpopular and considered bigotry by most Americans?

          “Those kinds of arguments are impossible to win since they are based entirely on an emotional attachment to narrow and selfish ethnic interests”

          The only emotionalism I see here is yours. You repeatedly engage in inflammatory subjective judgments of me and my co-religionists, and you are oblivious, apparently, to the complete unpopularity of your ideas in the American polity.

        • hophmi says:

          “I am very much in sync with the American people:

          “1. Most Americans are not ethnocentric.”

          Since ethnocentrism is a subjective judgment, and since you’ve repeatedly misused the term, I place little value in this statement.

          “2. Most Americans are not ethnic nationalists.”

          See my comment to number 1.

          “3. Most Americans are opposed to an Iran War.”

          This statement is vague. Polling shows that in the event there is evidence that Iran is developing or has developed a nuclear weapon, a majority of Americans would support US military action to remove the threat. So you’re wrong.

          “4. Most Americans put the American interest far above the Israeli interest or the interest of any other foreign government.”

          As do I. And I resent the connotation, which, as usual, shows your bad faith.

          “5. Most Americans think the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were immense mistakes and failures.”

          Do you a poll showing this? Another unsupported, and almost certainly incorrect statement. Most Americans do not think the Afghanistan War was a mistake. I do not know the polling on whether Americans think it was a “failure,” but the term is subjective and vague, and since you made the assertion, it’s your job to support it with a fact. Most Americans supported the Iraq War at its inception based on the President’s representation that Iraq possessed WMDs. I supported it on humanitarian grounds, as did people like Peter Beinart, Paul Berman, and Michael Ignatieff, if memory serves. To argue that this places me “out of sync” with the American people is to engage is a lie and a smear.

          “6. Most Americans care about many other foreign nations more than they care about Israel. (For instance, I feel a stronger cultural and emotional attachment to Western Europe than I do to Israel.)”

          I think it’s a fair guess that Greeks care about Greece more than they care about any foreign country, and during the troubles, people of Irish extraction cared about Ireland more than any other country. My Egyptian-American friends care more about Egypt than any other country. None of these views are shared by “most Americans.”

          “7. Most Americans are more preoccupied with domestic than foreign policy issues.”

          As am I. I will be voting based on domestic issues in this election cycle, not international issues.

          “8. Most Americans don’t get into arguments with ethnic outsiders about their ethnic issues.”

          Au contraire. Most “ethnic outsiders,” to use your term, do not take an active interest in Israel.

          “Can you point us to a few of your 4,000 plus comments on Mondoweiss that are not ethnocentric? Most of them consist of angry and abusive attacks on those whom you perceive to be the enemies of Israel and “the Jews.”’

          I’m not going to go back through my comments to humor you. But frankly, most comment here consist of attacks on Israel and Jews. So it would be natural, given that I take a contrary position to most here, for my comments to be focused around the same issues. Again, this is a blog focused around the I-P conflict. This is what we discuss here. You seem to continually make the mistake of believing that what happens here is the entirety of everyone’s existence.

          Is it the entirety of your existence, Sean? What evidence is there that you take as intense an interest in Jews and Israel as in any other issue? Since, as the definition of ethnocentrism says, it is completely natural for one to take an interest in the activities of one’s co-religionists and one’s co-ethnics, as it were, it is you who seems to be acting unnaturally by taking an obsessive interest in Jews and Israel.

          “You are out of step with most Americans.”

          You can repeat yourself as much as you like, but it’s not going to make your assertions more true. My political views on Israel – I favor a two-state solution – reflect the views of most Americans, the US government, and the international community.

          The views frequently expressed here in favor of a one-state solution are not the views of most Americans, the US government, and the international community.

          I favor judging people based on the content of their character, not based on their ethnicity. My view is the view of most Americans.

          You favor judging people based on their ethnic identification, commonly known in the real world as bigotry. That is not the view of most Americans, and not a tactic most Americans favor.

          Therefore, it is you who is out of sync with the American people, not me.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          In trying to explain away your 4,000+ often angry and abusive *ethnocentric* and *ethnic nationalist* comments on Mondoweiss, behind a wall of obfuscation and confused doubletalk, you managed to produce one of your more overexcited ethnocentric comments yet — one which proves my point.

          You are so mired down in ethnic narcissism and ethnic solipsism that you have no idea how the vast majority of Americans look at the world. Probably fewer than .01% of the world shares your narrow set of obsessions — and the rest of the world is getting tired of hearing the same endless drone on this subject. No doubt that is why the American government is growing weary of dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu’s bottomless well of neurotic neediness.

          By the way: why do you post all your Zionist comments under a pseudonym and all your alleged progressive comments (which probably don’t exist anywhere but in your imagination) under your real name?

        • hophmi says:

          You’re still resorting to abuse here, and I see no facts.

          Now you’re putting stars around the subjective terms you use. Is that to make them seem more true?

          I have no regard for your arbitrary .01% figure, which is backed up by nothing.

          My activism on the net tends to be focused around Israel, which is the most controversial issue I am interested in. I make no apology for that, and as far as I can tell, it is no different with most people here, so the question is just as relevant to them as it is to me.

          My letters to the editor, and the occasional published columns, in which I use my real name, reflect a wider spectrum of topics. A number cover issues related to Israel, so I have written on Zionism and Israel under my real name, but the majority cover other topics.

          There’s not much more for me to say, because instead of responding to many point I made, you’ve decided to cop out and call my responses double talk. That’s indicative of the generally fact-free and abuse-heavy tactics you use around here.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          Which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than your own — Jewish ethnic nationalism — Zionism?

          Why would you expect non-Jews to be any more enthusiastic about your ethnic nationalism than you are about theirs — when they are foolish enough to become mired down in ethnic nationalist politics? (Which isn’t the case for most Americans and Europeans).

          Which specific political issues do you care about more than Israeli issues? It should be easy to name them.

          I still don’t understand why you would post all your political commentary under your real name — with the exception of the 4,000 plus angry and abusive ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist comments you have contributed to Mondoweiss.

          With regard to responding to your “points” — many of them are so conceptually muddled and off the wall that they discourage any response at all. I would need to be paid a handsome fee for cleaning up your confused thinking and writing for you, to tutor you in expository writing — it’s too much work. Most Mondoweiss commenters are crisp and clear thinkers and writers and are a pleasure to interact with, even over strong disagreements — you are an exception. You are always struggling, usually unsuccessfully, to keep up with the conversation, most of which is going over your head.

        • hophmi says:

          “Which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than your own — Jewish ethnic nationalism — Zionism?”

          I don’t accept your definition of Zionism as an ethnic nationalist movement. But let’s assume you are right for the purposes of argument. Which other forms of ethnic nationalism have you criticized?

          The entirety of Europe is based on favoring Christians over other groups. Today, Europe is democratic, but only because Europeans spent hundreds of years persecuting religious minorities, to the point that Europe today is more proportionally Christian than Israel is Jewish. So essentially, what Europeans tell others is that they should live up to the democratic standards Europeans barely practice today because they spent years maintaining religiously homogeneous societies.

          Have you called for European reparations to be paid to all minorities persecuted by European Christians and by the Catholic Church? Have you called for unfettered emigration to Europe by Muslims in North Africa?

          Anyway, most countries are predicated on one ethnic group dominating over others. I support the self-determination these countries practice and their sovereignty as states. I’m interested in whether they protect their minorities properly. In the Baltics, ethnic Russians are a minority, and constantly complain of being persecuted. In India, Dalits face widespread persecution based essentially on their sub-ethnic background.

          In the Arab world, persecution of minorities is widespread, as you can learn from any State Department human rights report.

          I’ve seen no criticism from you on any of these topics.

          Why are you so obsessed with the Jewish state?

          “Why would you expect non-Jews to be any more enthusiastic about your ethnic nationalism than you are about theirs”

          I don’t. I’m not looking for enthusiasm. I’m looking to be left alone by people who live in homogeneous societies where minorities are not necessarily treated well. Europe does not do right by its Muslims. I don’t expect everyone to be a Zionist.

          “Which specific political issues do you care about more than Israeli issues? It should be easy to name them.”

          You know what? This is like the fifth time you’ve asked me this question, and I’ve answered it already.

          The Dream Act is more important to me. Civil rights is more important to me. Education is more important to me. Inequality in the United States is more important to me. I am telling you once again, as a general principle, stop assuming that you know me personally. You do not. And I am simply not going to share details of my personal life here to satisfy you. Just argue on merits.

          “I still don’t understand why you would post all your political commentary under your real name — with the exception of the 4,000 plus angry and abusive ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist comments you have contributed to Mondoweiss.”

          I have written a great deal here that is on the merits as the contrarian in a room full of abusive and angry people. Stop referring to comments as “angry and abusive ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist comments.” This is just a way for you to again avoid substance and make ad hominem attacks.

          I have told you again that most of my activism on the net is around this issue. I also post on this issue under my real name on facebook and in other places. If you have a merit argument, make it. You’re just repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again like a broken record.

          “With regard to responding to your “points” — many of them are so conceptually muddled and off the wall that they discourage any response at all. ”

          Your way of saying you don’t want or can’t respond to them.

          “I would need to be paid a handsome fee for cleaning up your confused thinking and writing for you, to tutor you in expository writing — it’s too much work. ”

          Another cop-out. More ad hominem.

          “Most Mondoweiss commenters are crisp and clear thinkers and writers and are a pleasure to interact with, even over strong disagreements — you are an exception.”

          Sure Sean, it’s always easier to interact with people who mostly agree with you. They don’t give you a hard time intellectually. But really, when you have gotten into it with other people here and elsewhere on the net, you’ve basically done the same thing – you make a lot of ridiculous statements based on faulty assumptions, conspiracy theories, etc. Eventually you turn to the usual ad hominem that is common in internet fora. You’re playing the same act here – I’ve given you long answers to your assumption-laden questions. You don’t like my answers, I get it. You think you’re right about whatever is in your head. I understand. I’ve been on the net a long time. I’m here to learn from the people I disagree with and I learn a great deal. I’m used to people like you. I know who the real minds are here, who I respect, and who I learn from. You’re not on that list, buddy. Sorry. Your ideas about Jews having too much power in American society are common white supremacy stuff, whether you are actually a white supremacist or not. Your obsession with ethnocracy, ethnic nationalism, and Israel is also pretty common around here, even if you use fancy political science terminology more than most people. I’m a political science guy. I’m not intimated by your misuse of loaded terms. You’re common.

          I make no bones about it, Sean. I think you’re basically a good sophist. Good sophists can talk a good game, but their arguments generally fall apart once they’re held up to scrutiny because their assumptions are faulty. In places like this, it’s not common for arguments to be scrutinized, because most people here accept the arguments of those they disagree with regardless of whether the facts are true or not.

          In your case, you misuse terms, or present extremely controversial views as if they were objective truth. You ask pugnacious, offensive questions, obsessively so, in which you lazily insert controversial and unproven terms to avoid having to define or deal with their complexity. Most of your questions are really rhetorical in nature, and it becomes fairly clear that you’re not really interested in the answers, because when I give them to you, you seem to ignore them and keep asking the same ones over and over again.

          So, you’ve increasingly become abusive and intrusive, as is your wont, because I simply won’t give you the satisfaction of agreeing with your assumptions. You generally can’t get through a post without a few ad hominem attacks, on me personally, on my intellect. I could care less about your opinion of me as ill-informed or unintelligent, Sean, as I am sure you could care less about my opinion of you as a sophist, a pretender, a presumptuous jerk, and a bigot. Believe it or not, I don’t spend 24 hours a day here following the details of every discussion, and I don’t have 24 hours a day to fact-check everything that comes through here, which is pointless anyway, because most people here favor ideology over facts, and like you, ask personal questions of others that they themselves are unwilling to answer.

  3. marc b. says:

    jeez, i wish we had a brecht forum here up north. looks like an interesting place.

  4. German Lefty says:

    I’d like to draw your attention to an article by Ghada Karmi titled
    “The German-Israeli Love Affair Must End – A Palestinian View”.
    link to heise.de
    link to heise.de
    Note: When it comes to all things Jewish, there is a total disconnect between the German government and the German people. So, when Ms. Karmi writes about “Germans”, then this should actually read “German government”.

  5. Elliot says:

    Hophmi, you are most likely aware that the synagogue liturgy for Yom Kippur rejects religious ritual, if that comes in place of correcting injustice.

    Imagining a just and sustainable future for Jews and Palestinians in Israel/Palestine is a great way to start the year.

    This is perfect timing for Jews, observant or otherwise. “After Zionism” comes right after the Jewish new year. For religious Jews, this is a time for introspection and reflection, in preparation for Yom Kippur.

    • Mooser says:

      “Hophmi, you are most likely aware that the synagogue liturgy for Yom Kippur rejects religious ritual, if that comes in place of correcting injustice.”

      Hophmi got out-Jewed!

      You better listen up, Hophmi! The history of Zionism may have given you the convenient idea that Judaism has no ethic, no morals beyond that of an organised-crime syndicate, but it’s not true. It just so happens all the Jews of Conscience took and extra long nap while you built your Jewish State, but they’re awake now, so you better watch your P’s and Q’s

  6. Mayhem says:

    Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonisation of Palestinian land

    Wrong again!
    It is because Palestinians are not willing to live alongside a Jewish state.

    • eljay says:

      >> Wrong again!
      >> It is because Palestinians are not willing to live alongside a Jewish state.

      The rapist continues to brutally physically and sexually assault his imprisoned victim, and all she seems to want to do is lash out at him and try to escape. She refuses to live alongside him in peace! What’s a poor rapist to do?!

      Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig… :-(

    • “Wrong again!
      It is because Palestinians are not willing to live alongside a Jewish state.”

      No wonder you chose Mayhem as a handle. As it seems subtlety and sophistication of thought are too much for you to handle.
      From the online dictionary:
      may·hem (mhm, mm)
      n.
      1. Law: The offense of willfully maiming or crippling a person.
      2. Infliction of violent injury on a person or thing; wanton destruction: children committing mayhem in the flower beds.
      3. A state of violent disorder or riotous confusion; havoc.

    • ColinWright says:

      Mayhem says: “Wrong again!
      It is because Palestinians are not willing to live alongside a Jewish state.”

      How then, would you explain the Palestinians’ relative acquiescence in the status quo from 1948 to 1967, when they in fact lived in a Jordanian ruled West Bank alongside a Jewish state?

      Clearly, it was Israel that found the Palestinian presence intolerable, not the other way around.

      It really is absurd. The Zionists began by expelling 700,000 Palestinians with fire and sword in 1948, have continued ever since — and still announce that the problem is that ‘Palestinians are not willing to live alongside a Jewish state.’

      It’s a moot point whether the Palestinians would be willing to ‘live alongside a Jewish state.’ What they keep proving unable to do is to put up with having the Zionist boot ground into their face — and the Zionists have proven incapable of keeping themselves from doing it.

  7. Mayhem says:

    Sorry eljay your emotive ideology is getting the better of you. Your analogy is riddled with blind hysteria.

    Go back to before Israel’s independence to find the roots of Palestinian rejectionism.

    • Mooser says:

      “Go back to before Israel’s independence to find the roots of Palestinian rejectionism.”

      Thank you Mayhem, for admitting that the Zionists made themselves unwelcome, and the possibility of them colonising Palestine a positive danger to the people there, long before the date of “Israel’s independence”.
      It shows you are getting a real awareness of Zionist history from reading Mondoweiss. I hope you continue to do so, and become even more aware, but I don’t want to quibble, Realising the Zionists made themselves toxic long before Israel was founded is a big step, and it’s gratifying to see you’ve taken it.

    • Ctwosides says:

      Maybe you’ll understand this pertinent old saying which applies quite well to the Israeli Gov./IDF mistreatment of the Palestinians on their own land. “THE BEATINGS WILL STOP WHEN YOUR ATTITUDE IMPROVES”, Did this create a more understandable picture in your mind ?

      Your statement was, “your analogy is riddled with blind hysteria”, my god how arrogant, Lets bring in a ‘Catapillar’ dozer and we’ll hold you and your family back as they level your house, then when you protest we’ll tell you to just calm down and take your beating without complaint because we don’t like your “blind Hysteria” shown by your leveling a truthfull statement toward despotic actions against your rights. “how dare you complain” !! Does this example yet get across to you when brought to your own doorstep?

    • Blake says:

      @mayhem: Independence from whom?

  8. Mayhem says:

    Let me say it as it is – your moderators’ cowardice in not letting me expose hypocrisy is very revealing.
    The same thing is happening in Australia (anti-Zionist fest on Jewish high holiday), where the ABC television program Q&A will be broadcasting a program next week about the BDS with guest propagandist Ilan Pappe.
    Pappe, who in an interview with Le Soir, said: “The struggle is about ideology, not facts. We try to convince people our interpretation is correct, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth-seekers.”
    It is inappropriate (if you have any respect for Jews) to have this kind of a program aired specifically on a night which coincides with the Jewish New Year holiday Rosh Hashanah. This reeks of a cynical ploy to eliminate the participation of  pro-Israel Jews, who would be involved at this time in the celebration of their holiday.
    For those who rant and rave about the Palestinian cause the resolution of the conflict is apparently not about reconciliation. Instead it is about doctoring the Palestinian narrative and it is a lot easier to do that when those who oppose lies and distortions are absent.

    • Mooser says:

      “Let me say it as it is – your moderators’ cowardice in not letting me expose hypocrisy is very revealing.”

      Oh please, you sent in a frothy scum of hasbara and racism, and were probably quite relieved when the The Moderators wouldn’t print it. And of course, now that they didn’t, it becomes “the big one that got away”. Yeah, I know, it was this big!
      And it said it all! Hey, did it expose the “vested interests”?

    • Mooser says:

      “It is inappropriate (if you have any respect for Jews) to have this kind of a program aired specifically on a night which coincides with the Jewish New Year holiday Rosh Hashanah.”

      Oh Mayhem, that’s very nice of you asking for respect and all, but haven’t you got something so much better, fear?
      Anybody airs any Jew-dissing programs, Israel gonna drop a nuke up their butt. That was the trade you made, Zionist. why aren’t you satisfied with it? You’ve got the land, you got the tomato’s cherry, nobody can dial a cell phone without you make a brocha, and respect you want, too? Why don’t you use the power of Zionism to enforce “respect” for Jews all over the world, tough guy?

    • Mooser says:

      “This reeks of a cynical ploy to eliminate the participation of pro-Israel Jews, who would be involved at this time in the celebration of their holiday.”

      Fine with me, pal. You “pro-Israeli” Jews can have your own Synagogue, and ally yourselves with Israel til debts do you part, and non-Zionist Jews will establish their own congrgations. That day can’t come fast enough.

    • Blake says:

      @mayhem: So what is your legal, moral & ethical right to occupy Palestine at the expense of the native Palestinians then?

      • Mooser says:

        Hey Blake, leave him alone. Don’t you know the Zionists were just sitting in Palestine, and ready to return home to Israel, when the “Arabs came here after us”! Can you imagine? After all, “whose land did we steal”.

        Oh, of course. Rosh Hashanah! No wonder there’s so much Ziocaine around.

    • ColinWright says:

      Mayhem says “Let me say it as it is – your moderators’ cowardice in not letting me expose hypocrisy is very revealing…”

      I wish I could believe in the reality of all these powerful statements of the Zionist position that have supposedly been suppressed.

      It’s just that I don’t think they exist. I’ve never seen one anywhere.

  9. asherpat says:

    “After Zionism”

    Care to put a date on when this “After Zionism” will be relevant?

    • Mooser says:

      “Care to put a date on when this “After Zionism” will be relevant?”

      Why on earth does that matter? When it comes, why not be ready for it? Do you commonly make your disaster or even alternate plans, after the event?
      Or do you somehow think that acknowledging a possibility will increase the chances of it happening? Hey, magical thinking is fun!

      • Mooser says:

        Oh, never mind, asherpat, I hadn’t checked my illustrated Talmud. Yup, I suppose that if Zionism fails, it’s my job as a Jew to die defending it, or failing that, commit suicide for shame at my failure, and dread of living under Gentile domination. You bet I’m gonna lay down my life for your right to steal other’s land. Can’t wait to do it.

        Less than two years, asherpat, and you will be seeing non-Zionist Synagogues in the US. That’s right, declared as non-Zionist, you get Jewish religion, culture, and fellowship, with no Zionism (Sure, I know asherpat, impossible!) You can make fun of the shabby buildings, or the fact that they may share the worship-space with other religions, if you like.
        Wanna wager?

        • Philip Weiss says:

          i’m setting the eggtimer now; cant wait

        • Bing Bong says:

          What choice do you have other than this position? Your way of thinking means that you are forced to believe and expect the reality of Israel’s disintegration is inevitable as an central part of your ideological position, not just as a prediction, hope or happy by-product of a Pro Palestinian position.

          Because; all Israel has to do is run out the clock maintaining the status quo. If her disintegration doesn’t happen and Israel is still the Jewish state in 200 years, by echoing your own anti-Zionist arguments, won’t those living in Israel be regarded as the indigenous people? Nobody identifying themselves as Palestinian living in Brooklyn in 200 years time will have any kind of claim of returning to their ‘homeland’ which has been the recognised sovereign state of Israel for nearly 300 years.

          The eggtimer is in Israel’s favour by default, it’s your position that needs the gamechanger like ME nuclear proliferation or the cast iron predictions of social disintegration that arise here regularly.

          In addition, Israel’s position of no ROR is only strengthened if there is an independent Palestinian State in WB and G. That’s why a 2SS is about as high on the MW agenda as concerns about the Iranian nuclear program.

          All Israel has to do is wait, whereas you have to wait for change. Without the ‘certainty’ of this change, sitting around watching the eggtimer only prolongs the current situation and the suffering of the people you care about. And because you have this ‘certainty’ your options are limited to anti-Israel in the first instance as a means to a pro-Palestinian end rather than pro-Palestinian in the first instance.

          You are betting it all on no Israel, I won’t wish you luck with that. Sounds reckless.

        • asherpat says:

          Will you stop blogging when it happens?

        • asherpat says:

          @Mooser – “You bet I’m gonna lay down my life for your right to steal other’s land.” Who’s land did we steal? The Arabs came here after us, and Jews always lived in the Holyland (which is called Holy not because of the Arabs, but because of the Jews).

        • Mooser says:

          “The Arabs came here after us,”

          Sure, we all remember how they emptied lots of villages and even fair sized towns in Eastern Europe and Russia, even leaving behind their possessions in their eagerness to catch the Jews trying to return home from Palestine to Israel!

          Asherpat, do you need a job? A straight man like you, who will feed me lines like that with a straight face, is worth quite a bit, you know.

          “The Arabs came here after us”

          Classic! Asherpat, aren’t you forgetting that Jewish people are reputed to be fairly intelligent? Do you want to ruin it for us?

          ” The Arabs came here after us”

          Their magic carpets darkening the sky, blotting out the sun, while the hooves (do camels have hooves?) of their war-camels thundered across the earth, all the way from Europe to Pal, I mean Israel.

          “The Arabs came here after us”

          All the way to New Jersey?

          Gotta stop for a minute while I roll on the floor and howl.

        • Mooser says:

          “Will you stop blogging when it happens?”

          Why on earth would he do that? I would think that between the newsletters, statements to the press, various discussion sites, archives, videos of services and events, Mondoweiss will need several sub-sites, and many, many pages.

          Don’t worry Asherpat, you’ll still have someplace to show yourself for the tough Jew you are, nobody will chase you away. After all, it’s obvious that without Mondoweiss you would have no way to express yourself, you can’t keep away from the place.

        • Mooser says:

          “i’m setting the eggtimer now; cant wait”

          Well it’ll be worth waiting for, and I’ll have to go, but for me, it’s all about the music. If the music’s good, you know I believe, and how. If the music’s lousy, I turn atheist real fast.

        • Mooser says:

          “Who’s land did we steal?”

          Okay ferdfortz we’ll let all the rest go for now, and you can explain to me how the settlers in the Palestinians territory occupied by Israel are not stealing land.
          And remember to cite chapter and verse in your Zionist land claims. It’s not official without chapter, and verse.

        • ColinWright says:

          asherpat says: “…Who’s land did we steal? The Arabs came here after us…”

          I regard it as significant that you have to resort to the silliest of lies in order to justify the Zionist experiment.

        • ColinWright says:

          Bing Bong: “…All Israel has to do is wait, whereas you have to wait for change.”

          There are some more arcane arguments to be made, but you’re assuming Israel’s position is static.

          In fact, she has lost an enormous amount of ground since ca. 1980, and is continuing to lose ground, and is losing it at a rapidly accelerating rate.

          “…All Israel has to do is wait, whereas you have to wait for change.” One can picture Hitler making a similar claim in early 1944. Hey: he still has most of Europe. The Russians are somewhere in the Ukraine, and the Western Allies have only a toehold in Italy. All he has to do is stand pat.

          What you fail to understand is that this is above all a P.R. war, and you have definitively lost it. ‘Brave little Israel’ is long gone. By your own actions, you’ve pretty much torpedoed ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ for everyone but true believers. Now you’re making yourself the political property of the party that’s about to be definitively rejected at the polls in your only remaining significant ally.

          It’s 3/4′s over already. You’re not ‘standing pat’ anywhere. You have variously betrayed, infuriated, exploited, and insulted every friend you ever had in the world, and you’re about to pay the piper.

        • Bing Bong says:

          ColinWright, your post is demonstrating that your argument relies on making this point. You have to hold the position that Israel will soon end or else it violates your central principle of avoiding Palestinian suffering.

          If according to you the war is 3/4 over then by my shaky arithmetic (taking Israel’s PR war as beginning in 1948 and in the face of a lack of data ignoring your claims of non uniform acceleration) then Israel will end (in some form as to also end Palestinian suffering) in 2033.

          Considering the amount of suffering claimed here in MW is going on, has been going on and is on going I would say that committing to a position whereby another 21 years of similar suffering will be endured is itself a violation of your central principal of reducing/ending Palestinian suffering.

          That’s why I support a 2SS and as I said to you elsewhere in this thread (moderator permitting) would indeed be supportive of one in 2013.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Who’s land did we steal?”

          The Palestinians’ land. It’s called “Palestine.” Maybe you heard of it.

          “The Arabs came here after us,”

          So what? The Palestinian population’s ancesters include the same Jewish population on which you base your claim to the land.

          “and Jews always lived in the Holyland”

          Again, so what? Those who lived in Palestine prior to the zionist invasion should have had a right to remain there as part of the Palestinian nation. European and American invaders, squatters and thieves, not so much.

          “(which is called Holy not because of the Arabs, but because of the Jews).”

          LMAO. It’s not called “the Holy Land” because of the Jews. It’s called the Holy Land because its the land where Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the second Person in the triune God, Savior of us all, Redeemer of the world, Lamb of God and mashiach was made flesh, was born, lived, was rejected by His people, betrayed by the Jewish establishment who had Him condemned and executed by Pilate, only to see Him raise from the dead, to sit at the right hand of the Father.

          If it wasn’t for the Roman Empire adopting Christianity, the land wouldn’t be known as the “Holy Land.” It would be viewed by whatever would have come after it as simply another backwater of the Roman/Byzantine Empires, religiously meaningful to no one but a fringe tribe, one of many, virtually indistinguishable from the others, that made up the imperial population.

        • ColinWright says:

          Bing Bong says: “…You have to hold the position that Israel will soon end or else it violates your central principle of avoiding Palestinian suffering. ..”

          I don’t know how ‘avoiding Palestinian suffering’ got to be my ‘central principal.’ I would say my central principals are that Israel is an act of egregious evil, and the United States should cease to support it in any way.

          ‘Palestinian suffering’ is indeed a symptom of that evil and that support, but it is the evil itself — and my involuntary support — that is the problem.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “I would say my central principals are that Israel is an act of egregious evil…..Palestinian suffering’ is indeed a symptom of that evil and that support, but it is the evil itself”

          What makes it evil then? Can you describe the evilness? or is it just a sort of foggy mist giving off bad vibes?

          Hopefully you’re not saying that a nation state for the Jews is evil. That’s effectively the same as saying that a nation state for the Palestinians is evil unless there is something about Jews that is ‘evil’.

          Either way your position relies on predicting and having 100% faith in this prediction of the future arising to end whatever ‘evil(s)’ is currently in effect. Unless you support a short cut like 2SS or war with Iran and the Arabs. Although I’m sure you would ascribe the property of evil to the latter.

          Your presidential prediction means we’ll have a measure of your soothsaying abilities soon.

        • German Lefty says:

          I don’t know how ‘avoiding Palestinian suffering’ got to be my ‘central principal.’ I would say my central principals are that Israel is an act of egregious evil, and the United States should cease to support it in any way.
          ‘Palestinian suffering’ is indeed a symptom of that evil and that support, but it is the evil itself — and my involuntary support — that is the problem.

          Well said, Colin. I feel the same way.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Hopefully you’re not saying that a nation state for the Jews is evil.”

          How many times do you people have to be told this: the evil is in creating this nation state on someone else’s land, and ethnically cleansing the rightful owners and oppressing them, murdering their children and taking their stuff. Christ, you people are thickheaded.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “Well said, Colin. I feel the same way.”

          If you can’t say why something is evil then how can you call it evil? Because you as you say, ‘feel’ that it is evil?

          Who do you think you are, Ben Kenobi?

        • American says:

          “Hopefully you’re not saying that a nation state for the Jews is evil. That’s effectively the same as saying that a nation state for the Palestinians is evil unless there is something about Jews that is ‘evil’.”

          Very silly hasbara bing bong…..
          If a Palestine State acted as Israel does then it could be called evil.
          Why don’t you give up trying to get people to say Israel is evil because Jews are evil people so you can make Israel the victim of anti semitism? You should know by now that doesn’t work.

        • Bing Bong says:

          “…the evil is in creating this nation state on someone else’s land, and….Christ, you people are thickheaded.”

          Who are you addressing? You’re quoting me but it is ColinWright and German Lefty who are not qualifying what the evil is.

          CW bypasses the Palestinian suffering that you laid out here “….the evil is in creating…” as a means of avoiding the arguments I initially presented to Phil Weiss and his eggtimer that acknowledges the problem of prolonging Palestinian suffering.

          If you’re addressing me then read the thread properly before posting your hysterical outbursts.

          CW said “‘Palestinian suffering’ is indeed a symptom of that evil and that support, but it is the evil itself — and my involuntary support — that is the problem.”

          What evil is he talking about if it’s not the things you (Woody) laid out which all under the banner of Palestinian suffering? It doesn’t make any sense.

        • American says:

          “Who’s land did we steal? The Arabs came here after us, and Jews always lived in the Holyland (which is called Holy not because of the Arabs, but because of the Jews).”..asherpat

          How do you stay as ignorant as you are? Seriously? It is statements like this that reveal zionism as a true Cult entity…..cult followers reject all reality, evidence and facts for myth.

        • Bing Bong says:

          American, read the thread instead of jumping on one sentence with a smug tone.

          When you have done so please explain to me what CW means by evil if it isn’t Palestinian suffering.

        • seanmcbride says:

          American wrote:

          How do you stay as ignorant as you are? Seriously? It is statements like this that reveal zionism as a true Cult entity…..cult followers reject all reality, evidence and facts for myth.

          Zionism is arguably the world’s most dangerous messianic ethno-religious CULT. No exaggeration. Both Jewish and Christian Zionists are radically out of touch with reality, have a genius for violently polarizing the entire world against themselves, are armed with a large arsenal of WMDs (including micro-nukes and biological weapons), and in many instances lust for Armageddon.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ Bing Bong:

          “It is ColinWright and German Lefty who are not qualifying what the evil is.”

          Okay, let me tell you what things are evil:
          ethnic nationalism (e.g. Zionism, Nazism)
          ethnic cleansing
          racist legislation link to adalah.org
          (e.g. any Jew can become a citizen of Israel, whereas Palestinian refugees are still denied the right of return)
          administrative detention
          property theft
          occupation
          siege
          torture
          murder
          withholding of water and energy

          As some German guy once said on a TV show: “I am not pro-Palestinian. I support the oppressed and I am against the oppressor.” This means that he opposes the oppression of Palestinians because it’s oppression and not because it happens to Palestinians. It’s a matter of principle, not a matter of ethnicity.

        • seanmcbride says:

          German Lefty,

          As some German guy once said on a TV show: “I am not pro-Palestinian. I support the oppressed and I am against the oppressor.” This means that he opposes the oppression of Palestinians because it’s oppression and not because it happens to Palestinians. It’s a matter of principle, not a matter of ethnicity.

          That captures my point of view — I am not especially engaged with Palestinian culture or nationalism, and feel no obligation to be engaged. But I am upset when my country (the United States) gets involved in brutalizing and violating the human rights of others (*any* people) through discrimination, ethnic cleansing, bombings, torture, etc.

          My outlook on the world is much more America-centric than Palestinian-centric. I am sure your outlook is more Germany-centric than Palestinian-centric. But we don’t want to get involved with harming innocent people on the basis of racist ideologies.

        • Bing Bong says:

          How does that list not come under the banner of Palestinian suffering?

          If the Palestinians are oppressed, and you support the oppressed, you support the Palestinians. Nobody was saying support comes from the act of just being a Palestinian.

          If it makes you happy replace ‘Palestinian suffering’ with ‘suffering’. This is a forum concerned specifically with the ME and I/P in particular. And changing the phrase like that won’t win you many friends around here.

          No wonder you people are counting on Israel’s self destruction, you’re not likely to bring it about by yourselves are you?

        • ColinWright says:

          Bing Bong says: “…What makes it evil then? Can you describe the evilness? or is it just a sort of foggy mist giving off bad vibes?…”

          Oh all right…

          Israel is evil because every single element in the rationale for her creation is a lie, because she has only come to pass through terror, expulsion, and oppression, and because her existence continues to require terror, oppression, lies, and the perpetuation of human misery.

          She is necessarily that way, and will continue to be that way for as long as she continues to exist. That’s what makes her evil.

          …since you ask.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “…the evil is in creating this nation state on someone else’s land, and….Christ, you people are thickheaded.”

          Who are you addressing?

          Q.E.D.

          “CW bypasses the Palestinian suffering that you laid out here ‘….the evil is in creating…’ as a means of avoiding the arguments I initially presented to Phil Weiss and his eggtimer that acknowledges the problem of prolonging Palestinian suffering.”

          No, your problem is that you refuse to see the truth, that israel, itself, is an evil. It is. And unless it changes to something that is non-zionist, it will remain so, forever. Because zionism is racist and evil and is premised on Palestinian suffering and practically little else.

          “What evil is he talking about if it’s not the things you (Woody) laid out which all under the banner of Palestinian suffering? It doesn’t make any sense.”

          Yes, it makes perfect sense. Zionism is evil. Let’s destroy it and make the world a better place.

        • hophmi says:

          “Zionism is arguably the world’s most dangerous messianic ethno-religious CULT. No exaggeration.”

          This is getting boring. It isn’t a cult, it isn’t messianic; it isn’t even especially religious.

          But I get that demonization is necessary for extremists. It saves a lot of, you know, arguing facts and logic.

          “Both Jewish and Christian Zionists are radically out of touch with reality”

          Radically. Sean McBride, conspiracy theorist, has all the answers.

          “have a genius for violently polarizing the entire world against themselves”

          You mean the entire world IS against us? LOL. I don’t believe the world is against us. Most of the West supports the concept of a Jewish state.

          “are armed with a large arsenal of WMDs (including micro-nukes and biological weapons)”

          Yes, and I can’t imagine why given the politics of the Middle East. It’s such a serene place with totally angelic people and heads of state.

          “and in many instances lust for Armageddon.”

          No Jewish Zionist I know of is lusting for Armageddon. I can’t speak for Christian Zionists, but my guess is that you’re probably taking it all a bit too literally.

        • Blake says:

          Lol @ Mooser summing up the zios to a tee the only way he knows how!

        • seanmcbride says:

          The notion that God — the Lord of the Universe — promised a particular ethnic group a particular piece of territory, and assigned that ethnic group a special status and authority vis-a-vis the rest of the human race, is pure cultism, and arguably racist cultism of the most extreme variety.

          People who get sucked up into belief systems of this type tend to go crazy or to be crazy to start with. They are not rational actors.

          The religious Zionists who are spearheading the settlements movement are indeed cultists, and they are dragging the entire Zionist enterprise along with them right over the cliff. This will not be the first time in history that Jews have succumbed to a self-destructive messianic movement.

        • hophmi says:

          “The notion that God — the Lord of the Universe — promised a particular ethnic group a particular piece of territory, and assigned that ethnic group a special status and authority vis-a-vis the rest of the human race, is pure cultism, and arguably racist cultism of the most extreme variety.”

          Oh please. Please. This is not what Zionism is. Zionism is about the state. It is much less about the land than it is about having a Jewish state. The mythology is a part of the equation, but it is far from relevant. Virtually every nation on earth has some collective mythology about the land, from the Norwegians to the Americans to the Africans to, for sure, the Arabs.

          “People who get sucked up into belief systems of this type tend to go crazy or to be crazy to start with. They are not rational actors.”

          You say this shit, but it has no basis in reality. You don’t get to just point to someone and call them crazy because they believe in self-determination. Israelis are quite rational actors.

          “The religious Zionists who are spearheading the settlements movement are indeed cultists”

          A few are. Most are not.

          “This will not be the first time in history that Jews have succumbed to a self-destructive messianic movement.”

          It would not. But Zionism is not a messianic movement.

        • Bing Bong says:

          I’ll try one last time.

          “Israel, itself, is an evil….and is premised on Palestinian suffering and practically little else.”

          Which is why when CW claims Palestinian Suffering isn’t the reason Israel is evil I asked what is. He took this position to avoid my argument that went thus,

          “You have to hold the position that Israel will soon end or else it violates your central principle of avoiding Palestinian suffering.”

          …the position being, subscribing to the certainty of the end of Israel as a central argument means addressing a 2SS (or similar short term solution, see above) doesn’t have to be on the MW agenda. MW can go on demonizing Israel without attending or supporting any kind of solution such as a 2SS safe in the knowledge that despite not looking for or discussing any kind of workable solution, Israel will end soon anyway. It’s a lazy way of facilitating an ongoing hatred of Israel under the guise of compassion for Palestinians. Disgusting really, that Philip Weiss guy should really be ashamed of that.

          Woody I will be pleasantly surprised if you can understand this post. If you can’t, feel free to get irate and tell me what my problem is again. Try using caps lock for added effect if you want.

          I note you don’t subscribe to the imminent self destruction theory…

          “And unless it changes to something that is non-zionist, it will remain so, forever.”

          …and have in the past voiced your approval of a solution that doesn’t rely on Israel’s self destruction.
          Good for you.

          Q.E.D.
          Quite Easily Done

        • Philip Weiss says:

          but hop it amazes me that APN, a liberal group, is engaged in a FAQ at its site in which it fields the question, Didnt God give us the land? And says, well even if that’s true… Thus religious ideology permeates the Zionist discourse

        • “The religious Zionists who are spearheading the settlements movement are indeed cultists”

          A few are. Most are not.

          it really doesn’t matter who most are if those they chose to follow are fruitcakes.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          Zionism is not a messianic movement.

          Yet it is — more specifically, it is a false messianic movement — probably the most disastrous false messianic movement in Jewish history. All the signs and indications are there for those capable of reading them.

        • hophmi says:

          Do you really think that’s what it’s about for most Zionists? The movement was started by a secular Jew and was dominated by socialist atheists. You get too excited about stuff like this. The fact that APN, an organization that clearly does not believe in messianism, answers the question that way should show you that it’s just part of the background, not the main event.

          Here in America, we built our country on “Manifest Destiny.” It’s a founding myth. In Israel, there are people who take that myth rather literally and have constructed a political argument out of it, just as there are fundamentalist Christians here who have periodically done the same thing. But it’s not most Zionists, and it’s not classic Zionism.

        • hophmi says:

          “Yet it is — more specifically, it is a false messianic movement ”

          No, it isn’t. There is no “messiah” in Zionism. It’s not a messianic movement.

          “probably the most disastrous false messianic movement in Jewish history. ”

          LOL. Yes, it’s such a big disaster that there have been no mass murders of Jews since Israel’s founding and the worldwide Jewish population is almost back to pre-WWII. It’s such a disaster that Israel is the most dynamic state in the Middle East, by very, very far.

          The main disaster is for people who liked the Jews better when they were more easily classified as victims.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Yes, it’s such a big disaster that there have been no mass murders of Jews since Israel’s founding”

          LOL. Correlation isn’t causation, rabbit.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          “There is no “messiah” in Zionism. It’s not a messianic movement.”

          Every Israeli and pro-Israel activist who uses terms like Amalek, Eretz Yisrael, G-d, Hashem, goyim, Judea and Samaria, moser, Moshiach, rodef, the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, the nations, Torah, etc. to frame and define Zionism is enmeshed and immersed in a radical messianic ideology and movement.

          Messianic ideologies and movements almost always crash into the concrete wall of reality and blow themselves to smithereens. Serious students of history know this.

          Zionism is a Jewish messianic movement — one of many that have come before it. To fully grasp this you need to master the writings of Moses Hess, who, more than Theodor Herzl, is the intellectual godfather of both Zionism and communism.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          The main disaster is for people who liked the Jews better when they were more easily classified as victims.

          Wrong — the main disaster is for those Jews who have become more involved with narrow ethnic and religious nationalism than with making great creative contributions in all fields of culture to the human race as a whole.

          Increasingly, Jewish particularism is drowning out Jewish universalism. If Einstein had been more more obsessed with Zionism than with unlocking the secrets of the universe, the world have barely noticed or remembered him. The same is true for a long list of great Jewish minds and spirits. Gustav Mahler has had a much more important and positive impact on human civilization than, say, Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir.

        • hophmi says:

          “Every Israeli and pro-Israel activist who uses terms like Amalek, Eretz Yisrael, G-d, Hashem, goyim, Judea and Samaria, moser, Moshiach, rodef, the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, the nations, Torah, etc. to frame and define Zionism is enmeshed and immersed in a radical messianic ideology and movement.”

          LOL, based on what? These are biblical concepts. Their (limited) use does not connote a messianic movement. It’s a political movement. There’s no messiah here. As usual, you’re throwing around big terms for shock value without any supporting argumentation.

        • hophmi says:

          “the main disaster is for those Jews who have become more involved with narrow ethnic and religious nationalism than with making great creative contributions in all fields of culture to the human race as a whole.”

          LOL, which is why Israelis make contributions to the human race left and right through the develop of technology to help the disabled, literature, art, etc., etc. You seem to be under this ridiculous spell that makes you believe that because Israel is a Jewish state, every single Zionist is by definition a narrow-minded religious Jew. It’s like you live in a hole in Mea Shearim.

        • Philip Weiss says:

          i dont think it’s limited use. aren’t you chagrined by the degree of religious language in political discourse of Israeli relationship to W. Bank? Ami Ayalon at J Street 3 years ago said when it’s time to pull out the settlers we’ll just issue a new ideology of Save the Jewish state by leaving Judea and Samaria, reversing the last ideology. But I dont think that’s possible, given how religiosized it’s become

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          These are biblical concepts.

          They are biblical concepts organized a core messianic ideology — the Bible itself is the quintessential and foundational messianic document.

          Secular Zionism itself is drenched in biblical and messianic concepts, myths and memes — but what is worse, explicitly religious (and messianic) Zionism has been on the ascendancy in Israel and the United States for decades now.

        • hophmi says:

          “i dont think it’s limited use.”

          I mean, Sean threw a lot of terms in there. Saying that Jews who talk about Amalek are messianist is a little like saying Muslims who talk about Jihad are violent. It has internal and external meanings. Most Jews do not apply Amalek to any particular people today.

          Judea and Samaria is a biblically descriptive term. It’s not a messianic one. Jews call it J and S, most others call it the West Bank. If Jews give it up, they will give up J and S. That’s all.

          I’m not sure what Moshiach has to do with any of this. Jews do believe in the concept of a Messiah. That doesn’t make a political movement for self-determination into a messianic one. We pray for the coming of the Messiah. That’s about it.

          “the Jewish people” – referring to ourselves collectively does not make Zionism a messianic movement anymore than Americans referring to the American people makes America a messianic movement.

          ” the Land of Israel” – again, it’s a religious term, but that does not connote messianism.

          I mean, this is what happens when you demonize instead of making an attempt to understand. Zionism is a political movement, first and foremost. The fact that some Jews today talk about in religious terms using religious terminology does not make it a messianic movement. It’s simply not the correct term, and citing Hess (no one would define Hess as the intellectual godfather of either Zionism or communism) does not make that more true.

        • Cliff says:

          What the heck do you mean ‘based on what’ hoppy?

          Zios don’t need a singular messiah figure. The aforementioned religious concepts are being used in the messianic context.

          In a particular Max Blumenthal vid, a certain psychotic Jewish councilman from NY or something rants ‘We have Hashem’ over and over.

          Recently a ZioBot went to China and began marveling at the Chinese empire. The ZioBot then began to think out loud that ‘the Jews’ would be as powerful as the Chinese if it were not for the historical persecutions. So basically, if it were not for history.

          You don’t need a messiah. You are your own messiah apparently. It’s this narcissism – but not as an individual. It’s as ‘a Jew’.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          Some traits strongly associated with messianism:

          1. aggression
          2. authoritarianism
          3. catastrophic lapses in judgment
          4. claims to be on a divine mission
          5. cosmic dualism
          6. cultism
          7. delusions of grandeur
          8. dogmatism
          9. euphoria
          10. fanaticism
          11. God is on our side
          12. grandiosity
          13. historical determinism
          14. imperial overreach
          15. infantilism
          16. magical thinking
          17. megalomania
          18. misreadings of reality
          19. mysticism
          20. narcissism
          21. overconfidence
          22. paranoia
          23. self-righteousness
          24. stridency
          25. totalitarianism
          26. utopianism

        • American says:

          “The main disaster is for people who liked the Jews better when they were more easily classified as victims.”..hoppie

          Well, as I said on a other thread here you have that exactly backwards.
          It is the constant claim of victimhood and the ‘abuse’ of that claim in demanding special treatment and to not be judged or criticized in their behavior or demands as others would be, that arouses resentment or dislike.
          People don’t “want” to see Jews or anyone as victims.
          What happens is when victimhood become a ‘tool’ for demanding special treatment or privileges from others that they are not entitled to or no longer need, people rightly reject it.

          The world would like to see Jews not consider themselves eternal victims and not demand that we see or treat them as eternal victims either. But that claim is all zionism and Israel have to get their special exemptions.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Woody I will be pleasantly surprised if you can understand this post.”

          It’s so poorly written, I would be plesently surprised if anyone can understand the post. But don’t flatter yourself. You’re playing elementary-school semantic games and pretending you’re some profound thinker. Yawn.

        • hophmi says:

          Please make an argument instead of these lists.

          The most basic part of messianism is belief in a messiah; it’s a religious belief. Political programs and ideologies are not messianism.

          Zionism is not based on a belief in a messiah. It’s based on the belief that Jews need a self-deterministic space, which is usually defined as a country of their own.

          Religious nationalists who argue that land acquisition has a religious basis are not, by definition, messianic. They’re simply religionationalist.

          I’d say the best way to define the more extreme wing of the settlement movement, who favor the acquisition of land over the preservation of the state is that they are not Zionist at all. They are simply nationalists, and they undergird their nationalism with a religious belief. Zionism in the classic sense, as I understand it, favors the state, the political entity, over the religious construct. Its founders were mostly socialist atheists, and its ideologues, like Herzl, believed, based on experience, that it was impossible for Jewish culture to fully flower in Christian Europe and ultimately, in the Muslim Middle East, where the status of Jews ranged from second class citizenship, to actively oppressed minority. None of this has anything to do with messianism. Nearly every trait on your list is closely associated with basic nationalism, and Zionism has shown neither authoritarian nor totalitarian tendencies. If you’re going to argue that those tendencies are in the West Bank, I’m going to reply that they are little difference from any military occupation, whether the Americans in Iraq, the French in Algeria, the Americans in Europe and Japan after WWII, and so on. All of these involved authoritarian practices of some sort, and none were in any way messianic. Zionism itself, particularly within Israel’s Green Line which is a liberal democracy, is neither authoritarian nor totalitarian.

          In general, please stick to arguments, not lists of terms.

        • hophmi says:

          “In a particular Max Blumenthal vid, a certain psychotic Jewish councilman from NY or something rants ‘We have Hashem’ over and over.”

          Yeah, G-d is on our side. Pretty common sentiment in most places with any kind of religious tradition. See the US.

          “Recently a ZioBot went to China and began marveling at the Chinese empire. The ZioBot then began to think out loud that ‘the Jews’ would be as powerful as the Chinese if it were not for the historical persecutions. So basically, if it were not for history.”

          I have no idea what the heck you’re talking about. Do you have a source?

          “You don’t need a messiah. You are your own messiah apparently. It’s this narcissism – but not as an individual. It’s as ‘a Jew’.”

          I have no clue what that means. Messianism is belief in a messiah. Zionism is a political ideology, and it really has nothing to do with a messiah.

        • hophmi says:

          “They are biblical concepts organized a core messianic ideology — the Bible itself is the quintessential and foundational messianic document.”

          You must be confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament. The New Testament is the one with the Messiah.

          “Secular Zionism itself is drenched in biblical and messianic concepts, myths and memes ”

          Only for you it is. Secular Zionism is FIRST AND FOREMOST a national program based around the idea that the poor Jews need a national state to escape persecution. That’s what Zionism is. That is the main idea. That Jews talk of a biblical “return to Zion” does not equal messianism except in the mind of someone who is dedicated to defining Zionism as something it is not.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          no one would define Hess as the intellectual godfather of either Zionism or communism

          Wrong. More on Moses Hess from Wikipedia:

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Moses Hess and Communism:

          Hess originally advocated Jewish integration into the universalist socialist movement, and was a friend and collaborator of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Hess converted Engels to Communism, and introduced Marx to social and economic problems. He played an important role in transforming Hegelian dialectical idealism theory of history to the dialectical materialism of Marxism, by conceiving of man as the initiator of history through his active consciousness.

          Hess was probably responsible for several “Marxian” slogans and ideas, including religion as the “opiate of the people.” Hess became reluctant to base all history on economic causes and class struggle, and he came to see the struggle of races, or nationalities, as the prime factor of history.

          Moses Hess and Zionism:

          From 1861 to 1863 he lived in Germany, where he became acquainted with the rising tide of German Anti-Semitism. It was then that he reverted to his Jewish name Moses in protest against assimilationism. He published Rome and Jerusalem in 1861. Hess interprets history as a circle of race and class struggles. He contemplated the rise of Italian nationalism and the German reaction to it, and from this he arrived at the idea of Jewish national revival, and at his prescient understanding that the Germans would not be tolerant of the national aspirations of others and would be particularly intolerant of the Jews. His book calls for the establishment of a Jewish socialist commonwealth in Palestine, in line with the emerging national movements in Europe and as the only way to respond to antisemitism and assert Jewish identity in the modern world.

          Hess’s Rome and Jerusalem. The Last National Question went unnoticed in his time, along with the rest of his writings. Most German Jews were bent on assimilation and did not heed Hess’ unfashionable warnings. His work did not stimulate any political activity or discussion. Hess’s contribution, like Leon Pinsker’s Autoemancipation, became important only in retrospect, as the Zionist movement began to crystallize and to generate an audience in the late nineteenth century. When Theodor Herzl first read Rome and Jerusalem he wrote about Hess that “since Spinoza jewry had no bigger thinker than this forgotten Moses Hess” and that he would not have written Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) if he had known Rome and Jerusalem beforehand. Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky honored Hess in The Jewish Legion in World War as one of those people that made the Balfour declaration possible, together with Herzl, Rothschild and Pinsker.

          hophmi: I have no confidence that you are able to parse and understand the above text — I strongly doubt that you can.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          Two interesting quotes from Moses Hess’s “Rome and Jerusalem”:

          1. The Messianic era is the present age, which began to germinate with the teachings of Spinoza, and finally came into historical existence with the great French Revolution.

          2. To this coming cult, Judaism alone holds the key. This “religion of the future” of which the eighteenth century philosophers, as well as their recent followers, dreamed [...] Each nation will have to create its own historical cult; each people must become like the Jewish people, a people of God.

          Hess actually uses the terms “messianic” and “cult.”

          From Moses Hess’s “A Communist Confession of Faith”:

          The Christian… imagines the better future of the human species… in the image of heavenly joy… We, on the other hand, will have this heaven on earth.”

          Hess, by the way, defined Jews as a “race.”

          More on Hess here:

          link to mailstar.net

          His essay On the Essence of Money identified Judaism with the cult of money, and asserted the dominant role of Jews in world finance, providing Marx with the information he used in his On the Jewish Ouestion.

          But 20 years later, Hess rejected assimilation and returned to Judaism, pronouncing the Jews a race and a nation, and calling for a Jewish socialist state, in his book Rome and Jerusalem (1862).

          and:

          In 1867 Hess, by now a Zionist, joined the (Communist) International Working Men’s Association, siding with Marx in his disputes with Bakunin.

          Thus combining Zionism with Communism, Hess has been called “the first Trotskyist”. Arthur Koestler and David Ben-Gurion subsequently followed the same path.

          Moses Hess was the founder of Israeli National Socialism, the inspirer of the kibbutz movement and of the Histadrut as a vehicle for social ownership of the economy.

          (I don’t endorse or not endorse the above site — I haven’t had time to check out where it’s coming from. But the above facts are correct.)

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          You seem to have no knowledge of any subject you address, including the subject of the religion which you claim to profess. Messianic myths, symbols, memes and themes lie at the core of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament and the entire Abrahamic tradition (including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zionism and, some Jewish scholars have argued, Marxism and communism).

          Any Zionist (whether Jewish or Christian) who justifies Israeli policies and behavior on the basis of the Bible, Torah or God is situated firmly in the ideological tradition of Abrahamic messianism.

          In fact, a very large number of Israeli leaders and pro-Israel activists lean heavily on the Torah to justify the entire Zionist enterprise.

          hophmi — what serious books and authors have you read on the history of Western monotheism? Can you name a few that you are prepared to discuss? F.E. Peters? Karen Armstrong? Paul Johnson? Gershom Scholem? Any major thinkers at all?

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi wrote:

          Most Jews do not apply Amalek to any particular people today.

          The current prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, compared Iran to Amalek.

          Try Googling [amalek israel] and you will be flooded with information on current usage of the term in Zionist circles.

          Some pro-Israel activists and militants seem to conflate Amalek with anyone who disagrees with them on Mideast politics – Amalek=”antisemites” and “Jew haters.”

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          The most influential Jewish intellectual of the last century, Albert Einstein, compared Revisionist Zionism — the stream of Zionism that now dominates Israel — to Nazism.

          What global Jewish creative leaders in the arts and sciences are avid Zionists these days? Quite a few of them seem to indifferent to Zionism or are increasingly moving into the anti-Zionist camp.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          The most basic part of messianism is belief in a messiah; it’s a religious belief. Political programs and ideologies are not messianism.

          This is not how educated people and scholars discuss messianism — will you please go back to school and get an education or at least take the trouble to read in depth on the subjects you choose to opinionate on.

          That list of terms described some of the traits that are commonly associated with messianic psychology and movements in the scholarly literature on the subject.

          Zionism, particularly in its current religious format, is a messianic movement par excellence: it pretends to derive its authority from God Almighty and to be the contemporary manifestation of God’s will. These beliefs and sentiments are expressed conspicuously in the writings of both Jewish religious Zionists and their close allies, Christian Zionists.

          Many Jewish religious Zionists are in fact awaiting the coming of the Messiah — Moshiach — who will supposedly redeem (perfect) the world and establish their domination over “the nations.” Before you open your mouth any further on this matter, I advise you to Google first.

          What is alarming about all three fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic tradition is that they are all counting on a “Messiah” to crush their enemies and to establish themselves as rulers of the world.

          Progressive Jews, Christians and Muslims have been trying to defuse this time bomb. The Israeli government, on the other hand, has been in bed with both Jewish and Christian fundamentalists.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophimi wrote:

          “the Jewish people” – referring to ourselves collectively does not make Zionism a messianic movement anymore than Americans referring to the American people makes America a messianic movement.

          ” the Land of Israel” – again, it’s a religious term, but that does not connote messianism.

          When an ethnic group defines itself as an organic mystical body and agent of God, and the land on which it lives as sacred territory sanctified by God, it is manifesting extreme messianism of a particular kind (ethnic messianism).

          Nazism, for instance, is one of the most notorious messianic (and ethnic messianic) movements in world history.

          There were strong elements of ethnic messianism in the drive to build the British Empire (and to a degree in the campaign to create the American empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).

          Judaism (like Christianity and Islam) is a messianic religion and Zionism is a messianic ethnic nationalist movement.

          Judaism and Zionism are now so closely joined at the hip that it is almost impossible to differentiate between the two ideologies — they have merged into one ultra-messianic belief system and political movement.

        • Bing Bong says:

          It’s self evident that only lip service is paid to a 2SS. Ask those who run the site if they would accept a 2SS tomorrow that lets Israel exist in peace with a Palestinian state next door according to 67ish borders.

          If they say they would ask why MW rarely puts forward to any meaningful degree support of this.

        • seanmcbride says:

          No reply from hophmi on the points in this post.

        • hophmi says:

          link to zionismontheweb.org

          This is Ami Isseroff’s take on Hess, which puts into perspective some of the concepts Sean raises. It is followed by the entirety of Rome and Jerusalem.

          Sean begins with a long quote from wikipedia asserting Hess’s influence on Marxist and Zionist thinkers. I have not denied that Hess influenced these thinkers. Calling him a godfather of Communism and Zionism is a bit of a stretch. Rome and Jerusalem is a fairly early proto-Zionist text. I think people like Herzl and Jabotinsky, and others who wrote later than Hess are better candidates for the post of intellectual godfather. In any case, whether he is or he isn’t is not particularly important, because at best, he’s one of many prominent Zionist thinkers, all of whom had a different way of thinking about the Jewish question in Europe.

          Sean then uses a familiar tactic, taking terms out of historical context:

          “Hess actually uses the terms “messianic” and “cult.””

          Yes, Hess uses the terms messianic and cult. He does not use them in the sense Sean does. In the former quote, Hess describes the current age as messianic, whatever that means, because it is the age of emancipation. It’s a rhetorical term, and it’s certainly not used in the religious sense. When there is great societal change, people get lofty with their language. It’s a fairly vague statement, as Ami points out. Hess appeared to view the emancipation that followed the French Revolution as the beginning of a “Messianic age” where small, oppressed nations would become as powerful as larger ones. He saw many of these nations as being highly influenced by Judaism. It’s actually quite an inclusive vision.

          Hess’s use of the word cult is similar. He uses it in the general sense to define a people who follow a common ideology. A simple review of Rome and Jerusalem will reveal that this is how Hess uses the term; elsewhere he refers to the “Jewish cult,” basically using it synonymously with “Jewish nation.”

          “Hess, by the way, defined Jews as a “race.””

          Again, it’s misleading. In the 19th century, race was often used synonymously with nation.

          Sean continues:

          “Messianic myths, symbols, memes and themes lie at the core of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament and the entire Abrahamic tradition (including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zionism and, some Jewish scholars have argued, Marxism and communism).”

          Yes, they do. But that does not give one license to use “messianism” as a catchall term for any kind of nationalism. I’d go further and say messianic myths, symbols, and themes lie in some sense at the heart of every national narrative, particularly and especially in American history. To call Zionism messianic might be justified only in that sense – it is a national ideology with its own mythology. But I do not find it more or less “messianic” then other national narratives, and indeed, given that most of the founders were socialist, many were atheist, and in many ways, anti-religious in sentiment, messianism is not the first term that comes to mind when describing Zionist philosophy.

          “Any Zionist (whether Jewish or Christian) who justifies Israeli policies and behavior on the basis of the Bible, Torah or God is situated firmly in the ideological tradition of Abrahamic messianism.”

          Yes, I suppose anyone who justifies a policy based on a holy book or a religious prophecy can be labelled that way, even though that’s not in and of itself “messianism.” But most Zionists don’t do that, and even most of those who offer a biblical defense for holding Judea and Samaria offer it as one of many, and the overriding defense offered, rightly or wrongly, by most Israelis is security, not religion.

          “In fact, a very large number of Israeli leaders and pro-Israel activists lean heavily on the Torah to justify the entire Zionist enterprise.”

          Early Americans often relied on the Bible to justify their enterprise. Regardless, the number is not “very large,” though the volume of these people is very high.

          Sean continues:

          “The current prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, compared Iran to Amalek.”

          Sure, and the last President of the United States defined Iran as part of the Axis of Evil. It’s rhetoric.

          “Try Googling [amalek israel] and you will be flooded with information on current usage of the term in Zionist circles.”

          I’m sure. It’s the heated rhetoric common in internecine conflict.

          “Some pro-Israel activists and militants seem to conflate Amalek with anyone who disagrees with them on Mideast politics – Amalek=”antisemites” and “Jew haters.””

          I’m sure there are a few who do that, yes, though I haven’t seen it used that way very often. Usually, however, the term is used to connote enemies of the Jewish state, and occasionally in homiletics as a synonymous of personal struggle with one’s own demons. But prevailing rabbinic opinion has long been that we do not know who Amalek is today, and thus the mitzvot that call for total annihilation of the Amalekites do not apply.

          “The most influential Jewish intellectual of the last century, Albert Einstein, compared Revisionist Zionism — the stream of Zionism that now dominates Israel — to Nazism.”

          We’ve been over this ground many times, and you’ve based your argument on the same faulty assumptions each time. Whatever intellectual pretensions Revisionist Zionism may have had toward fascism at its genesis (and they are highly controversial and questionable to begin with), it was first and foremost a response to British occupation, and the political ideology was not very important; even the revisionists put aside their differences to fight with the British during WWII, with the exception of the Sternist fringe. Revisionists have been elected to the Knesset many times. They have not undermined Israel’s democracy in any meaningful sense. They have not propounded any kind of fascist philosophy.

          Einstein was on the left, and, like most Jews at that time, detested Begin and his use of violence. That he engaged in rhetorical excess common at that time and referred to him as Nazi-like is not per se proof that Revisionism is Nazism. And for the record, Einstein was not a political philosopher. He was a physicist. He’s not a source for a philosophical political judgment.

          It is also greatly simplifying things to refer to Revisionism as the dominant philosophy today. In the first place, you wrongfully assume that Revisionism today is the same thing as Revisionism in 1940s. It is not. In the second, you discount the underlying structure of the state today, which is a mix of Labor Zionism and modern economics. And even with this right-wing government, no one has tried to annex the West Bank. No one has tried to retake the Gaza Strip. There is a wall up which itself is a major, major rejection of what you might call more classical Revisionist views. The government is right-wing, but the society is still primarily the product of Labor Zionism.

          “What global Jewish creative leaders in the arts and sciences are avid Zionists these days? Quite a few of them seem to indifferent to Zionism or are increasingly moving into the anti-Zionist camp.”

          Instead of these vagueries, why don’t you define your terms here?

          “This is not how educated people and scholars discuss messianism — will you please go back to school and get an education or at least take the trouble to read in depth on the subjects you choose to opinionate on.”

          You’re a bit of an intellectual bully, aren’t you. I’ve explained in depth why I believe your use of the term is misleading at best.

          “Zionism, particularly in its current religious format, is a messianic movement par excellence: it pretends to derive its authority from God Almighty and to be the contemporary manifestation of God’s will. These beliefs and sentiments are expressed conspicuously in the writings of both Jewish religious Zionists and their close allies, Christian Zionists.”

          Hardly. The founders of Zionism did not derive their authority from G-d. They derived it from the developing international norms of the time, including theories of emanicipation and nationalism. In fact, it’s almost exactly the opposite. They were often in opposition to those rabbis who repudiated the idea that G-d granted any authority for a state in the holy land.

          “These beliefs and sentiments are expressed conspicuously in the writings of both Jewish religious Zionists and their close allies, Christian Zionists.”

          Today, perhaps. But they are not what founded the state, and still play a relatively small role today. The state certainly has not adopted that philosophy, even if some of the settlers have.

          “Many Jewish religious Zionists are in fact awaiting the coming of the Messiah — Moshiach — who will supposedly redeem (perfect) the world and establish their domination over “the nations.” Before you open your mouth any further on this matter, I advise you to Google first.”

          Yes, many Jews await the Messiah, but you vastly, vastly overstate the case by morphing an oft-expressed vague hope into a fervently held belief. You go to a religious bar mitzvah or a wedding, you’ll hear people chanting that they “want Moshiach now.” But to assert that this is really a practical part of politico-religious philosophy that people routinely offer as the basis of national sovereignty is simply incorrect. It’s Orientalist, really. And I know literally no one who views the Messianic Age as one where Jews will dominate other nations.

          “What is alarming about all three fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic tradition is that they are all counting on a “Messiah” to crush their enemies and to establish themselves as rulers of the world.”

          Not us, buddy. And it’s silly for us. We’re about a quarter of one percent the size of the other two.

          “Progressive Jews, Christians and Muslims have been trying to defuse this time bomb. The Israeli government, on the other hand, has been in bed with both Jewish and Christian fundamentalists.”

          How so? You’re doing an awful job. Things are getting worse.

    • ColinWright says:

      asherpat says: “After Zionism”

      Care to put a date on when this “After Zionism” will be relevant?”

      It’s kind of up to Israel and just how many more outrages she chooses to commit — but I’d say sometime around 2025. Give or take five years.

      …of course, it’s hard to say. I do know that since it dawned on me that Israel was an inherently doomed proposition, my estimates have kept shrinking. Israel just seems determined to end it all! Witness her current ploy of having made herself into a political football — for what’s obviously going to be the losing team. That’s gotta be worth a loss of five years right there.

      One thing I am confident of: past a certain point the slide will be very, very fast. Like the fall of the Soviet Union it should come with startling speed. You see, there’s just no solution that’s going to be simultaneously both just and allow for a viable, Jewish dominated state. So once the criterion becomes justice, it’ll all be over but the planeloads leaving Ben Gurio…whoops, Yasser Arafat International.

      • Blake says:

        CIA report said 20 years 3 years back.

      • Bing Bong says:

        “Witness her current ploy of having made herself into a political football — for what’s obviously going to be the losing team. That’s gotta be worth a loss of five years right there.”

        That prediction has now been proved wrong. I don’t believe your other either.

  10. Ctwosides says:

    I hope that the organizers of this timely event invite CNN, FOX, ABC,NBC, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, and so on. Give the MSM every opportunity possible to be witness to factual conversations that are ongoing out in America, The more they are introduced to what Mainstream American and American Jew’s think, the more likely they will start allowing these conversations on their shows and the weaker AIPAC and associates arguements will become in shutting down discussion of facts by the worn out false charge of Anti Semitism.

  11. Just came back from the event. Ahmed Moor was a no show, so it was just Phil and Lowenstein and a crowd of people to the left of Phil and Lowenstein. No one learned very much from the presentation unless they were utterly ignorant on the issue. Maybe if someone bought the book then they learnt something.

    The presentation was rather more like a church meeting, Zionists bad, Palestinians good, “Amen” and all that. Nothing on the current turmoil in the capitals of the Arab world. Unless democracy includes the current turmoil. Democracy according to Phil seems to include all forms of populism. as far as concern about minorities, that is not something covered by the term democracy apparently.

    Regarding Jewishness Phil made the assertion that it’s time (for him) to leave the sideshow of Jewish identity alone, but the people in the audience were anxious to hear more about the issue of Jewish identity. Phil stepped forward to condemn the painting of the star of david on a garbage can in Gaza, a woman in the audience- How can you expect anything better when the Israelis have stars of David on their jets.

    But as I said, it was mostly people who agreed with each other and I left as soon as it was over.

    Oh yeah, of course the speakers (or people in the audience) like to elicit chuckles with the names Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Oren.

    Phil announced that Netanyahu was going down, because Israelis don’t like tension between Israel and the US. I hope he doesn’t mean in the next elections, which Netanyahu will win.

    No solid ideas what a future after Zionism will look like, you have to buy the book to get those ideas and they didn’t want to give away anything for free, except that it doesn’t pay to talk to Zionists because they don’t want to know the truth.

    • Mooser says:

      “The presentation was rather more like a church meeting, Zionists bad, Palestinians good, “Amen” and all that. “

      Yup, Yonah, that’s about how it needs to be presented, and it can, and then all they gotta do is bring out you or, say, “asherpat” out, let you speak for yourself, and they’ll be ready to march on Tel Aviv before it’s over.

      “No solid ideas what a future after Zionism will look like,”

      It’ll look like Zionism is gone. I’m sure that will be enough to make most people happy. Why, are you waiting for somebody to give you some kind of guarantee? Or meet your price?
      Say Yonah, tell me more about the “The Arabs came here after us”! And I’d like to hear about whose land you didn’t steal.
      Oh sorry, I forgot, you leave that kind of stuff to a poor schlimazel like “asherpat”. Your job is to try and appear reasonable to outsiders, and leave the dirty-work, and the consequences, to poor schmucks like “asherpat” and “dimadok” while you sit in America. Oh well, there’s nobody can say Jews don’t make good pimps. See you at the The New York Independent Benevolent Association.

    • Mooser says:

      “except that it doesn’t pay to talk to Zionists because they don’t want to know the truth.”

      “Who’s land did we steal? The Arabs came here after us, and Jews always lived in the Holyland (which is called Holy not because of the Arabs, but because of the Jews).”

      You are so right Yonah, there’s nobody got a thirst for truth like a Zionist. Now why do I keep thinking of a movie with Jack Nicholson?

    • dimadok says:

      Awesome. Thank you.

  12. Kathleen says:

    One person one vote…trouble for Zionism