Comeuppance for Netanyahu? No, he might run against Obama– and increase daylight between countries


Netanyahu congratulates U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro on the U.S. election. I imagine the unedited version being something like thisAdam Horowitz

The Obama reelection sends a shockwave to Israel, major comeuppance for Netanyahu, who put down his chit in the American elections and lost.

But the early returns suggest that the shockwave won’t dislodge Netanyahu in January. No! There are signs of defiance in Israel. And this could mean growing daylight between the countries’ leaderships.

Danny Danon of the Likud Party is defiant:

“The state of Israel will not capitulate before Obama,” he said.

Obama’s victory “brings home the fact that the state of Israel must take care of its own interests,” he continued. “We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves.”

Bradley Burston  writes that Obama victory might make Netanyahu more defiant too:

Netanyahu may have a world to gain, and nothing to lose, by continuing to thumb his nose at a victorious president….

Polls announced on Israeli television stations on Tuesday pointed the way to a possible Netanyahu strategy based on exploiting Israeli displeasure with, or distaste for, Obama.

Noam Sheizaf agrees that the loss might only make Netanyahu more bolshy:

Some people, also those within the political system, believe that the U.S. elections can affect Israeli voters, and probably swing a few seats away from the prime minister. I seriously doubt this. Netanyahu would have gained some momentum if Romney had won, and the media would have congratulated him for “picking the right horse.” But Netanyahu had survived the first four years of an Obama presidency, and he can live with another term. Netanyahu might actually sell – at least to the right – the line that only he can guard Israeli interests now that we don’t have a genuine supporter in the White House….

The outcome of the U.S. elections is said to encourage former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to join the local race, but Olmert is yet to reach a final decision, and he has no chance of beating Netanayhu in any case.

The alternative view. JTA notes that both Ehud Barak and Shelly Yachimovich of Labor congratulated Obama and mentioned the peace process– “perhaps posturing for their own elections against Netanyahu in January,” Ali Gharib writes in his wrapup:

“I have no doubt that the Obama administration will continue its policy –whereby Israel’s security is at its very foundations – as well as its efforts to tackle the challenges facing all of us in the region; all the while continuing to strive for further progress in the peace process,” Barak said in a statement issued Wednesday morning in Israel….

Yachimovich also wished the president “success in your efforts to promote processes of peace and freedom around the world.”

Sheizaf points out helpfully that the peace process is going nowhere under Obama:

I think the White House has realized that the Israeli-Palestinian issue costs a lot of political capital, but brings very little results. Furthermore, the administration continues to believe in the Oslo framework, as if two decades haven’t passed.

The crisis of the Israel lobby in the US isn’t going away. An anonymous friend says that we can look for even more daylight between the two countries in months to come, and an Obama shift on illegal Israeli colonies at the Security Council (where in 2011 the craven U.S. supplied the veto of a resolution against Israeli colonization).

It puts Netanyahu in a bind as to internal vs external. Lieberman wants Defense. With Obama reelected, that is a death wish. Lieberman at Defense would hinder cooperation with the Pentagon (and his Russo-philic bent would be seen as an added security risk).

Now Dem Jewish interlocutors will have Obama’s back if Netanyahu presses. Netanyahu will have to worry about US abstention at UN Security Council on settlements. Obama punishes the Palestinians at the General Assembly and now can make Netanyahu sweat in the Security council.

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. seafoid says:

    “We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves.”

    This is bollocks. Take away all the American planes from the IAF and what is left?

    Hannah Arendt said it all back in 1944

    http://books.google.ch/books?id=sHMEIRM84ScC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=Even+a+Jewish+majority+in+Palestine–nay+even+a+transfer+of+all+Palestine's+Arabs,+which+is+openly+demanded+by+the+revisionists&source=bl&ots=yGOOvgDdLR&sig=uYugng8c0ivl31W6JfZ9bVGlH3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=poaaUICvJYqj4gT-xIHgCA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Even%20a%20Jewish%20majority%20in%20Palestine–nay%20even%20a%20transfer%20of%20all%20Palestine's%20Arabs%2C%20which%20is%20openly%20demanded%20by%20the%20revisionists&f=false

    “Even a Jewish majority in Palestine–nay even a transfer of all Palestine’s Arabs, which is openly demanded by the revisionists–would not substantially change a situation in which Jews must either ask protection from an outside power against their neighbors or come to a working agreement with their neighbors…

    Israel chose Option A
    Israeli self reliance is a fantasy .

    • Surely they are well aware of their dependent position. “Rely on” can be interpreted to mean “feel confident that our current patron will continue supporting us indefinitely.” In that sense it is true that they cannot rely on the US. “Self-reliance” for Zionism has always meant knowing when to give up on one patron and switch to another (from Britain to the Soviet Union, then France and the US). And Israel has been preparing the ground for that eventuality by quietly cultivating close relations with Russia. Perhaps it will be Lieberman, with his Russian connections, who makes the next switch when he comes to power.

      • That’s why it is wrong – and I have been saying this all along on MW – to interpret the state of Israel as a colonial project. If it were it had a ‘natural’ parent-country to rely on. – But it has none. It’s supposed to be the parent-country of world Jewry.

        • Inanna says:

          By your logic, Australia was not a colonial project either because now it no longer relies on the UK but has switched allegiance to the US. Really, zionism does seem to affect the part of the brain that can process logically.

          As for Israel, there were dozens of organisations set up in the pre-state era that contained the word some variation of the word ‘colony’ set up by Jews. Jews even sold Israel to Britain as an ally in a harsh region. Britain was the major patron of the the Jewish colonists and supported their presence in Palestine so that they could use a friendly state to help them secure the Suez Canal. The fruits of that were shown in 1956. When the US put at end to that adventure (and with the final nail in the coffin put into British/French imperial designs) Israel turned elsewhere – to the guys who had the power to say no. They adjusted to reality, just the Australia. Doesn’t make them any less a colony.

        • Shmuel says:

          Inanna,

          The concept of “settler colonialism” seems to interfere with Klaus’ essentialist approach to the Zionist project. If the struggle for Palestinian liberation is “just” another anti-colonialist struggle, it is not a uniquely Jewish phenomenon. Besides, I think talk of anti-colonialism aggravates his allergy to left-wing discourse.

          Gabriel Piterberg on settler colonialism in Palestine: link to settlercolonialstudies.org

        • talknic says:

          Klaus Bloemker November 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm

          “.. to interpret the state of Israel as a colonial project. “

          Jewish Colonial Trust

          The purposes of the trust were described as the economic development and strengthening of the Jewish colonies in Palestine and Syria, the purchase of land….

        • LeaNder says:

          Shmuel, the idea that one could use one’s own Jewish citizen for colonizing Palestine and have them work as some kind of guardian for the country’s own benefit surfaced before Zionism in some European countries. Palestine of course was also important for Christianity, remember the crusades. There obviously is a connection between the rise of European nationalism as a backlash against the more universal approaches post French revolution and the rise of religion as a counterforce to more universal rights. Is it any wonder that “the Jews” are caught in the struggles of their times too, with much delayed equal rights in some countries?

          It feels the German Wikipedia article on Zionism has more about of these early developments. One of the chapters is: European Nationalism and Colonialism. Strictly it would be interesting who influenced whom in this respect. It may not be as easy as one thinks.

          Moses Hess is very interesting in this context, initially he is a socialist and leans toward the idea of universal rights, then he develops into an early Zionist.

          One of the most recurring arguments on the Right is that “the Jews” resisted universal rights and the ideas of revolution. But on the end of the 19th century they had mutated into “the left” on the extreme German right, a universalizing force, “the Jews and their friends”.

        • marc b. says:

          shmuel, i haven’t read piterberg in quite a while, and i’m confused by this quote from your link:

          First of all, a colonization that is not comparable to any other colonial society in its social and economic structures cannot be called a colonization. If Mandate-era Jewish Palestine was not based on any of the characteristic features of a colonial society—the exploitation of a native work-force; the confiscation of the natural riches of the country; a monopoly of political power that created two different classes of inhabitants, citizens and others who had no rights—it could not have been a colonial society. The truth was rather the opposite: in order to build a nation, the Jews of Palestine formed themselves into a self-sufficient and closed society. The cult of manual labour and the necessity of creating an infrastructure for the reception of new immigrants helped to prevent the emergence of exploitative relationships.

          is the author offfering a condensed statement of piterberg’s position, or a refutation of it? in either case, comparing ‘mandate-era jewish palestine’ to other more fully advanced colonial enterprises isn’t productive for a variety of obvious reasons. for example, it may be accurate to say that mandate-era zionists did not ‘exploit the native workforce’, but it wouldn’t be accurate to make the same argument about post-48, and particularly post-67, israel. (‘exploitation of the native work force’ isn’t a necessary component of colonialism, in any event, as english colonists made no effort to exploit native americans for their labor potential, while spanish colonists did) or maybe i am misinterpreting what is being said.

        • Shmuel says:

          marc b.,

          It is a bit confusing. The first part (that you quote from) is taken from Zeev Sternhell’s review of Piterberg’s Returns of Zionism. Piterberg’s position (that settler colonialism does not necessarily imply exploitation of a native work-force) is stated in his response to Sternhell, excerpted towrd the bottom of the page.

        • Mooser says:

          Nd your point, Klaus, is what, exactly? And BTW in case you haven’t noticed “world Jewry”, besides being a classic anti-Semitic locution, doesn’t exist. Why don’t you tell us how “world Jewry” is organised, who runs it, and what it does?
          No, Klaus, you didn’t say “Zionism”, you said “world Jewry”. Now show us it exists, and is not simply a two-tonic chimera you ginned up.

        • “uniquely Jewish phenomenon …. his allergy to left-wing discourse”
          ————————–
          That’s right Shmuel

          But it’s not just me who sees a uniqueness, singularity. It’s also a recurring Israeli claim in order to remove itself from criticism that may be applied to other ‘non-unique’ countries/colonies and conflicts. – On the other hand there is the recurring reproach: ‘why do you single us out?’ – Well, ‘because you do’, is the answer, ‘and that’s rooted in your concept of being a Jewish state.’ -
          Here we go again.

          And yes, the Marxists get on my nerves.

        • Shmuel says:

          It’s also a recurring Israeli claim in order to remove itself from criticism that may be applied to other ‘non-unique’ countries/colonies and conflicts.

          Well they would say that, wouldn’t they.

          And yes, the Marxists get on my nerves.

          You should have that looked at.

        • “world Jewry”

          Isn’t this a neutral term? (I know it was used in conspiracy theories of the sort of The Elders of Zion.) The Zionist concept is to ingather world Jewry – or at least the majority of it – in the ‘land of our forefathers’. That’s their ‘colonial’ project, not a very typical colonial one.

        • Shmuel,

          “You should have that looked at.” (That the Marxists get on my nerves.)
          I have reached the limits of my English. What do you mean?

        • Shmuel says:

          “You should have that looked at.” (That the Marxists get on my nerves.)
          I have reached the limits of my English. What do you mean?

          Sorry, Klaus. The expression “you should have that looked at” means you should consult a doctor about your condition ;-)

        • marc b. says:

          klaus, i won’t jump on the pig pile, as you do make the odd salient point from time to time despite your tin ear for phraseology (no offense, as your english is much better than my german ever was, but ‘world jewry’? that bird won’t fly.) as for the marxists on your nerves, setting aside any proto-utopian visions, ‘marxists’ are among the few providing any real analysis of politics and the economy at present. (see, for example, david harvey or richard seymour and others.) yes, it’s come to that.

        • I see Shmuel,
          my “allergy to left-wing discourse” is fortunately fading slowly out by itself.

          What I’m more concerned with is my newly developped allergy to the Zionist discourse and the question ‘is it anti-semitism’? – You know, anti-semitism is supposed to be a mental disease. Is that something I should have looked at?

        • mark b. – I just googled this (world-jewry.org)
          ——————————————————————–
          The American Council for World Jewry welcomes you!

          The Council is an effective voice for international Jewish concerns, engaging the highest levels of government and international institutions. These relationships are important, but so is identifying priority issues and maximizing our impact.

          Please visit this site often, and let us know how we can better serve your informational needs and policy priorities.
          ————————————————————

        • Antidote says:

          Mooser (et al),

          Klaus is perfectly correct in claiming (below) that “world jewry” is, or can be and has been used a “neutral term” , despite having been used by anti-semites. As a neutral term it simply refers to the global Jewish population or geographic distribution without ascribing any collective social, political, economic or cultural agenda to this segment of humanity, in whole or in part. Hence, the first Google hit I get for “world jewry” is a wikipedia page on the global Jewish population which actually does NOT combine the words “world” and “jewry”. It does, however, include a dotted WORLD map with the caption “JEWRY in 2006″. Obviously, someone was as sensitive as you or marc b to the term “world jewry”, presumably because it is frequently associated with, as you write, a “classical anti-semitic locution.”

          But that’s at best a partial truth. The second hit I get is

          “Why is World Jewry opposed to the Zionist State?”

          link to jewsnotzionists.org

          a clearly essentialist argument that posits the good guys and ‘real Jews’, i.e. “world jewry” (the global Jewish diaspora), against Zionists/Israelis (the latter being presented as a recent historical aberration and a disgrace to “world Jewry”).

          The opposite argument is made by the Israeli-American “Jewish Virtual Library”, under the heading “Israel and World Jewry”:

          link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

          excerpt:

          “World Jewry, in recognition of the centrality of Israel in Jewish life, participates in building the country, through social, political and financial support, as well as by coming to Israel, making it their home and adding their particular skills and cultural backgrounds to the Israeli mosaic. A long tradition of mutual aid among Jews is manifested in a multifaceted network of organizations designed to cater to hundreds of Jewish-Israeli interests. For its part, Israel constantly seeks to strengthen the Jewish communities and its bond with them by helping those in need, promoting Israel-oriented activities, Hebrew language study, economic opportunities and visits of groups and individuals to Israel.”

          My point: of course “world Jewry” is a chimera in any non-neutral (geographic distribution) meaning, but the term has frequently been, and continues to be used, by both anti-or philo-semites, and anti- or pro Zionists.

        • Newclench says:

          My impression is that a phrase like this was once a more natural part of intra-Jewish discourse, but that it is fading a bit and now provokes a certain sensitivity.
          If the “World Zionist Organization” were being founded today it would not have that name. They would instead call it “The Federation of Zionist Communities” or some such. “The Jewish Agency” would be named something in Hebrew, forcing all the diaspora Jews to pronounce it poorly.
          As a Jew, I don’t like the phrase “world-Jewry” but I don’t assume that someone using it has bad motives. There is no such thing; what we have are “world Jewries.”

        • Antidote, Newclench – thanks for your clarifications.

          If I understand the Israeli government correctly, they don’t want such a thing as an organized world Jewry or “world Jewries” in different countries. They claim to speak for and represent world Jewry. – Much to the annoyance of a large part of world Jewry and Mondoweiss.

        • Antidote says:

          “The American Council for World Jewry welcomes you!”

          good one, Klaus. Obviously, the “American Council” consists either of anti-semites, or a bunch of foreigners with typical ESL limitations and “tin ears”, unaware of how “WJ” sounds to native English speakers (sarcasm)

        • MRW says:

          The Language Police are out in full force again, I see. ;-)

          In Quebec, they bring their yardsticks to make sure the French signage words are bigger than the foreign (English, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc) words. Is that where we’re headed with this “certain sensitivity?” Typographical outrage in politically controversial journals? Butterfly nets ready to whop you one because you didn’t realize the sensitivity changed while you were having a beer?

        • “‘marxists’ are among the few providing any real analysis of politics”
          ———————————-
          marc b. -
          my Marxist friends were convinced that it could only be the capitalist profit motive (oil) of America why W. Bush and Rumsfeld went to war. They have no notion of anything else than the capitalist profit motive. How do they explain Islamophobia? How Israel’s settlements in ‘Judea and Samaria’? – It’s all about capitalist profit?

          BTW, why did you learn German?

        • RoHa says:

          “The American Council for World Jewry welcomes you!”

          Am I the only one who finds that phrase scary?

        • Antidote says:

          “If I understand the Israeli government correctly, they … claim to speak for and represent world Jewry. – Much to the annoyance of a large part of world Jewry and Mondoweiss.”

          spot on

        • Inanna says:

          Thanks for the link Shmuel. But it’s strange how zionists forget their own history. Those bouts of amnesia probably help the cognitive dissonance to go away.

        • marc b. says:

          mark b. – I just googled this (world-jewry.org)

          scheiße, klaus, marc mit ein ‘c’. französische, bitte.

          The American Council for World Jewry welcomes you!

          ja. ein volk! ein traum! eine welt!

          but that’s really my point. the term is tainted, used mostly by anti-jews and a small collective of jews who claim to speak for ‘world jewry’. two sides of the same coin, more or less. there is a review in a recent NYRB of dimitri bykov’s ZhD (ЖД)(published in english as ‘living souls’), which is essentially a russian folk tale of sorts chronicaling the battle between the varangians and khazars, i.e. slavs and jews, for control of russia. this sort of thing is big now, what with putin’s persecution of the martyr, khodorkovsky, and other practioners of chicago capitalism. from a review:

          The country has split into warring halves. The north, including Moscow, is controlled by the Varangians – an extreme right-wing cult whose members worship Odin and claim to be descended from early Nordic settlers of Russia. The south, on the other hand, is populated by Jewish exiles who have resurrected the ancient Khazar Khaganate – an empire centred on the Caucasus.

          Bykov uses these two factions to represent conflicting impulses in the cultural life of modern Russia. The Khazars are classic metropolitan liberals, whilst it is hard not to see in the Varangians’ obsessive power-worship a not-so-distant echo of Putinism. If approached with a certain lightness of touch, this material could have easily been the basis for a successful political farce. However, Bykov often seems gifted with a sort of reverse Midas faculty, turning potential gold into lead.

          again, that’s why i object to the term, not because i believe it necessarily means that the user is anti-semitic (and i don’t buy the jew as ‘anti-semite’ argument) but that it is ‘essentialist’, as shmuel put it, and is accurate only as used by essentialists, whether jewish or gentile.

        • LeaNder says:

          Let’s see how your argument works, you were initially responding to this:

          That’s why it is wrong – and I have been saying this all along on MW – to interpret the state of Israel as a colonial project. If it were it had a ‘natural’ parent-country to rely on. – But it has none. It’s supposed to be the parent-country of world Jewry.

          It’s interesting that you respond to the statement the way you do. Since you in fact demand from the Jews something they obviously don’t have, and that was in fact one of the reasons, why Zionism developed in a rather nationalist and religiously bigoted 19th century.

          What about the “little historical help” we Germans gave in this context, by the way?

          It’s one thing to realize the instability due to the project’s foundation, and dependency on outside support, a missing home base to which one could return after things go wrong, as happened with some Colonial states, but they all have their own very specific history.

          Would you accept that South Africa was a Colonial state too? How could they survive so long? Why didn’t they leave and return to their home countries? If not why not? Since they had been there for quite a while, maybe?

          And especially what is the exact difference if Jewish Europeans or Protestant Europeans decide to colonize a specific part of the world, we don’t even need to leave religion out of it, see. South Africa’s settlers historically came from different nations too.

          They surely had financial and trade ties back to their homeland, some countries surface more prominently over the decades. If we leave out the late time of the Jewish enterprise and ignore the different contexts and motivations, what exactly makes them different?

          If it were it had a ‘natural’ parent-country to rely on.

          Would you accept, that in the South African case no specific “natural” parent country existed either? Or would you contradict?

        • marc b. says:

          why did you learn German?

          my father was stationed in germany after wwii (idar-oberstein) and became fluent in german, and i was stationed in germany in late 80s-early 90s (hunsrück) and one of my brothers lived in germany and belgium for many years.

        • “Klaus’ essentialist approach to the Zionist project” – “uniquely Jewish”
          ————————————
          That’s right Shmuel -

          But for lack of a general term that captures the ‘essence’ of the Zionist project let’s keep calling it ‘settler colonialism’.

          [But why isn't there a general term for this kind of project? Because it's unique. - There are never general terms for things unique, singular.]

        • marc b. –
          Too bad the Cold War is over and the American GIs went home.
          We miss them. – Claus

        • Mooser says:

          “The American Council for World Jewry welcomes you!”

          Actually, you won’t “get” this, but thanks for proving my point, Klaus. And If I want to know anything about Germany, I’ll ask the Neo-Nazis. I’m sure they can explain it.

          Klaus how much of “world Jewry” is in the “American” Council for World Jewry? But of course, I appreciate your willingness to take anything with the word “Jewish
          or “Jewry” at face value when you think it supports your case that there is some supernatural or essential characteristic which unites all Jews.

        • Mooser says:

          BTW, Klaus does not use “world Jewry” as a neutral descriptive term, he uses it to indicate agency the power to act as such (as “world Jewry”) towards some object. And that is just plain wrong.
          And frankly, it is insinuative.

        • Mooser says:

          “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they.”

          Funny, isn’t it, Shmuel? The man Klaus is supposed to be some kind of intellectual, and he seems top have not the slightest understanding of the “would say that” principle when it comes to certain subjects. I wonder why that is?

        • Mooser says:

          “But for lack of a general term that captures the ‘essence’ of the Zionist project let’s keep calling it ‘settler colonialism’.”

          Whatsamatter, Klaus, your little “world Jewry” Google bite you in the butt?

        • Mooser says:

          “I have reached the limits of my English.”

          That’s another thing you might have looked at, too.

        • Mooser says:

          “There are never general terms for things unique, singular.”

          Gosh, and I thought Zionism fitted pretty much into the general human experience, especially if you consider the Palestinians as well as the Zionists.

          Tell me Klaus, how is the dispossession and oppression visited by Zionism on the Palestinians “unique”, or “singular”. Seems like ordinary human suffering to me. (which, of course, is in no way to excuse its infliction, in case you’re wondering)
          And how is looking for “lebensraum” , living space, “singular” or “unique”?

        • Mooser says:

          “Would you accept, that in the South African case no specific “natural” parent country existed either?”

          Don’t even have to go presuming on Dr Livingston, all the American Colonies had different parent agencies.

        • seanmcbride says:

          marc b.,

          again, that’s why i object to the term, not because i believe it necessarily means that the user is anti-semitic (and i don’t buy the jew as ‘anti-semite’ argument) but that it is ‘essentialist’, as shmuel put it, and is accurate only as used by essentialists, whether jewish or gentile.

          It is easy to use Google to verify that the term “world Jewry” is used frequently by the worldwide Jewish establishment itself and by mainstream Jewish publications.

          Let me help you out with a few clickable Google searches — explore for yourself at the ADL, Commentary, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Forward, Haaretz, Israel National News, the Jewish Press, the Jerusalem Post, JTA, the Times of Israel, Washington Jewish Week and Ynet News:

          1. “world jewry” site:adl.org link to google.com

          2. “world jewry” site:commentarymagazine.com link to google.com

          3. “world jewry” site:conferenceofpresidents.org link to google.com

          4. “world jewry” site:forward.com link to google.com

          5. “world jewry” site:haaretz.com link to google.com

          6. “world jewry” site:israelnationalnews.com link to google.com

          7. “world jewry” site:jewishpress.com link to google.com

          8. “world jewry” site:jpost.com link to google.com

          9. “world jewry” site:jta.org link to google.com

          10. “world jewry” site:timesofisrael.com link to google.com

          11. “world jewry” site:washingtonjewishweek.com link to google.com

          12. “world jewry” site:ynetnews.com link to google.com

          The term “the Jewish people” — which is used much more frequently by the Jewish establishment than even “world Jewry” — is really a synonym for “world Jewry,” is it not? “World Jewry” = “the Jewish people” = “the Jews” — a core ideological concept and rhetorical meme in Judaism and
          Zionism, both religious and secular.

          I must confess that I don’t understand your point: are you suggesting that the Jewish establishment doesn’t speak for “the Jews”? If this is the case, then why hasn’t the Jewish community created, developed and cultivated an establishment which does in fact speak for itself?

          Since the concept of “world Jewry” lies at the heart of Zionist ideology (and contemporary Judaism), how is it possible to discuss or critique Zionism without dealing directly with that issue?

          Is it perhaps a problem that non-Jews are noticing what the worldwide Jewish establishment is actually saying, accurately reporting on it, and expressing well-informed disagreements with some of its beliefs and policies? Is this a tribal circle-the-wagons thing that is being expressed by even some supposed Jewish anti-Zionists?

          Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of neoconservatism, once wrote an essay for Commentary entitled “The State of World Jewry” — in fact, it may have been a cover article. You might want to look it up.

        • seanmcbride says:

          marc b.,

          Some other topics and organizations to look into regarding, in the words of the worldwide Jewish establishment itself, “world Jewry”:

          1. AJWS (American Jewish World Service)

          2. All Listings in International Jewish Orgs link to jewishfederations.org

          3. B’nai B’rith International

          4. B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem

          5. EJC (European Jewish Congress)

          6. JFNA (Jewish Federations of North America)

          7. JPPI (Jewish People Policy Institute)

          8. Links to International Jewish Organizations link to buffalo-israel-link.org

          9. WJC (World Jewish Congress)

          10. WZO (World Zionist Organization)

          And a central question of interest: to what degree do leading Jewish establishment organizations all around the world coordinate their activities on behalf of Israel, Zionism and transnational Jewish interests?

          This is not a matter of being for or against those activities, but of acquiring a factual and truthful understanding of what they are all about. The Israel lobby is a global network and institution — not merely an American operation. In the age of the Internet and Google many of these activities are now an open book.

          Compared to the worldwide Jewish establishment, which is ardently Zionist, anti-Zionist dissidents within the Jewish community barely register on the radar.

        • seanmcbride says:

          marc b.,

          To clarify my thoughts on this issue:

          Yes, antisemites have often organized their hate propaganda around images of “world Jewry” and “the international Jew” (think Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler). But the worldwide Jewish establishment itself has aggressively and conspicuously presented itself to the world as a unified ideological, political and organizational bloc. Antisemites have exploited this meme, but they didn’t invent it.

          Surely there must be a way to discuss this issue in an objective, informed and substantive way that isn’t designed either to defend or attack “world Jewry.”

          Are you, Mooser and Shmuel suggesting that this discussion should be off limits? And what does the fancy but empty term “essentialism” have to do with it?

          In looking into the history and current activities of the Israel lobby in particular, one finds Jewish leaders like Arthur Finkelstein, Marc Rich, Edgar Bronfman, Haim Saban, Robert Maxwell, Shaul Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder, Sheldon Adelson, the Rothschilds and many others (many of them billionaire “machers” in the Zionist world) heavily involved in operations all around the globe on behalf of “world Jewry.” It’s a big story.

        • marc b. says:

          But the worldwide Jewish establishment itself has aggressively and conspicuously presented itself to the world as a unified ideological, political and organizational bloc. Antisemites have exploited this meme, but they didn’t invent it.

          sean, i don’t know that there is a unified ‘worldwide jewish establishment’, but there certainly is a collective of jewish individuals who believe they speak for such a group, imagined or otherwise. and, i agree with you that the portrayal of ‘world jewry’ painted by some jews is nearly synonymous with the portrait painted by anti-semites. that doesn’t mean the term shouldn’t be avoided however. i think it’s simply an inaccurate way of describing the phenomenon we are probably referring to.

          ps ‘essentialism’ is just shmuel’s diplomatic way of saying racism or more particularly anti-semitism, i believe.

        • Mooser says:

          “What I’m more concerned with is my newly developped allergy to the Zionist discourse”

          I know I’ll be sorry for asking, but if you have developed an “allergy to the Zionist discourse” why do you accept a huge component of it, that is, that Zionism is not a colonial process, and that Zionism is “unique”?

        • Keith says:

          SEAN MCBRIDE- “And a central question of interest: to what degree do leading Jewish establishment organizations all around the world coordinate their activities on behalf of Israel, Zionism and transnational Jewish interests?”

          Yes, and to what degree are Israel and Zionism central to organized Jewry’s tribal solidarity and organizational effectiveness? If Jews as a group hadn’t become so successful and wield so much power, then these questions would be largely irrelevant. However, current reality dictates that we need to examine all relevant aspects of modern day power-seeking. Obviously, the total dimension of social power and power-seeking is much broader than a narrow focus on Jewish power, however, the focus of Mondoweiss itself tends to lead in that direction. This is not bad insofar as we recognize that this is but a part of the whole which can provide insight into the whole. It is critically important for the citizenry to be informed of the power dynamics which shape the social decision making. The distribution and control of money-power is a core factor in leading us toward an unsustainable dystopia. Understanding is critical. Not an easy task when surrounded by mythology and inundated in propaganda. That is why it is important not to squelch discussion through restrictive taboos.

        • Mooser says:

          “Much to the annoyance of a large part of world Jewry and Mondoweiss.”

          I, along with Talleyrand, beg you to observe, Klaus, that Mondoweiss neither blames nor approves, it merely relates.

        • Mooser says:

          “I must confess that I don’t understand your point: are you suggesting that the Jewish establishment doesn’t speak for “the Jews”? If this is the case, then why hasn’t the Jewish community created, developed and cultivated an establishment which does in fact speak for itself?”

          Gosh, and when I think of how seamlessly and completely every other religion/culture/polity has done this, I feel doubly ashamed of the failing.

        • Antidote says:

          “Yes, antisemites have often organized their hate propaganda around images of “world Jewry” and “the international Jew” (think Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler). But the worldwide Jewish establishment itself has aggressively and conspicuously presented itself to the world as a unified ideological, political and organizational bloc. Antisemites have exploited this meme, but they didn’t invent it.”

          To me, what you write sounds both reasonably correct and completely off the mark. First, defining who is or is not a Jew has always been a bit tricky. Second, Ford and Hitler were not attacking Israelis (and not all of them are Jews anyway) but diaspora Jews whose ethnicity/nationality/religion was not simply or exclusively ‘Jewish’.

          To give an example: Kipling, a leading Germanophobe and defender of the British Empire (“white man’s burden”, Boer wars etc) wrote about the dangerous (to British interests) “Hun element in American finance” in his letters. He means the same very rich and influential people who come up in Ford’s “The International Jew- The World’s foremost problem”.

          Excerpt:

          “The great Jewish banking houses of the United States are foreign importations, as perhaps everyone knows. Most of them are sufficiently recent to be considered in their immigrant status, while the thought of them as aliens is stimulated by their retention of oversea connections. It is this international quality of the Jewish banking group which largely accounts for Jewish financial power: there is team-play, intimate understandings, and while there is a margin of competition among themselves (as at golf) there is also a wiping out of that margin when it comes to a contest between Jewish and “Gentile” capital. Four conspicuous contemporary names in Jewish-American finance are Belmont, Schiff, Warburg and Kahn. All of them, even the most recent, are of foreign origin.
          August Belmont was the earliest and arrived in America in 1837 as the American representative of the Rothschilds in whose offices he had been raised. His birthplace was that great center of Jewish international finance, Frankfort-on-the-Main.”

          Schiff(s), Warburg(s) and Kahn (a German born British citizen prior to his naturalization on the eve of WW I) — but not Belmont — are listed on the Wikipedia page “List of German Americans”, as are the Rockefeller family, and even Obama (cross-listed on several pages of hyphenated Americans). Does a Jewish or German ancestor make you a German or Jewish American, or both? Were Schiff or Kahn Jewish or German? What ‘ethnic agenda’ did the American Warburgs have (financing Britain and Russia/the SU in WW I and II), and how does that square with the German Warburgs who financed the Kaiser and Hitler? Were they Jews or Germans?

          I could go on, but I hope you get the point

        • Mooser says:

          “In looking into the history and current activities of the Israel lobby in particular, one finds Jewish leaders like Arthur Finkelstein, Marc Rich, Edgar Bronfman, Haim Saban, Robert Maxwell, Shaul Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder, Sheldon Adelson, the Rothschilds and many others (many of them billionaire “machers” in the Zionist world) heavily involved in operations all around the globe on behalf of “world Jewry.”

          You think that list of names is representative of “world Jewry”? Small world, isn’t it? Seems to consist almost entirely of two countries.

        • Lea, you write:

          “Since you in fact demand from the Jews something they obviously don’t have” [a parent-country].
          —————————————
          This is such a bizarre sentence that I can only laugh.
          - I demand from the Jews something they don’t have?

          Obviously, you take a descriptive statement of mine for a normative one.

          When I say: ‘Little Fritz is an orphan. He has no parents.’
          Do I demand from little Fritz “something he obviously doesn’t have”?
          - You got it?

          [How about the "desinformation I spread about Bertold Brecht"?]

        • seanmcbride says:

          Mooser,

          You think that list of names is representative of “world Jewry”? Small world, isn’t it? Seems to consist almost entirely of two countries.

          The names on that list have played an outsized role in defining the policies of a worldwide Jewish establishment, organized around Israel and Zionism, which has stridently claimed to speak for “world Jewry” (often using that precise term to describe themselves).

          How is it, Mooser, that you continue to misunderstand (or pretend to misunderstand) the argument that is being made here? No one has argued that all Jews belong to a monolithic ethnic, religious or ideological blob. What has been argued is that the Jewish establishment itself regularly makes this claim and that it exerts extraordinary influence on the American government through the agency of the Israel lobby.

          As to the question — to what degree do leading Jewish establishment organizations all around the world coordinate their activities on behalf of Israel, Zionism and transnational Jewish interests? — any thoughts? These are matters that are easy to delve into with a bit of research.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Antidote,

          I could go on, but I hope you get the point

          I am afraid you didn’t get the point — we are discussing the worldwide Jewish establishment, which claims to speak for “world Jewry” within the framework of a Zionist agenda and which organizes its political activities around the Israeli interest. We are discussing the structure and flavor of their propaganda and its consequences.

          Many or most Jews don’t share the agenda of the Jewish establishment — that is not the question. But they have been remarkably unsuccessful in challenging the power of the Jewish establishment to define “Jewishness” to the world at large.

          Even dissident Jews and Jewish groups (like Peter Beinart and J Street) that have challenged the Jewish establishment in relatively mild ways have been easily knocked down and marginalized. Why is this the case?

        • seanmcbride says:

          Mooser wrote:

          Gosh, and when I think of how seamlessly and completely every other religion/culture/polity has done this, I feel doubly ashamed of the failing.

          Actually, one sees very vigorous dissent in the Christian world over ideological and political issues — there is no single Christian establishment that can credibly speak for “the Christians” — ditto for “the Americans” — Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama, for instance, represent very different versions and visions of Americanism.

          Is there a Conference of Presidents of Major American Christian Organizations? Nope. Not even close.

        • seanmcbride says:

          marc b.,

          sean, i don’t know that there is a unified ‘worldwide jewish establishment’, but there certainly is a collective of jewish individuals who believe they speak for such a group, imagined or otherwise. and, i agree with you that the portrayal of ‘world jewry’ painted by some jews is nearly synonymous with the portrait painted by anti-semites. that doesn’t mean the term shouldn’t be avoided however. i think it’s simply an inaccurate way of describing the phenomenon we are probably referring to.

          Like you, I dislike the term “world Jewry,” but anyone who reads the mainstream Jewish press will see that term and variations on that term — “the Jewish people,” “the Jews,” etc. — being frequently used by prominent Jews themselves, usually in the context of promoting a Zionist ideological and political agenda.

          So what is an intelligent person with an interest in how the world really works supposed to do: pretend that this is not happening and that it is not an important phenomenon in American, Western and global politics? Don’t we need to address and analyze this issue?

          With regard to a “worldwide Jewish establishment,” once again, the mainstream Jewish media discuss the particulars of its operations on a regular basis, naming names in detail. See JTA, Forward, the Jerusalem Post, etc. — it’s all there.

          Regarding “essentialism”: ideological groups and movements like Zionists and Zionism hold “essential” (core) beliefs — it is the job of intellectual historians. political scientists, sociologists, etc. to describe those beliefs as accurately and precisely as possible. There is nothing racist or suspect about the enterprise.

        • “thanks for proving my point, Klaus.”
          ——————————————————-
          Your point wasn’t my point Mooser.

          My point was: “The Zionist concept is to ingather world Jewry – or at least the majority of it – in the ‘land of our forefathers’”

          It doesn’t matter at all – fot MY point – whether this world Jewry
          is organized or not!

        • Antidote says:

          “We miss them”

          and who is “we”? You and your wife? The Germans? If the latter, that sounds a bit ‘essentialist’ to me. Are you a spokesman for Germans and Germany? I remember lots of “Ami go home” signs in Germany. They were, after all, occupiers. I suppose Mooser would suggest that those signs were all put up by Neo-Nazis, you know, the guys who actually run Germany, when everyone knows that most Neo-Nazis are roaming free in the US, or sitting in German jails.

        • “I remember lots of “Ami go home” signs in Germany.”- Antidote
          ——————————————
          Really? When and where was that? – I think it’s fair to say the Amis weren’t seen as occupiers. For instance, the AFN (American Forces Network) in Frankfurt was a popular station when I moved here. And the GI’s dollars were welcomed in the red light district.

        • Antidote says:

          Well, I was thinking more of the political “red light district” in Germany than the economic impact of GI dollars on the Frankfurt etc sex industry. And no, I don’t think it’s “fair to say the Amis weren’t seen as occupiers” – unless you generalize your own opinions and project them across the German political spectrum, and simply deny reality

          link to juergenelsaesser.wordpress.com

          In fact, “Ami (or Yankee) go home” was a slogan known well enough across Europe (not just in Germany) to be parodied in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” (as “Romans go home” , of course, in Latin graffiti)

          link to de.wikipedia.org!

        • Antidote

          “Ami go home” was a slogan from Communist East Germany.
          Jürgen Elsässer belonged originally to a Communist-Maoist student group.
          ————–
          The socialist-left’s anti-Americanism was/is ideologically understandable. But it was/is also shared by the far right (including the Neo-Nazis).

          Elsässer’s Compact magazine wants to bridge and reunite the political positions of the old left and the national right (excluding the real Neo-Nazis).
          A common denominator is this “American occupation” thing.

          This is definitively not shared by the majority of Germans. I know of no main stream paper that shares this position. – Quite to the contrary: Most West Germans think of (and learn in school) the ‘American occupation’ as the Marshal Plan that got us the post-war ‘economic miracle’ in West Germany.

          This ‘Ami go home’/'American occupation’ thing is a sort of litmus test to see whether someone is a Social-Democrat lefty/a new-lefty from the 1968s or a far socialist-communist lefty – whether he belongs to the conservative right (Christian Democrats) or to the far right (National Democratic Party).

        • Elisabeth says:

          I am from Europe and as I remember it the slogan ‘Yankee go home’ was associated with the American presence and interference in South America, Vietnam, the Philippines and Iran and so on, not Europe.

        • seanmcbride says:

          marc b.,

          To delve a bit deeper into this subject:

          Try searching on “world Jewry” on Amazon.com books and browsing the top results by relevance. Most (all?) of the leading hits are from mainstream Jewish sources, for instance (emphases mine):

          1. The Six-Day War and WORLD JEWRY (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 8)

          2. The roots of Kahanism: Consciousness and political reality (Study Circle on WORLD JEWRY in the Home of the President of Israel)

          3. WORLD JEWRY and the State of Israel

          4. Peculiar People: Inside WORLD JEWRY Today

          5. Toward a one-WORLD JEWRY: An essay in Jewish identity

          6. People and Polity: The Organization Dynamics of WORLD JEWRY

          7. The United States, WORLD JEWRY, Catholic action & power politics

          8. Who’s Who in WORLD JEWRY

          9. The implications of Israel-Arab peace for WORLD JEWRY: A report of the International Economic and Social Commission of the World Jewish Congress

          10. Issues Facing WORLD JEWRY

          11. Forum for the problems of Zionism, WORLD JEWRY and the State of Israel II April 1956

          12. The State of WORLD JEWRY Address, 1983

          13. 92nd Street Y State of WORLD JEWRY Lecture Featuring Abraham Foxman

          From which factual data outside observers might reasonably conclude that “world Jewry” is a core concept (one might say an “essential” or “essentialist” concept) among the worldwide Jewish establishment.

        • LeaNder says:

          Antidote, I have no idea at what time you were over here and at what place over here.

          I may in fact have responded to the “red light district” dollars in a similarly disgusted way you did.

          Fact is, that in the German village I grew up in from 14 on, if you actually happened to be interested in Greeks or Italians, the latter were more frequent, called “Itaker” derogatively, and talked to them learned a few words in their language on the way, you already were endangered to have secret male networks spread the lore that you in fact were a whore.

          Now interestingly on a more polite and political level this happened to me with GI friends in a town like Berlin as a young student too. It was a no-no to have an American visibly in army garb visit you on his way back to the barracks. By the way soldiers offered the best way to talk English in Berlin, liked music and went to discothèques too. So why pick out brothels here?

          Admittedly I was puzzled about that. In spite of the fact that the Cold War. as much as the re-militarization of Germany generally that happened before I grew up politically, not America’s idea by the way, wasn’t something I liked. Just as the idea of stationing atomic weapons on German ground wasn’t. I didn’t like it at all. I was obviously “left” in my anti-Vietnam war position, but I also learned about the-single-human-soldier-being, occasionally even what Vietnam had meant to them practically.

          I could imagine that US Soldiers also were on a look out for signs, at least after attacks of Baader Meinhof on the US military, signs Klaus maybe passed by without noticing?

          A good friend had a father who divorced his mother early. This man was constantly paranoid about Russian tanks arriving anytime now. But that may have been the response of someone that fled into esotericism post war, maybe to deal with the loss of his twin brother, or maybe he had enough war for lifetime? He never interested me very much.

          Not sure, if it was you who suggested, that Mooser thinks all the Germans were in prison, obviously they were not. In certain fields it occasionally took decades till continuity could be touched and talked about. But what was much more perceptible was the continuity of the atmosphere in which they succeeded, or what it felt like for someone growing up here.

          Now the paradox is, that while I didn’t like Bader-Meinhof’s attacks on the US army, I did not feel very sorry for their special target that survived de-Nazification although he had been involved prominently. Complex.

          It gets complicated on the ground, the closer you look, the closest are human beings caught in net of solutions offered around them.

        • Mooser says:

          It’s absurd. The thing that is true, and I would think, since it is true, the more significant aspect of “world Jewry” in relation to a discussion of Zionism is how splintered Judaism is. Not how united, tribally or otherwise. Especially when people only posit this unity through the use of insinuative expressions, and no evidence of how it works (in Judaism and Jewishness, not Zionism, which has all the manifold agency of an active ideology and political movement and, oh yeah, State).

          Okay, is that clear?

        • Mooser says:

          “It doesn’t matter at all – fot MY point – whether this world Jewry
          is organized or not!”

          That’s exactly right, Klaus. The actual properties of “world Jewry” have nothing at all to do with the things you impute to it. They are a product of God-knows-what. Do they stem from any special or even general knowledge and observation, or research?
          I might even get indignant about it if I didn’t think that this was pretty much the way you thought about everything. Age hath its privileges, you know.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Keith — that was a thoughtful and nuanced comment, with which I can find nothing to disagree. We need to understand how the world really works, and these days the golden path towards understanding relies heavily on intensive data mining — do the math (or the simple arithmetic, in the wise words of Bill Clinton). That has been the key to Nate Silver’s remarkable success — he is a data miner supreme.

        • Antidote says:

          Klaus:

          ““Ami go home” was a slogan from Communist East Germany.
          Jürgen Elsässer belonged originally to a Communist-Maoist student group.”

          You were referring to “we” as in “we Germans”. Are the East Germans Germans only as long as they are anti-communists, or what? In fact, you are arguing along the same lines you criticize wrt ‘World Jewry”, i.e. that there is a political/ideological agenda attached to ethnicity. The truth is that a German communist is no more unusual than a Jewish anti-Zionist.

          I know who Elsässer is. That’s why I used the term “political red light district” for the Communist Left he represents. In sexual terms, the Social Democrats stand for marital sex, pre- and extramarital sex, and, at the extreme fringe, same-sex marriage but NEVER sluts like Lenin or Mao.

          “The socialist-left’s anti-Americanism was/is ideologically understandable. But it was/is also shared by the far right (including the Neo-Nazis).”

          Surprise. Was the Hitler-Stalin Pact “ideologically understandable”? Sure, Hitler and Stalin were ideologically opposed in many ways but they did share a common enemy: Western Imperialism, and their opposition to the ‘dictate’ of Versailles, esp wrt the reestablishment of Poland within borders that were unacceptable to both Russia/SU and Germany/Austria. There was a Polish delegation at Versailles, demanding (in Wilson’s words) “half of Europe”. Germans, Austrians and Russians were supposed to just bow under whatever was decided at Versailles, and they didn’t like the new Polish state any more than the Arabs liked the new Jewish state. I find that perfectly understandable.

          “Most West Germans think of (and learn in school) the ‘American occupation’ as the Marshal Plan that got us the post-war ‘economic miracle’ in West Germany”

          God forbid we should ever question what we learned in school. Seriously.

          I’m perfectly aware of the fact that most Germans, this side of 48 (the Marshall plan, Berlin airlift etc) saw the US army presence in Germany and Europe as a guarantee against Soviet expansion and continued prosperity (lacking in the Soviet block, obviously). That does not mean that most Germans supported the insane arms race during the Cold War, the hot proxy wars in Korea or Vietnam, not to mention the more recent wars of choice in the ME. That’s when the “Ami go home” sign come up, in one form or another.

          And I also realize that US army bases mean business and jobs in Germany, and not just in the red light district.

        • Antidote says:

          LeaNder,

          I grew up in Baden-Württemberg in the 60s and 70s and moved to Canada in the 80s, but still spend several weeks or months each year ‘over there’, in various locations, including Berlin and the ‘neue Bundesländer’

          I have the same recollections as you do about the ‘whore’ aspect wrt sexual, including marital, relations with Italians or American GIs, and I also remember the attractions of hanging out with GIs among people of my generation, i.e. speaking English, music, also drugs.

          I don’t understand why you think German re-militarisation was NOT an American idea. That would certainly be my historical understanding (not that I was alive then)

          I also remember that in my circle of friends it was absolutely unacceptable to serve in any military, including the Bundeswehr. All staunch pacifists and Kriegsdienstverweigerer. And yes, my first demo was against the Pershing business. I remember one of my girlfriends being practically shunned for falling in love with a voluntary Bundeswehr soldier who turned up in army uniform on several occasions. Who, other than a Nazi, would join an army? And why would you love such a guy? Then she went completely crazy and married the guy. She’s divorced now, and I’m still married to a US army veteran who is even more of a pacifist than I am. C’est la vie.

          So yes, it’s complicated. And I didn’t like the terrorist attacks of the RAF either, regardless of the target. I suppose you mean Schleyer with the “special target that survived de-Nazification” and therefore deserved death? Please. De-Nazification, like the Nuremberg trials, was a travesty of a mockery of a sham.

          Let’s not forget that the Allied occupation of Germany before 1948 was a brutal military dictatorship and not even remotely comparable to what you and I grew up with. There was a joke circulating in the immediate post-war period about a man going to the police station asking to join the Nazi Party. “You should have come 6 months ago”, he’s told, “the Nazi Party no longer exists.” To which he replies: “I wasn’t a Nazi then.”

        • seanmcbride says:

          Mooser,

          It’s absurd. The thing that is true, and I would think, since it is true, the more significant aspect of “world Jewry” in relation to a discussion of Zionism is how splintered Judaism is. Not how united, tribally or otherwise.

          Those establishment Jewish organizations which often use the terms “world Jewry” or “the Jewish people” in their public rhetoric seem to be quite united on the subject of Zionism — and that includes religious organizations in the Jewish establishment (by which I mean members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) — Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. They are all increasingly organized around Jewish *nationalism* (Zionism) and the interests of Israel.

          Is there anything remotely problematic about making the above observation? It’s a truth that is easy to ascertain simply by reading their public statements.

          Among Jewish people — real Jews, real Jewish individuals — not the grand messianic and collectivist concept of “the Jewish people” — one finds enormous and refreshing diversity on every conceivable subject and issue. But the Jewish establishment doesn’t reflect that kind of creative diversity with regard to Israel and Zionism. Among that establishment, it’s all about rallying around the flag — the Israeli flag.

          Should average non-Jews around the world be expected to sort through all this complexity and develop a nuanced understanding of Jewish politics? Dream on. They don’t have the time, energy or, in many cases, the intellectual capacity. The Jewish establishment is defining “Jewishness” to most of the world as passionate Zionism. I think this is a disaster for Jewish interests.

          For instance: thanks to the recent presidential campaign, how many Americans (and many other people all around the world) now associate the Jewish agenda (and “Jewishness”) with Sheldon Adelson and the GOP’s portrayal of Jewish values and the Jewish interest?

          The use of the term “world Jewry” by the Jewish establishment is a much greater problem that Klaus Bloemker’s use of that term (and I will readily acknowledge that his use of it may indeed be problematic and annoying).

          Priorities, Mooser, priorities.

        • Keith says:

          MOOSER- “…the more significant aspect of “world Jewry” in relation to a discussion of Zionism is how splintered Judaism is. Not how united, tribally or otherwise.”

          Curious, you seem to be missing the essential point which I and others have been trying to make for some time. It was the very splintering of Judaism which gave rise to Zionism as a means of reuniting the various factions on a secular basis via blood and soil nationalism. Not all Jews but organized Jews. The notion that the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations doesn’t embrace both support for Israel/Zionism and Jewish organizational solidarity and power is a curious denial of reality. From the rather obvious power of AIPAC to the organized attempt of American Jews to get Israel Shahak fired from his job at Hebrew University for something he wrote. And while you seem to acknowledge Zionist power, you also seem determined to deny any sort of Jewish connection. I can appreciate your desire to disassociate yourself and Judaism from these types of activities, nonetheless, trying to disassociate organized American Jews from Zionism is disingenuous at best.

          From a section of his book “Open Secrets:Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies,” called “Israel and the Organized American Jews,” Shahak in 1993 wrote: “…Israel wields a tremendous influence within the US, in my view regardless of whether Israeli policies accord with US interests or not. Although to some extent this can be attributed to the support Israel receives from many strains of Christian fundamentalism, there is no doubt in my mind that its primary reason is the role performed by the organized Jewish community in the US in backing Israel and its policies.” (p125, “Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies,” Israel Shahak, 1997)

          According to Alfred Lilienthal : “It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull among non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power. Although many Jews were initially opposed to the creation of Israel, the Zionists were able to use the Hitler tragedy to obliterate anti-Zionist opposition and non-Zionist indifference in capturing every aspect of organized Jewish life.” (p206, “The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?”, Alfred M. Liliienthal, 1982)

          Mooser says: “Especially when people only posit this unity through the use of insinuative expressions, and no evidence of how it works (in Judaism and Jewishness, not Zionism,….)”

          It works through ideology, money and organization. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, for example, is an umbrella group which encompasses some of the more significant organizations which channel the money, supply the volunteers and reinforce the ideology. And while some of these organizations such as the World Zionist Organization are explicitly Zionist, most are implicitly Zionist in outlook but explicitly Jewish, such as the American Jewish Conference, B’nai B’rith, Hillel, Rabbinical Council of America, etc. Part of the purpose of Mondoweiss is to explore the reasons why organized American Jews support Israel and Zionism.

        • Antidote says:

          ‘The Language Police are out in full force again, I see. ;-) — In Quebec, they bring their yardsticks to make sure the French signage words are bigger than the foreign (English, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc) words”

          Can you blame them? The “language police” in Quebec is certainly no worse than the Anglo language police – from Theodore Roosevelt and Nativism to FDR — which opposed and frequently outlawed all immigrant languages other than English. Let’s remember that it was the American boy-scouts who burned German books in Cincinnati (just before the US entered WW I), and thus long before the Hitler youth burned German, but not foreign language books in Nazi Germany. The following letter, written in May 1942 by FDR to Canadian PM Mackenzie King (an Anglo native of Berlin, Ontario, renamed after, of all people, the infamous Lord Kitchener, of concentration camp fame during the Boer wars) has been spread by Quebec nationalists and separatists for years. Good old melting pot politics, in line with definitions of genocide (not always referring to mass murder, but also replacing one identity by another, as in forced assimilation):

          “When I was a boy in the [1890's] , I used to see a good many French Canadians who had rather recently come into the New Bedford area, near the old Delano place, at Fair Haven. They seemed very much out of place in what was still an old New England community. They segregated themselves in the mill towns and had little to do with their neighbours. I can still remember that the old generation shook their heads and used to say, “this is a new element which will never be assimilated. We are assimilating the Irish but these Quebec people won’t even speak English. Their bodies are here, but their hearts and minds are in Quebec”.

          Today, forty or fifty years later, the French-Canadian elements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are at last becoming a part of the American melting pot. They no longer vote as their churches and their societies tell them to. They are inter-marrying with the original Anglo Saxon stock; they are good, peaceful citizens, and most of them are speaking English in their homes.

          All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning – perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy – by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada’s French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

          In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.

          It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.”

          Franklin Delano Roosevelt

          And do google: “US war plan Crimson”, declassified in the 1970s

        • seanmcbride says:

          Keith,

          Another fine, fact-filled, reasonable and balanced post on this subject. I look forward to reading Mooser’s reply.

      • Keith says:

        STEPHEN SHENFIELD- “And Israel has been preparing the ground for that eventuality by quietly cultivating close relations with Russia.”

        Surely you jest. The American empire is metamorphosing into the transnational corporate/financial empire. What relationship Israel will have to the new Wall Street centered empire is unclear. However, the notion that Russia (the remnants of the USSR) will be capable of significant force projection into the Middle East is somewhat fantastical, to put it charitably.

        • Keith says:

          Perhaps some additional comments are in order. It seems unlikely that the relationship of Israel to the new Wall Street centered financial empire will replicate the relationship of Israel to the US. While Jewish presence and influence on Wall Street is considerable, the extent to which these unelected executives are Zionist or influenced by Zionism is questionable. AIPAC will not be able to pressure the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon the way they do elected officials. The financial kingpins are the masters of the universe and don’t kowtow to mere mortals. They are also quite ruthless and unaccountable. I have no idea how significant Israel is in their overall game plan. We have entered uncharted and dangerous territory.

        • Accentitude says:

          Russia and the United States are both on the way out. China has been quietly preparing itself to play a more prominent role in the Middle East, and they certainly have the resources and power to do so.

      • Inanna says:

        I would argue if we move into a more multi-polar world and US moves into relative decline, Israel will be shit out of luck.

        • Antidote says:

          “if we move into a more multi-polar world and US moves into relative decline, Israel will be shit out of luck.”

          The Israelis were never stupid enough to put all their eggs into one basket, and they are certainly not banking on eternal US support. From the UN website:

          link to un.org

        • Inanna says:

          China’s not going to give Israel 3 billion a year, it’s not going to give it loan guarantees, it’s not going to send money for settlement expansion, to grow trees on Palestinian land, vetoes in the UNSC etc. The problem for Israel is that it has always looked westward to its sponsors – shared language, values and a cultural and other links from Jews who are citizens in the west. Neither China nor Russia will provide that for me – the Russians cos they want more bang for their buck from their vassals – the Chinese because Israel does not provide them what Iran does (who’s buying Iranian oil right now?). Israel might have to get used to being treated like any other country rather than being placed on a pedestal like it is by the US. And that might just mean the end of Jewish privilege.

        • Antidote says:

          “China’s not going to give Israel 3 billion a year…”

          China already does, in a way, because the US has to borrow the money from China — which is a good deal for China: collecting interest from the US AND state of the art military technology via Israel:

          “Israel’s increasing defense cooperation with China has caused concern in the United States, which is the largest foreign supplier of military equipment to Israel. Owing to strategic rivalry and concerns over the security of Taiwan, the United States has pressured Israel against selling sophisticated equipment and technology to China.[12] In 1992, the Washington Times alleged that exported American Patriot missiles and Israel’s indigenous Lavi jet aircraft technology had been shared with China, although official U.S. investigations did not substantiate these charges.[22] In 2000, Israel cancelled the sale to China of the Israeli-built Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) in the wake of pressure from the U.S., which threatened to cut off US$2.8 billion in yearly aid if the deal went through.[23] Israel’s decision drew condemnation from China, which stated that the cancellation would hurt bilateral ties”

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          see also:

          link to haaretz.com

          The Israeli government is obviously eager to maintain good relations with China. Apologize to Turkey? Never. China, on the other hand…

          link to haaretz.com

          Shared values with the West only?

          How about shared victimhood in WW II? Remember that movies have played a major role in forging ties with the West – from Exodus to the plethora of Holocaust films and TV series

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • seafoid says:

          China doesn’t have half of the world’s Jews either. Very hard to see the Lobby procreating successfully out East.

        • Antidote says:

          seafoid: you could say that the US had half the world’s Germans during WW I and II, and no history of tensions with any of the German states or the unified Reich. And a powerful “German Lobby”

          The dual loyalty charge works like a charm on any group

          link to tandfonline.com

        • Inanna says:

          @antidote:

          You’re seriously trying to convince me that because the US borrows money from China then gives it to Israel that really China is ‘giving’ money to Israel? What kinda stupid messed-up logic is that? I’m afraid your creative accountancy doesn’t pass any test.

          I’m also not arguing that China won’t act in its own interest. Of course it’s in its interest to get as much foreign technology as possible, which is why it would trade with Israel and hope to access US military tech. But Israel will find it difficult to impossible to replicate the type of relationship it has with the US now with any other country, for a whole bunch of reasons that seafoid and I mentioned. Try to look at the world as it really is, not what you wanna see.

        • Antidote says:

          innana-

          I’m not trying to “convince” you or anyone else of anything. I made a point, take it or leave it. And I’m naturally suspicious and always a little amused about the “Try to look at the world as it really is, not what you wanna see”. Tends to be a pot-calling -kettle- black projection, imho

    • LeaNder says:

      It is easy to use Google to verify that the term “world Jewry” is used frequently by the worldwide Jewish establishment itself and by mainstream Jewish publications.

      Sean, this is the usual circle dance, you are also caught in occasionally.

      In a nutshell, a term you taught me, by the way, the Jews in post revolution times were caught in the same dynamics as anyone around. Remember our cia-drugs friend, who was enamored with 19th century conspiracy lores surrounding the masons? Now the antisemitic lores and the anti-mason lores in 19th century actually blended, it’s no accident they also surface in the protocols. Notice too, the Nazis also prosecuted the Masons. Something you may not have noticed, “our dear friend” that put my private email on his list including my complete date block, claimed to also be an expert on German education in the 19th, I think you get the hint. Deeply enamored with fiction, he also managed to out you not only as someone trying to take over his list, and probably also a spy, a member of the secret services, and last but not least an antisemite. That was in fact were his love to lore had his frontiers, which I consider unstable. I may be old but I am also an IT and communications addict and thus strictly embrace free speech.

      Again in a nutshell, if we leave out the more complicated history of “anti” “Semitism”, which is something that the right over here loved to play game with, in phrases like I have nothing against Semites, and that people that don’t have any historical basis like to pick up often innocently, since it feels like a revelation to them …

      Fact is that the Nazis somehow managed to taint language on everything surrounding Jewishness. Germans avoided the word “Jews”, for instance, and preferred to use “Jewish”. Now do you feel the Jewish people should surrender themselves to this kind of pressure? They are what they are after all. How should that work? The institutions? Could there be a basic tendency, if we leave alone the specific context we are facing in the here and now, that the get more conservative the older they get generally and preserving their own fields of expertise, which also means financial ground?

      I have my personal limits with the term “the Jew”, in other words the zero-plural, which suggests “they” are all the same. But I also have to admit, that when I once sent an email to a Jewish “web friend”, about a book that ended with “Jews”, somehow doing a fast copy and past job missed the final “s”, and after quite a few years of email-contact was earnestly instructed about this mistake. There obviously is a still a deep mistrust and languagewise something similar to the problems the “yellow star” tried to resolve. And yes, it somehow offended me.

      • seanmcbride says:

        LeaNder,

        Would you agree that the concept “world Jewry” (or “the Jewish people”), from the standpoint of Western intellectual history, seems to be richly enwound and entangled with myths of mystical and messianic ethnic collectivism that originate in ancient Judaism? And that the worldwide Jewish establishment itself has aggressively promoted this mythology?

        This is why Zionism and Judaism seem to have blended so seamlessly during the last half century (and especially during the last decade). If I were to point to what I think is the single most important issue in all the controversies surrounding Israel and Zionism, this is it. We really need to understand and deconstruct the ideological roots of contemporary Zionism.

        Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech at the United Nations was drenched in this messianic ethnic collectivist ideology. From the standpoint of much of the world, Netanyahu, the “King of Israel,” is the leader of “world Jewry” — this concept has been drummed into their heads by the Israel lobby and the worldwide Jewish establishment.

  2. Interesting lead editorial from Haaretz this morning, predicting that Netanyahu will run against Obama in the January elections, and that WINEP has already announced the Neocon strategy for Iran post US election. link to haaretz.com

    Here’s the opening line:

    “Despite the understandable disappointment felt at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem at the results of the U.S. presidential election, American voters have left a responsible adult in the White House.”

  3. I hope Netanyahu gets reelected. The starker the display of Israeli character, the better for awakening the still-somnambulant American populace. I hope he continues to insult the US president and publicly demand obeisance.

    As for Obama, he ain’t about to do anything about anything. So, maybe, Netanyahu will do it for him.

    • Chu says:

      The zionists involved in media, like say Wolf Blitzer, will help to curb the negativity that we witness from the Israel leader come the next 4 years.
      What is needed is an intelligent documentary that plainly illustrates the souring relationship between Israel and the United states. How the US became the source for their survival over decades, through Zionists and their lobbying efforts, and how they demand more and more.

  4. Kathleen says:

    Will be in shock if the Obama administration grows any real cajones on this issue. With the Senate still in line with the I lobby (Elizabeth Warren is in line) will be really surprised if there are any real changes. Will Obama and team even go as far as Bush 41 and Baker…doubt it.

    Last night during the Daily Show Jon Stewart threw out a very stupid, outrageous, and warmongering comment when he said something like “who ever is elected can be the first to BOMB IRAN” How f—ing wrong of Stewart. I was in the Boulder Theatre in Boulder Colorado watching the returns with friends and a packed house and people actually laughed at Stewart’s assinine comment about Iran. That is not a laughing matter

    • @ Kathleen

      …and people actually laughed at Stewart’s assinine comment about Iran. That is not a laughing matter

      Stewart is a gatekeeper. He steps close to the edge on some issues, but never crosses the line – so he keeps his job.

      He contributes to the media’s continuing desensitization of America to the atrocities of war by making light of genocide. While he uses comedy to bring important issues to the public that the MSM papers over, that same laughter distracts and also makes it possible for us to not have to confront the brutality of innocents ravaged by drones and bombs.

    • Chu says:

      Never say never, Kathleen. Revenge is a dish best served cold,
      and it’s a long time coming for our special guests.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Chu
        Why Obama in his second term won’t take revenge on Bibi N–can you say “Congress”?
        link to thedailybeast.com

        This supports in detail CloakAndDagger’s assertion, “As for Obama, he ain’t about to do anything about anything. So, maybe, Netanyahu will do it for him.”

        It also answers anybody wondering if in his less beholden second term, Obama will end his current policy of blocking the pending Palestinian bid for increased status at the UN: No, even though this will further isolate the USA.

  5. pabelmont says:

    Kathleen: “Will be in shock if the Obama administration grows any real cajones on this issue.” True.

    I’ve written a “modest proposal” for a RADICAL new administration ending with a radical recommendation on I/P.

    Too long to repeat (in the margin) here.

    • straightline says:

      Hi pabelmont

      I posted earlier but it disappeared – maybe the moderators didn’t understand the allusion – either in your comment or my response.

      What I said was:

      “Spoken like a mathematician – and a Jewish one at that.”

      If the moderators don’t like this can they tell me why? Perhaps flippant comments are no longer allowed – beware mooser!

      • Mooser says:

        “Perhaps flippant comments are no longer allowed – beware mooser!”

        Well, they can go ahead and delete my flipping comments if they want. It is unquestionably their right to do so. For any reason or no reason at all.
        It’s my invariable policy to never check to see whether a comment is accepted. I write ‘em cause that’s what, for better or worse, I thought at the time.

  6. Taxi says:

    Obama victory spells trouble for Israel’s Netanyahu:
    link to reuters.com

    I don’t reckon Obama will kick israel’s butt but you bet yer cotton underpants he’s gonna kick some neocon butt!

  7. Netanyahu will be the next prime minister of Israel. The only things that could stop him would be an assassin or a miracle. The split between left and right in the current knesset is something like 64-56 and that will continue. Ehud Olmert was never a popular man, he was an accidental prime minister (a la Truman) on the spot when Sharon had his coma inducing stroke.

    A two state solution is a little bit more possible today than yesterday because Obama is in favor and Romney was not. But Netanyahu is not in favor and the Israeli people are not in favor of a treaty that Abbas would agree to, let alone Haniyeh.

    How many centrists will vote for an alternative to Netanyahu based upon the distance between Netanyahu and Obama. Maybe enough for one Knesset seat. So it will be 63-57 right wing to left wing. (please recall Netanyahu’s party lost the last vote to Livni’s party and it was the right wing coalition that won.)

    • Krauss says:

      I agree with your comments.

      Also, the “left-wing block” includes 10 Arab party votes (plus the Arab/Jewish communist party which is anti-Zionist).
      Therefore, the true size of the “left-wing block” is at about 44-46 MKs and the right has more than 60 in all of the polls.

      I’ve read a lot of confused commentary on this issue, from folks like Larry Derfner who is now fantasizing that Bibi will lose in a clear defeat(much like the ‘poll truthers’ of the GOP leading up to the election, including Karl Rove and many others).

      Even if Labor joined with Bibi, which it’s new leader has refused to rule out, the key positions in his new administration would all be dominated by his own people or the people of Lieberman. Besides, Shelly Yachimovich has more or less adopted all of his positions on I/P (Haaretz calls her ‘Bibi’s twin’) and she barely even mentions the Palestinians.

      Status Quo is what’s up for both America and Israel.
      Nothing much will change in either country.

      • Mooser says:

        “Nothing much will change in either country.”

        Thanks for telling us what you hope for in the future. And your estimate of Israel’s strength, stability, and l0ng-range planning shows a very commendable faith in Zionism.
        I very much agree with you, Krauss and Yonah. The more settlers, Ultra-Orthodox and haredim there are in Israel, and the more these people can make Israel conform to Holy Law (womens, feh, what won’t they do?) the more God will support Israel. How can they lose?
        Everything, as you sincerely hope, will stay the same or even get better for Israel, as long as thgose pesky Palestinians don’t ask for too much, or BDS doesn’t get too large, and nobody disturbs the settlers…

        Look, you people at Mondoweiss might as well get used to the idea. You will get lots and lots of Zionists claiming they are not-a-Zionist. Heck, they probably don’t even know. They think Zionism is just a natural force, like gravity or something.

  8. Chu says:

    They seem to forget that Obama is the reelected 4-year leader of the United States.
    This isn’t the ‘king of the hill’ temporary constitution-less Israeli politics. The US is a giant empire, not a half crazed racist enclave in the Middle East raging for war and occupation. We’re not the same and no amount of Zionist bull crap messaging and money can mask it.

    We should be happy, as a meddling Netanyahu is a good thing for the US citizens en masse to recognize that when you feed a criminal state with guns and pork, it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

    • Antidote says:

      @Chu

      You’re “not the same”? LOL

      How did the US become a “giant empire”? By starting out as “a half crazed racist enclave” in North America, “raging for war and occupation” and against the giant empire of the day. The Brits eventually recognized “that when you feed a criminal state with guns and pork, it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass”

  9. Dan Crowther says:

    For those predicting an obama about face on settlements, netanyahu and israel in general, I’ve got a bridge for sale

  10. RE: “Comeuppance for Netanyahu? No, he might run against Obama– and increase daylight between countries” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Take my word for it, Netanyahu will only gain popularity in Israel by “standing up” to Obama. After all, our president is not at all popular with Israelis (less than 10% favorable), partly (I suspect) because he is not “white” and they therefore do not see him as being “one of them”. Instead, I believe they tend to associate Obama with Israel’s black “infiltrators” (refugees, asylum seekers, etc.) from Africa who are currently being herded into Israel’s huge, new detention facility in the Negev.

    ALSO SEE, FROM The Daily Telegraph, 8/16/08:

    [EXCERPT] . . . In the 1996 election in Israel, Arthur Finkelstein, the American consultant who had turned ‘liberal’ into a swear word, used polling data to pinpoint precisely the issue over which Israelis would reject a deal with the Palestinians—the division of Jerusalem—and propel Benjamin Netanyahu to a victory based on exemplary scare-mongering. . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    P.S. “FREE DON” SIEGELMAN PETITION – link to change.org

  11. Nevada Ned says:

    Nearly a year ago, Rashid Khalidi gave an interview about the Israelis, the Palestinians, and US policy. (link: link to israeli-occupation.org) The summary:
    Khalidi is pessimistic about any change in US policy. Netanyahu has more support in Washington than Obama, and both men know it. The Israeli lobby is much more powerful than it was in the 1970′s and 1980′s, because the Lobby has now grown an Evangelical Christian “leg” (Rev. Hagee, Christians United for Israel, etc). Khalidi is critical of the Palestinian leadership.

    • Citizen says:

      “Netanyahu has more support in Washington than Obama, and both men know it.”
      AIPAC’s whores rule. And Obama needs Congress to get anything done; he wants to be influential in his legacy, just like Lincoln was. He’s no Lincoln; he will not use his bully pulpit to go over the top–he will deliver no Emancipation Proclamation, appealing to the better angels of our nature in behalf the miserable and powerless Palestinians–he will further isolate America from the world’s best.

      • Theo says:

        My sentiments! Anyone, who expects anything different from Obama then what he did during the past four years, is a fool.
        Freud said something like this: A nut is who keeps repeating the same procedure and expects a different result each time. (Not exact words, but the same meaning).