Naftali Bennett’s ‘more Jewish’ zealotry lulls the American media

Israel/Palestine
on 91 Comments
1500 brdispatch 0128
Naftali Bennett Jan. 10, 2013 (Photo: Oded Balilty)

Take a look at the modern face of Jewish extremism. The meteoric rise of Naftali Bennett toward Israel’s election on Tuesday threatens to tear the secular facade off Israel, exposing a fanatical Zionism that’s lain beneath the surface for decades.

In a remarkably revealing interview with Time Magazine‘s Karl Vick, Bennett’s confidence draws you in. Bennett would have you believe he’s a reasonable guy and a straight shooter; the tell it like it is, Mr. “I’m open.” For those who like their annexation neat, straight up not on the rocks, no chasers, he’s the man for you. In Bennett’s world there is no occupation, annexation is a mere formality, and all the land already belongs to Israel.

“[I]t’s ours, it’s always been ours for 3,800 years we have Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria since we first got it, 3800 years ago.”

Bennett explains his political rise by saying it’s about “returning to the basic Jewish and Zionist values…Jewish-based Zionism”. While Vick describes Bennett as “the modern man of Israel”–even though he’s a biblical literalist regarding Jewish ownership over all of Mandate Palestine. Here he is, being Mr. I’m Open, we’re all open:

“‘Listen, I’m not going to argue whether it’s good or bad, I’m just: assume for a moment, let’s hypothesize, let’s say it’s [two state solution] not going to happen. What do you do? Are we going to keep bashing our heads against the wall, or are we going to try to figure out some form of imperfect reality? But stable. Or do we try to enforce illusions on reality and bring about another round of violence?’ Which is what happened already several times. I’m not suggesting that this plan is the only possible plan. There’s a few others. I’m open, we’re all open. But what I urge the West is to think openly about this. And I regret Netanyahu’s profound mistake in accepting a two-state or a Palestinian state… If you say you support a Palestinian state, then you can’t be surprised if everyone’s pressuring you to do it. In my experience, I lived in America quite a few years, it’s okay to disagree but be straight”

The misrepresentation here is the claim of openness and reasonableness: Israelis have not been bashing their heads against the wall trying to figure out how to make two states, they’ve been evading it and pushing it down the road for decades.

And as for the Palestinians’ complete absence of rights in Bennett’s vision of the future? That’s just “a tragedy,” he said in a recent debate, but, “we cannot give a full-blown state”– an idea he repeated to Vick:

Vick: [We were having lunch with a settler] and she was telling us about the Palestinians, and … I said they’d want them to have rights of their own. And you jumped in and said, ‘They can’t, unfortunately. It’s a tragedy.’

Bennett: Right.

Vick: Which was just: straight up.

Bennett: Look. I’ll tell you. It’s just not going to happen.

Simultaneously being a modern man and a biblical literalist regarding Jewish ownership over all of historical Palestine, Bennett has had a pied piper effect on Israel’s youth and rightwing seculars, eroding Netanyahu’s Likud base. A recent review conducted by Bennett’s party revealed there are now an additional five more Knesset seats up for grabs from the Likud in Tuesday’s elections, and though many Israelis are freaking out, zealots like Caroline Glick cannot suppress their glee. It’s “The second Zionist revolution,” she explains (at The Hill):

“Next week we’re going to vote and it is already clear that Israel is in the midst of the Second Zionist Revolution. The first Zionist revolution was a socialist revolution. The second Zionist revolution is Jewish. Israel is coming into its own. Judaism is flourishing, changing, living and breathing here like it never has anywhere since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth. The secular left has been eclipsed by the Jewish right. I don’t call it the religious right because that is too limiting. What’s happening isn’t just about religion, it’s about everything, and that is why non-observant hipsters in Tel Aviv are voting for the Jewish Home party. Non-observant and observant Jews are joining forces and the anti-religious are being left behind.”

Another Zionist fanatic who’s wild about Bennett is Ronn Torossian. He was once written off by Jeffrey Goldberg as “the lunatic fringe,” but good luck to Goldberg, because Torossian and his friends are not recognized as fringe in Israel. Israel has been riding right for years under the international claim that “most Israelis want a two-state solution,” as Robert Siegel said to Goldberg last night, when the political reality is obviously very different. Even as Israelis told the world they had no “viable Palestinian partner for peace“–as Goldberg said to Siegel– well the Israeli “left” was just as opposed to relinquishing the biblical “land of Israel.” Politically, the left has deferred to Bennett’s ideas of Jewish sovereignty.  

As to our media, the Vick interview and the New Yorker piece on Bennett’s rise are good first steps, but I don’t see how the mainstream press can justify saying so little about freaky religious Jewish nutcases (religious settlers) and their supporters when there’s no comparable inhibition around extreme Islam, or Christian extremists. It’s time that reporters, anchors, and commentators start talking about Jewish extremists in language we can all understand because our country’s ‘special relationship’ is with a government being overrun by religious nuts, and if you think I’m exaggerating, read about the many “scary” Israeli candidates at the Jerusalem Fund. NPR’s Siegel can talk about the majority of Israelis being reasonable all he wants, but that hardly matters if the religious extremists are taking over the government.

And what pray tell is this fanaticism–this biblical literalist religious extremism– couched as? “More Jewish,” to quote Bennett. He explains that his message is a “centrist” appeal to a country that gets “more Jewish” all the time:

We are the real “centrists”– loving our heritage is centrist, loving the Land of Israel is centrist, loving the Jewish People is centrist – that is what most Israelis feel, but there were those who made them feel ashamed to say so out loud. We are getting them to speak up.

We are the real centrist party because Israel is more Jewish than it has ever been.

More Jewish than it’s ever been? A country with 20 percent non-Jewish population that in turn governs another 4-5 million non-Jews under occupation? Oh but that’s a “tragedy,” the sad upshot of Palestinians not being Jewish in a state that grows “more Jewish” by the minute. Sorry, this zealotry doesn’t resemble the values of the American Jews I know. What are they, chopped liver?

(Hat tip Mondoweiss commenters Sean McBride and American)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

91 Responses

  1. DICKERSON3870
    January 19, 2013, 3:16 pm

    RE: “[I]t’s ours, it’s always been ours for 3,800 years we have
    Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria since we first got it, 3800 years ago.”
    ~ Naftali Bennett

    MY COMMENT: What we need is a big, international, Scopes-like trial where these Israelis have to prove in a court of law that God gave Judea and Samaria to their forbears. Needless to say, it should include the very latest in relevant DNA studies.

    SEE: “New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist”, by Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, 12/29/12

    “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.
    That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated
    , making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.
    Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.
    The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, out Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.
    The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”, in the prestigious journal, ‘Genome Biology and Evolution’, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.
    But in the absence of genetic data for the long-lost Khazars themselves, Elhaik uses a procedure often used by researchers in his field – he used data from populations that are genetically similar to the Khazars, including Georgians, Armenians and Caucasians, populations that Elhaik says have all come from the same genetic soup.
    When doing so Elhaik discovered what he calls the Khazar component of European Jewry.
    According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, this makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.
    Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European.
    “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia
    [a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, corresponding to modern-day Iraq, the northeastern section of Syria and to a lesser extent southeastern Turkey and smaller parts of southwestern Iran – J.L.D.], although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.
    That possibility is important because, if it turns out to be true, it could connect European Jews to Israel. However, even if it is true, that connection is only a tiny part of the overall genome, a percentage so small that it would reportedly not be statistically significant enough to show that the origin of the Jews is the Kingdom of Judah in the biblical Land of Israel. . . . .

    SOURCE – link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

    • ToivoS
      January 20, 2013, 4:10 am

      Dickerson good find. I have been looking at these same data for the last decade. It has been clear for some time that Ashkenazi Jews are more or less the same as other Europeans at the level of their genetic composition. I saw one early study (about 5 years ago) where 100,000 genetic loci among a group of Ashkenazi were examined. 500 hundred loci were found in common with people who descended from Palestinians. That was it. 0.5 % percent of the genes. Similar studies found more similarities between Swedes and Central Asian people. This level of similarity has absolutely no biological sense. Similar studies have shown that people on the Iberian peninsula are related to North Africans, much more closely than any Eastern European tribe is related to Palestinians.

      There is no such thing as a Jewish genotype.

      • Ellen
        January 20, 2013, 6:24 pm

        No serious geneticist would lay claim to the idea of the “Jew Gene” eventhough the Israeli government funds pretend science for this search and claims Cohen and Levy gene sequence. (Which is…surprise surprise…found in many othe population groups that are not Jewish and not From the Middle East. I guess it can be summed up by the Johns Hopkins researcher’s statement:

        “To Elhaik, there is no uniquely Jewish gene because each human being is a genetic amalgam, and no population group has ever lived in total isolation from other population groups.”

  2. James Canning
    January 19, 2013, 3:17 pm

    What absolute rot! In fact, Israel obtained the West Bank largely due to gross stupidity on the part of Lyndon Johnson and his advisers, who failed to back the British effort to force Israel out of the territories occupied in the 1967 war.

    • Citizen
      January 19, 2013, 3:48 pm

      @ Canning
      Can you give us some specifics and documentation? I don’t doubt it, knowing about the USS Liberty. I wish God would spare us these hillbilly leaders. Funny thing is the Israel First Jews laugh at them behind their back, as they do wrt the Christian Zionists. Hillbillies are the prime negative target on entertainment TV–always good for a laugh at their expense, or hatred in a documentary. Surf channel has a ton of funny anti-redneck cartoon series and look at all those reality shows making the rednecks look ridiculous, which they are.

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2013, 6:15 pm

        @Citizen – – Any good book on British diplomacy during the 1960s should cover the effort by the UK to get Israel out if the territories, asap.

        There appears reason to believe Lyndon Johnson was forced to refrain from backing Britain, by threats from powerful American Jews to wreck his military adventure in Southeast Asia if he forced Israel out of the territories occupied in 1967.

      • Mndwss
        January 19, 2013, 7:01 pm

        Is that documentation?

        Any “good” book?

        What color is the book, and should you judge it by the cover?

      • ToivoS
        January 20, 2013, 4:32 am

        Please excuse Canning. For him ME history began after the Balfour declaration and before Blair became Bibi’s poodle. He also ignores the British suppression of the Palestinian revolt in 1936 and the Suez crises in 1956. Other than that, the British have been the Palestinians best buddy.

  3. yourstruly
    January 19, 2013, 3:31 pm

    biblical literalist religious extremism couched as “more jewish?”

    & being palestinian in the so-called more jewish israel*?

    like being jewish in the days when naziism was passed of as more german?

    as for jews nearly a century ago, too bad, not being german in a state allegedly becoming increasingly more german?

    *occupied palestine

  4. DICKERSON3870
    January 19, 2013, 3:39 pm

    RE: “We are the real ‘centrists’– loving our heritage is centrist, loving the Land of Israel is centrist, loving the Jewish People is centrist – that is what most Israelis feel, but there were those who made them feel ashamed to say so out loud. We are getting them to speak up.” ~ Naftali Bennett

    CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: “We are the real ‘centrists’– loving our heritage is centrist, loving the Land of Italy is centrist, loving the Italian People is centrist – that is what most Italians feel, but there were those who made them feel ashamed to say so out loud. We are getting them to speak up.” ~ Italy’s Blackshirts, circa 1922

    Mussolini in Color: The Blackshirts [VIDEO, 02:23] – link to youtube.com

    • Citizen
      January 19, 2013, 3:56 pm

      @ Dickerson
      Huh, didn’t you know the Jews invented pizza?

  5. Citizen
    January 19, 2013, 3:44 pm

    RE: “Bennett explains his political rise by saying it’s about “returning to the basic Jewish and Zionist values…Jewish-based Zionism”.

    What the fu#* other Zionism is there? Zionism is both secular and (ethno?) religious, he says.
    Mooser disagrees, among others. I don’t.

    • Keith
      January 19, 2013, 6:56 pm

      CITIZEN- “What the fu#* other Zionism is there?

      Zionism, like any ideology, can undergo modifications. The advent of Israel’s “new historians” indicated a society which was becoming less militant, more ready to acknowledge its past. Soft Zionism, if you will. This dismayed the more militant Zionists such as General Raphael Eitan who felt that “…peace is an illusion; sooner or later there will be a real shooting war again; the young generation is fed up with war and is dreaming of a normal life, but it’s mistaken, our priority has to be to reeducate young people in the spirit of 1948 and regenerate their virile, combative spirit.” Ariel Sharon agreed.

      When Ariel Sharon came to power, the right pursued a return to the “spirit of 1948,” which entailed a “reeducation of Israeli society, which has acquired a taste for peace, security, prosperity, and the beginnings of normality during the last two decades.” To this end, Sharon gave the ministry of education to “Limor Livnat, one of the leaders of Likud’s right wing.”

      “In the space of a few months Livnat carried out a thorough housecleaning in the school system. Under the motto, ‘More Zionism, more Bible,’ she reorganized the curriculum and scrubbed all ‘defeatist’ odors out of the manuels for history and civics instruction. In particular she banned the history textbooks that the Rabin government had introduced a decade earlier, in which the ‘new historians’ influenced was detectable, and eliminated the courses on peace and democracy.” (“Towards an Open Tomb: the Crisis of Israeli Society,” Michel Warschawski, p59)

      In other words, Bennett is advocating for an extreme, militant, uncompromising version of Zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2013, 11:49 pm

        The advent of Israel’s “new historians” indicated a society which was becoming less militant, more ready to acknowledge its past. Soft Zionism, if you will. This dismayed the more militant Zionists

        pappe spoke this phase. there were weekly or bi weekly forums held at the university that were wildly popular for a while, and they were shut down.

    • sardelapasti
      January 19, 2013, 10:01 pm

      “Zionism is both secular and (ethno?) religious…”

      The point being, really that it doesn’t have to have the second component. It is essentially by strict definition (and its initial history) an almost entirely secular racial supremacist, fascist or at least reactionary movement based on aggression and the acquiring of Lebensraum (the distinction from common-or-garden conquest there is important, as none was without a country.) The point-for-point correspondent of Nazism. This does not need any religion; the officially deeply theocratic character of the Zionist state has been more efficiently managed than it is now by the early atheist governments. Were it not for the need to recruit, and the statistically higher level of suspicion of entirely secular people about openly fascist doctrine like Zionism (or at least its National- part), one may well imagine the Zionist leaders continuing to discriminate against religious Jews as did during the War.

  6. seafoid
    January 19, 2013, 4:15 pm

    “Bennett would have you believe he’s a reasonable guy and a straight shooter”

    All reactionaries paint themselves as reasonable. Common sense. But sometimes the wind shifts and they look gauche. It will be the same with climate breakdown. The guys who run BP or The Squid will be seen as Grade A arsewipes instead of the voices of reason.

    In the case of Israel, Bibi will be viewed by history as a fraud instead of a steady hand. The man who could have made a difference had he acted appropriately while there was still time.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 19, 2013, 4:25 pm

      he’s not just a reactionary seafoid, he’s a religious extremist, a biblical literalist.

      • seafoid
        January 19, 2013, 4:44 pm

        But what is the difference between him and Netanyahu? Other than age.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2013, 5:06 pm

        he’s attractive to the youth and the fanatics. he’s ‘modern’. he packages himself and religious fanaticism as modern and he’s exposing the fanaticism in israel’s society in a way netanyahu has not before. netanyahu is considered a secular leader, radically right but secular nonetheless.

        the hasbara of ‘share our values’ and israel’s ‘democracy’ has been reasonably maintained under the purview of successive israeli governments. but this is different.

        and here he says: I lived in America quite a few years, it’s okay to disagree but be straight presenting his biblical literalism in high tec moderninity as if it’s only a matter of ‘disagreement’ and if you’re just honest with america and the world, as if it was merely a matter for framing, it will all be ok. and israelis love this, america….not so much.

        there’s more than where that comes from. the end result is the same (on speed dial w/bennett), the complete judaization of all the land, but bennett..as i mentioned at the beginning threatens to tear the secular facade off Israel, exposing a fanatical Zionism that’s lain beneath the surface for decades.

        where as the old zionism presents itself more as a secular solution to security and ‘jewish self determination’ bennett’s zionism is religious and outs the religiosity in israeli society in away netanyahu doesn’t. piotr wrote something this morning …i will go find it.

      • Shingo
        January 19, 2013, 5:02 pm

        Call me crazy, but I do understand Bennt’s appeal.

        Being new on the political scene, as opposed to a career politico, he is not encumbered with the political deadwood of having to frame everything in terms of security, peace etc. like Netenyahu. In truth, he believes exactly what Netenayahu believes without being afraid to say it and I think this is refreshing in some macabre way.

        He doesn’t talk in terms of hatred or blaming the Palestinians for the situation. He admits openly that the situation comes down to Israelis believing they own the land and refusing to share it. In fact. he’s realism reminds me a lot of Jabotinsky – they both recognize that the Palestinians are responding as anyone would to being dispossessed, as opposed to the dishonest drek about Palestinians wanting to kill Jews and not wanting Jews to have a state.

        I suspect that Israelis are sick and tired of listening to political dead wood like Bibbi, Olmert etc saying one thing about wanting peace and a 2 ss, while doing another on the ground.

        He doesn’t insult anyone by pretending that the peace process exists or that Israelis are prepared to negotiate the return of land they took.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2013, 5:21 pm

        i find it refreshing in a way too shingo, and i think there’s a chance he can’t see the dichotomy of his own words tho. one cannot be simultaneously ‘open’ and immovable at the same time. so his outlook, while refreshing ..is completely fixed wrt jewish sovereignty.

        he says: “I’m not going to argue whether it’s good or bad”, meaning the buck stops here, not happening. and then he goes on to say

        let’s hypothesize, let’s say it’s [two state solution] not going to happen. What do you do? Are we going to keep bashing our heads against the wall, or are we going to try to figure out some form of imperfect reality?….. But what I urge the West is to think openly about this.

        why frame is as banging your head against a wall if you’re the wall? we already know it’s his (torah) mentality and others like him who have prevented this. and the framing of ” imperfect reality” is supposed to sound reasonable and generous don’t you think? was the nakba also an imperfect reality? the holocaust? how bout we put walls around millions of jews and then say “hey guys, i am modern and i am groovy, cool and open, this is an imperfect reality so lets get together to improve your eternal life in jail with no rights, forever.” but please remember, he’s not going to argue whether it’s good or bad, because in his mind it’s already a fait accompli. he’s only open as to how his vision of all the land being under jewish sovereignty, forever, could be carried out. all he’s asking his followers (and america) to hypothesize is how to carry out the permanent imprisonment of palestinians.

        so yeah, it’s refreshing in its honesty, it’s still fanaticism tho. in an out of the closet techie youngish modern sort of way. not stale like the old guards.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2013, 5:24 pm

        In fact. he’s realism reminds me a lot of Jabotinsky

        that was Ronn Torossian’s point in my link above shingo.

      • seafoid
        January 20, 2013, 5:36 am

        He is like Netanyahu was in 94. No nonsense, trust me. I know how to deal with these Aravim. Security. We will get the investment in and we can build our bubble and f the rest of the world.

        And that really worked didn’t it ?

        Maybe he is religious not secular but that is just detail. Bibi always knew how to find the Orthodox g spot.

        And the big difference between Netanyahu now and him is that he is clean. No corruption.

        But is the same crap underneath.

      • Shingo
        January 20, 2013, 8:20 am

        and the framing of ” imperfect reality” is supposed to sound reasonable and generous don’t you think? was the nakba also an imperfect reality? the holocaust?

        I agree completely Annie, and I think this is what makes him so dangrous. He’s taken the emotion out of the argument completely and is using the fait accompli angle to distance Israelis from any guilt they might have.

      • MHughes976
        January 20, 2013, 9:16 am

        Quite a lot of emotion still there, I think. ‘Sorry we’re inflicting this tragedy on you, but God wills it and it’s necessary for our survival’ implies both pretended sympathy masking a sort of cruel delight and a heady sense of mission and progress.

      • Donald
        January 20, 2013, 12:50 pm

        ” implies both pretended sympathy masking a sort of cruel delight and a heady sense of mission and progress.”

        I think that’s right. It has a broader applicability–in politics, when someone takes a calm “reasonable” stance about why it is that oppressed people or poor people have to suffer and maybe should suffer even more, there’s often something sociopathic about it, or sadistic, or I don’t know what exactly, but it’s wrong. And they love to play this “I’m just being realistic” game where somehow “realism” dictates that they get pretty much exactly what they want. At the same time I appreciate what Shingo and Annie are saying about how it is refreshing in a way to see most of the usual hypocrisy stripped away. But it can be dangerous–hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue and so what this says is that the far right in Israel doesn’t even see the need to pay tribute anymore.

      • seafoid
        January 20, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Someone coming up from the generation after Bibi and Olmert now can’t pretend that there is a peace process. Jewish Israeli society has decided it doesn’t need one.

        What is interesting about Bennett is he is just chancing his arm. They have no answers. Neither does the IDF. There is no happy ever after for Zionism.

        There is just apartheid and hopefully the goys will buy it.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 20, 2013, 2:56 pm

        ” distance Israelis from any guilt [or shame] they might have”
        ———————
        Martin Buber relates an anecdote about the Hasidic Rabbi Nachman from the Ukraine who lived in the Holy Land in 1789/99. – One of his students there, Naftali, hesitated to sing a certain song and Nachman encourages him:

        “Go ahead, Naftali, what do we have to be ashamed of! The whole world was created on behalf of us! ” — Buber approves of what Nachman says.

        BTW, why did Naftali’s parents move to Israel? They are to blame first of all

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:32 pm

        i agree, very dangerous david. and sadistic as well.

      • seafoid
        January 20, 2013, 4:57 pm

        But aren’t they all sadistic? The system is the thing, not the individuals.
        Say Mandelaski came along . Could he change the system? Of course not.

      • piotr
        January 20, 2013, 5:59 pm

        The biggest difference is that Bibi stays at friendly terms with Mrs. Netanyahu and Bennett does not. He was a personal assistant to Bibi and he was fired, allegedly at the instigation of Sarah who (correctly) have seen Bennett as overly ambitious.

        Bibi was talking about 3000 thousands of years of uninterrupted history, and Bennett about 3800. There is no practical difference between Bennett and Feiglin or Dany Danon, that for sure.

        Most Israelis believe that they should get as much of Palestine and “security” as they can get away with it, and most seem to be content in waiting for the results of experiments what this “as much” really as. Which is a sensible position to some extend. What is insane is the American position which is the same.

  7. Mooser
    January 19, 2013, 5:35 pm

    “threatens to tear the secular facade off Israel,”

    A “secular” facade or a legal facade?

    • Rusty Pipes
      January 19, 2013, 6:58 pm

      Exactly. Going even further than the naked excuse of Likud’s security facade, Bennett is challenging whether Israel needs a facade at all. What’s the need of PR when you have facts on the ground and momentum (not to mention guaranteed congressional funding and security council veto)?

  8. a blah chick
    January 19, 2013, 8:09 pm

    I can’t remember where I saw it but on one of the news sites someone was opining that we have nothing to fear from Bennett, et al: when they get into power they will be forced to moderate their stands or not be allowed playdates with the rest of the world’s leaders.

    I mean that worked so well with Lieberman, right?

  9. American
    January 19, 2013, 8:26 pm

    Psychopath.
    This psycho make the Bibi psycho appear less psycho.
    I am sure he and his group could also justify some asassination or coup in Israel.
    Lurching from bad to worse they are.
    How much support does he have in Israel?

  10. Bumblebye
    January 19, 2013, 11:09 pm

    Meanwhile, a new Palestinian tent village has been created on land close to Jerusalem that Israel plans to steal for nearby settlement growth:
    link to commondreams.org

    “The activists said the Israeli army recently announced a plan to take over roughly 124 acres of land in the area, which is located on the northwestern outskirts of Jerusalem, an area that is already riddled with Jewish settlements.”

    I do love that “riddled with Jewish settlements”!

    • yourstruly
      January 20, 2013, 2:29 am

      a plan for stealing an indigenous people’s land?

      ethnic cleansing & such?

      + something about already being riddled with settler settlements?

      & in this newly stolen land?

      what’s this, expect ethnic cleansing?

      coincident with the natives suffering sharp increases in the number of sudden violent deaths?

      from resisting the occupation?

      merely being there increases the risk?

      justice for palestine?

      & peace on earth?

      sure to follow?

  11. Elliot
    January 20, 2013, 12:34 am

    Israel is in the midst of the Second Zionist Revolution. The first Zionist revolution was a socialist revolution. The second Zionist revolution is Jewish. Israel is coming into its own. Judaism is flourishing, changing, living and breathing here like it never has anywhere since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth.

    For those who may be interested in this material:
    This is a restatement of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook’s messianic theology for Israel. In the early 20th century, Rabbi Kook was the first major rabbi to forge close ties with the anti-clerical, often anti-religious, early Zionist pioneers.
    Kook anointed the young Zionists as holy instruments of the Messiah. He reconciled the unusual rabbinic embrace of secular rebels by using a traditional bifurcation in the Messianic concept: the secular Zionists heralded the age of the Messiah of Joseph, the builders of the body. They would pave the way for the next wave, the Messiah of David, and the return of the Jewish spirit to “the Land.”

    At the Orthodox high school he attended in Haifa and in the religious youth movement he belonged to, Naftali Bennett would undoubtedly have been taught this theology.

    From the Labor Zionist side of the table, this spiritual handover took place in 1975 when Yizhak Rabin’s government recognized the settlement at Sebastia in the northern West Bank. Yigal Allon (quoted in Irit Zertal and Akiva Eldar’s “Lords of the Land) met with the settlers and said that he saw the young settlers as the heirs to the pioneers of his own youth.

    In other words, Bennett didn’t invent this stuff and it will resonate with his electoral base.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 20, 2013, 9:38 am

      elliot, thank you. btw, there’s a really good article about bennett at the daily beast. had i read it before i wrote the article i would have referenced it and linked accordingly. link to thedailybeast.com

      Kahane has not gone away; he has gone to the mikveh and morphed into a group of bourgeois forty-somethings who enjoy a good Merlot in a posh wine bar in North Tel Aviv.

      • Bumblebye
        January 20, 2013, 11:00 am

        In the 5min film linked (about the New Year’s Eve anti-African rally in Tel Aviv), the exterior of the office of MK Michael Ben Ari is shown. Description is added – on the walls are pictures of Ben Ari, Arieh Eldad and Kahane.
        link to antonyloewenstein.com
        Kahane (or his evil ideology) is going nowhere but up.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:03 pm

        thanks for the heads up bumblebye, hat tipped. link to mondoweiss.net

      • Elliot
        January 21, 2013, 10:02 pm

        Annie – I can’t share Magid’s grim optimism. Even if Bennett’s elections wins will remove the scales from America’s eyes (not a sure thing), so what? It’s what happens over there that should be our primary concern.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 22, 2013, 12:38 am

        Elliot, any which way it’s going to be a hard road over there. but this has the effect of putting the cards on the table.

        it will place a choice before the American Jewish community and the United States government… Bennett’s Israel does not want peace. ……. And not one (state) the U.S. government will easily support. As long as the center-right hobbles along with its obfuscating rhetoric and stalling tactics, nothing will be accomplished….. If the Israeli electorate empowers them, at least we know what we are dealing with. It is the only chance the left has. The only chance for an end to the conflict is to elect someone who doesn’t even believe there is a conflict.

    • Klaus Bloemker
      January 20, 2013, 6:37 pm

      “the Second Zionist Revolution is Jewish … Judaism is flourishing”
      —————————————————————————————————
      To me, the shift from the term “the State of Israel” to “the Jewish State” indicated that ‘Second Zionist Revolution’. Words/terms are the precursors of deeds.

      Things are getting worse in Israel by getting more Jewish. “Judaism is flourishing.” But Judaism as a religious-ethnic ideology is off limits as a target of criticism on Mondoweiss.

      By his own account (interview with Marc Zell), Phil has also gotten more Jewish.

      • yrn
        January 22, 2013, 1:31 am

        “Things are getting worse in Israel by getting more Jewish. ….”
        This is quite an Antisemitic sentence, if it means that Things are getting worse because Israel is getting more JEWISH, that means that you find that JEWISH is bad and makes thing worse.
        That’s not criticism, that’s pure Antisemitic quote.

      • Cliff
        January 22, 2013, 5:22 am

        It is not antisemitic at all.

        Israel is an ethno-religious State.

        If the United States were to get more Christian, it would be worse off as well.

        You simply read these statements superficially to exploit the philo-semitism in the West wherein any and all critical statements of Jewish nationalism are tarred and feathered as antisemitic discourse.

        It’s not antisemitic at all. If anything, Zionism is antisemitic for wearing Judaism as a human shield. IDF soldiers carving the Star of David into Gazan farmland during the Gaza Massacre of 2008 is antisemitic.

        Pointing out that Jewish ethnocentrism and supremacy are bad for non-Jews in Israel/Palestine and for Jews who do not worship the State and army is NOT antisemitic.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 22, 2013, 6:48 am

        Oh, baloney. It means that the supremacism being practiced is a Jewish one and the more the Jewishness is brought to the fore, the less things like equality and justice for all are, not because of any defect in Judaism but because the people doing these things have no interest in things like equality and justice.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 22, 2013, 8:12 am

        yrn –

        What I called “more Jewish”, others would call that ‘more fundamentalist’ or ‘more Orthodox’. I based my sentence/wording on Annie’s quote of Caroline Glick (see above). – And BTW, I care more whether something is true or false than whether it may be labeled ‘anti-Semitic’ or not.

      • yrn
        January 22, 2013, 9:36 am

        Woody Tanaka and Klaus….. Baloney ????
        You are playing the same dialectic game of Gilad Atzmon, guess you read his stuff and learned the game.
        This is Pure Antisemitic what Klaus wrote and what he means…..
        This Dialectic juggling just proves it, same as the writings of Atzmon.
        He means it, but he doesn’t ……..

      • Annie Robbins
        January 22, 2013, 1:09 pm

        yrn, i think considering the context of the way ‘more jewish’ is used by glick and bennett and that it is included in the topic of article, under these circumstances the meaning of ‘more jewish’ by the commenters should be seen or read in the same context as it’s used in the article.

        to me, the messaging of both bennett and glick is that ‘jews who i do not agree with’ are therefore ‘less jewish’. this was my meaning in the last paragraph of the article. so i don’t know why you’re dragging gilad atzmon into this.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 22, 2013, 2:17 pm

        yrn –

        1.
        Do you contest Glick’s assertion that Israel is getting more Jewish?
        She says: “Judaism is flourishing.”
        2.
        Do you think this flourishing Judaism in Israel is a political improvement?

        – I’m not interested in your notion of anti-Semitism.

      • yrn
        January 22, 2013, 2:44 pm

        “Our central goal is to restore proud Jewish identity ”
        That’s the main issue ….. what’s wrong with that, or are you against it.
        My Grandparents in Germany (completely secular) could not be proud Jews, as been Jewish in Germany and in Europe was something you should be ashamed of, as Klaus mentioned “Things are getting worse xxxxxx by getting more Jewish….. so Jews should not be proud, as been a proud Jew for commenters as Cliff tanaka and Klaus links directly to “ethnocentrism and supremacy….. tribalism……., as for them Jews don’t have the privilege to be proud.
        How did you come to the conclusion that “jews who donot agree with them are therefore ‘less jewish’. ” how can a secular Jew be less Jewish, as most of the population he talks to to join him a secular……..
        I am dragging Atzmon into this, as he invented the Dialectic Juggling of how to attack Judaism, but claiming he is not same as the above.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 22, 2013, 5:49 pm

        “Our central goal is to restore proud Jewish identity ”
        That’s the main issue ….. what’s wrong with that, or are you against it…..dragging Atzmon into this, as he invented the Dialectic Juggling of how to attack Judaism

        yrn, i am going to reiterate what i said before..the context of the way ‘more jewish’ is used by glick and bennett and that it is included in the topic of article

        for your review:

        The second Zionist revolution is Jewish. Israel is coming into its own. Judaism is flourishing, changing, living and breathing here like it never has anywhere since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth. The secular left has been eclipsed by the Jewish right. I don’t call it the religious right because that is too limiting. What’s happening isn’t just about religion, it’s about everything, and that is why non-observant hipsters in Tel Aviv are voting for the Jewish Home party. Non-observant and observant Jews are joining forces and the anti-religious are being left behind.”

        first of all, her framing of ‘anti religious’ for people who are on the left is disingenuous. this is her idea of ‘less jewish’ (the opposite being ‘more jewish’) and many of these glick people want destroy the mosque and rebuild the temple (really). the want to annex the west bank. so it’s not realistic to listen to their words and ignore their politics. please filter what’s being said here by that definition of ‘more jewish’ that is being referenced.

        How did you come to the conclusion that “jews who donot agree with them are therefore ‘less jewish’. ”

        oh, maybe because we went thru a little phase here (for years) at mondoweiss with some posters (now banned) who kept humping on phil (and others) that he wasn’t jewish because of his beliefs. it got really old. and maybe because it’s a talking pt on the right.

        i was at a conference and josh from end the occupation was speaking and this woman got up and started screaming at him he wasn’t a jew because of his beliefs. it was a hoot. he offered to drop his pants and show her his circumsized **** after lecturing her (very loudly i might add) about his relatives who died at auschwitz. she kept screaming ‘you’re not a jew! you’re not a jew!’

        cuz of crap like that. it’s frigging offensive to imply people (jews) who slave away for equal rights for all people somehow do not embody the best of what it means to be jewish. offensive. scroll up, or did you miss from my articles main text

        Sorry, this zealotry doesn’t resemble the values of the American Jews I know. What are they, chopped liver?

        so listen to the context of klaus’s comment: “Things are getting worse in Israel by getting more Jewish. ….”
        in relation to who and what he was responding to (elliot ) including what elliot wrote (relating to the words about the zioninst revolution klaus copy/pasted):

        This is a restatement of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook’s messianic theology for Israel. In the early 20th century, Rabbi Kook was the first major rabbi to forge close ties with the anti-clerical, often anti-religious, early Zionist pioneers.

        so you choose to jump into the conversation, isolation one sentence out of context and decide it’s’quite an Antisemitic sentence’ and like atzmon.

        seriously, get grip. at least try to understand the flow of the conversation please.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 22, 2013, 6:16 pm

        Well, “baloney” will get through moderation.

        It’s not a “dialectic game,” it’s the simple fact that israel is becoming more religious and those religious-motivated ideas are reducing things like respect for civil rights of minorities. If you want to read anythign more into it, it says more about your particular possible mental pathologies than anythign else.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 22, 2013, 6:23 pm

        “‘Our central goal is to restore proud Jewish identity ‘
        That’s the main issue ….. what’s wrong with that, or are you against it.”

        The problem is that what we’re seeing is that it’s a pseudo ethnic pride that manifests itself by oppression of and discrimination against those not of the “proud” group. It’s an old story: White pride means bashing blacks. German pride means attacking Jews. Irish Protestant pride means assaulting Irish Catholics, etc., etc.

        If “proud Jewish identity” in israel means attacking and oppressing the “other” (be they Arab, African refugees, whatever), then better that they forgo pride and, instead, cultivate a humble Jewish identity, one that favors justice, human rights and equality for all.

      • RoHa
        January 22, 2013, 9:45 pm

        “‘Our central goal is to restore proud Jewish identity ‘
        That’s the main issue ….. what’s wrong with that, or are you against it.”

        Why bother restoring “proud Jewish identity”? What’s the point? Why not just develop happy human identity?

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 23, 2013, 10:14 am

        - “Our central goal is to restore proud Jewish identity” –

        yrn –
        In your comment, you put the above sentence in quotation marks, who said that? – But anyway, I now understand why you were so upset about my comment: You want to be a proud Jew, have a “proud Jewish identity” but are probably irritated by Israel’s Judaism and proclaimed identity as a ‘Jewish state’.

        But you shouldn’t direct your scorn at me. I didn’t define Israel as a Jewish state or hail Israel’s “flourishing Judaism” (Caroline Glick).

  12. mijj
    January 20, 2013, 2:27 am

    > “[I]t’s ours, it’s always been ours for 3,800 years we have Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria since we first got it, 3800 years ago.”

    Poor deluded fellow. God has since promised it to the people of Wales. I have proof in the form of a hand written, dated statement signed by God himself. He clearly states that all previous agreements are null and void.

    • flyod
      January 20, 2013, 10:27 am

      can’t think of many places that i have been as beautiful as wales…i’d stay there.
      these guys are always moving the goal posts. used to be 2,000 years ago, then 2,500. now we have the 3,800 mark, deep into the realm of myth. so what was going on 3,900 years ago?

      • iResistDe4iAm
        January 21, 2013, 8:18 am

        2,000 2,500 3,000 3,800 years ago”

        …and don’t forget “since time immemorial”

      • john h
        January 21, 2013, 2:36 pm

        3900+- years ago, Canaan was owned by the Canaanites, myth or fact, take your pick.

  13. MHughes976
    January 20, 2013, 7:55 am

    I sometimes say that the genius of Zionism has been to appeal right across the spectrum of religious faith and doubt and across the political spectrum from right to left. Some say ‘there was a divine donation; it’s true’, some say ‘There may not be a God but the idea of divine donation should be treated as if it were true, since it is a poetic expression of all that yearning, all that culture, all that promise of good to all humanity’ – that was what put Cyrus Scofield and George Eliot in some extraordinary way on the same page all those years ago. And of course Zionism moved effortlessly from being the necessary step towards world socialism to being the indispensable barrier against Soviet plans for the ME. Annie says that American media – we might say all Western opinion – is lulled. It’s sort of accustomed to warm to ambiguity, to be impressed by religious intensity yet to treat it as just a way of speaking, not threatening to a secular outlook, almost amusing. Elliot’s right that the Bennett version is not new – it’s tried and tested. Meanwhile, mijj, diolch yn fawr.

  14. yonah fredman
    January 20, 2013, 1:23 pm

    1. The chances that the next Netanyahu government will annex Area C, the key aspect of the Bennett plan, are negligible.

    2. The only aspect of fundamentalism that Bennett espouses is regarding territory. Obviously that is an important aspect, but the fundamentalist label should not be misused to describe Bennett. It does not enhance understanding of his stance.

    3. The Second Zionist revolution was Menachem Begin’s victory in 1977. This would be the Third Zionist revolution. (Begin’s revolution led to extensive building on the West Bank, including Ariel and Maale Adumim, so the second revolution is worth mentioning, for this revolution as Ari Shavit has described it, is about the settlers taking over the government and without Begin’s revolution the size of the settlement enterprise would have been considerably smaller.)

    • Annie Robbins
      January 20, 2013, 2:04 pm

      yonah, i did not call him a fundamentalist.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 2:28 pm

        annie- you called him a biblical literalist.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:11 pm

        you called him a biblical literalist.

        yes i did. yonah, is there a particular reason you phrased your question the way you did? instead of telling me i shouldn’t have called him a biblical literalist?

        as far as i am concerned fundamentalism means different things to different people. link to simple.wikipedia.org

        whereas a biblical literalist is someone who takes biblical claims literally, as bennett has demonstrated with his own words.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 3:18 pm

        I’m sorry for attributing fundamentalism which has many meanings when you said biblical literalist. He is only a biblical literalist in regard to territory.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:34 pm

        He is only a biblical literalist in regard to territory.

        i specified in the text of the main article:

        -even though he’s a biblical literalist regarding Jewish ownership over all of Mandate Palestine.

        (bolded just for you)

        and just out of curiosity do you have any evidence he believes in equal rights and citizenship for palestinian israelis? is there any evidence his literalism is confined to territory? any policies he promotes that conflicts with biblical texts? iow, prove it.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 4:28 pm

        annie robbins- Biblical literalism does not only apply to politics. It applies to lifestyle. And Bennett’s lifestyle does not fit with biblical literalism.

        Orthodox Jews do not technically believe in biblical literalism, because there is the intermediary (bad word, but you get the point) of the rabbis interpreting verses and quite often the literal meaning of verses is subverted (another bad word, but you get the point) by the rabbinical interpretation. Therefore the term biblical literalism applies to nonOrthodox groups like the Karaites from the middle ages. The term really is unhelpful because it is so off base from Orthodoxy’s acceptance of rabbinical interpretation.

        Bennett may have a long political future and as such accurate analysis will be helpful. The term biblical literalism will not be helpful, other than to rally your troops against him, rather than in an attempt to understand him.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 5:44 pm

        yonah, as long as he speaks and acts like a biblical literalist regarding Jewish ownership over all of Mandate Palestine i will reference him as such.

        The term really is unhelpful ….Bennett may have a long political future and as such accurate analysis will be helpful. The term biblical literalism will not be helpful

        it’s helpful to me and people who i think like me. this is my analysis, if you don’t like it leave the thread. i call it like i see it. take the last word, i’m done with you parsing my language.

      • piotr
        January 22, 2013, 1:59 am

        From the point of “comparative religion”, these guys are neither literalists nor fundamentalists (compare to Shas to see the difference). Yes, they pull this and that from the Bible as convenient, but they do not care too much about such details like does God exist or not, the nationalist extremist parties have both religious and non-religious members (although all believe that God chose the Jews and gave them the Promised Land).

        Concerning what happened 3800 (3900) years ago, I guess Abraham came to Cana’an, and pretty soon afterwards the family took of for Egypt, establishing the peripatetic mode of the Jewish people.

      • Cliff
        January 22, 2013, 5:23 am

        Wondering Jew,

        Why are you splitting hairs for a psychopath?

      • MHughes976
        January 22, 2013, 4:00 pm

        I’ve left it a bit late to ask Yonah whether he thinks that Piterberg’s analysis of these things in Returns of Zionism is correct. In Christianity we have a ‘simple’ spectrum from literalism to relentlessly allegorical interpretation to pervasive scepticism. In Judaism rabbinical decrees mediate the Bible to the congregations. Piterberg and Sand both give the impression that Ben Gurion went to great trouble to make conspicuous study of the Bible part of his life and his political appeal but it was study based not on rabbinical pronouncements but on archaeology or at least on the pronouncements of the somewhat militarised corps of archaeologists, whose leader was Yadin and whose presiding genius was Albright, who surrounded him. In this way Zionism was able, as so often, to have it both ways: daring unbelief in that the rabbis were being downgraded, resounding belief in the Bible and in its core idea of divine donation (now scientifically validated) all in one. Perhaps the difference between BG and NBennett is not so great.

      • Avi_G.
        January 20, 2013, 2:51 pm

        Annie Robbins says:
        January 20, 2013 at 2:04 pm

        i did not call him a fundamentalist.

        It was a mistake not to call him a fundamentalist.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:39 pm

        avi, i did my best!

    • eljay
      January 20, 2013, 2:33 pm

      >> 2. … the fundamentalist label should not be misused to describe Bennett. It does not enhance understanding of his stance.

      He wants everything for “the Jews” and their supremacist state – who and which he seems to believe are entitled to have it all anyway – and scraps for the Palestinians. Understanding of his stance may require apologetics, but it does not require enhancement. It is very clear.

      But, yes, y.f. is right, why use “the fundamentalist label” when a perfectly good and very accurate term already exists to describe a guy like him: Zio-supremacist.

    • Avi_G.
      January 20, 2013, 3:01 pm

      1. The chances that the next Netanyahu government will annex Area C, the key aspect of the Bennett plan, are negligible.

      What is that “negligible” claim based on?

      The only aspect of fundamentalism that Bennett espouses is regarding territory. Obviously that is an important aspect, but the fundamentalist label should not be misused to describe Bennett. It does not enhance understanding of his stance.

      Bennett is not a fundamentalist because everyone in the Israeli government is a racist fanatic, anyway. So, relatively speaking, Bennett is but an average cog in the wheel of Zionism.

      Next time, the article should describe him as “average Joe” or better yet, let’s market Bennett as “Plumber Joe”, wholesome, folksy, someone with whom you can have a glass of manischewitz.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 3:22 pm

        Avi- the “negligible” estimate is an assertion based upon my opinion. If you think I am wrong, then assert otherwise. If you really think I am wrong and you think it will occur, I will bet you, that if Netanyahu wins the election (becomes the next p.m. of israel) he will not allow his coalition (restricted to this election cycle) to approve an annexation act. ten bucks.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 3:42 pm

        if Netanyahu wins the election (becomes the next p.m. of israel) he will not allow his coalition (restricted to this election cycle) to approve an annexation act. ten bucks.

        yonah, others have made the point he’d loose 1/2 his party by pissing off the settlers. that they would abandon him and the gov would collapse. let’s just wait and see what happens after the election and how many non settler types remain in whatever coalition he can drum up.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 4:31 pm

        Annie Robbins- Want to bet?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 5:29 pm

        on the outcome of the election? no. i am not the expert on things like this. but i listened to the interview w/ Akiva Eldar when he discussed such a collapse.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 5:49 pm

        annie- no, not the outcome of the election. I said that the chances of Netanyahu annexing Area C was negligible. And that was the topic.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 5:54 pm

        yonah, do you have anything to say about this:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        or are you just going to ignore my responses to you and pretend like there’s no merit to my point? go listen to the interview and then get back to me.

      • yonah fredman
        January 20, 2013, 6:09 pm

        annie-
        I listened to the akiva eldar interview weeks ago (phone call with APN) and I commented at the time that I felt that Netanyahu’s coalition will survive at least until November of 2014. I think Netanyahu will not annex Area C. And I think Netanyahu’s government will last until November 2014 at least. Any other questions?

      • agatharchides
        January 21, 2013, 9:29 am

        Yonah, I’d say annexation depends on circumstances. I also think it is not likely they will just pass an annexation bill out of the blue, but if a tit-for-tat with the Palestinians develops it gets to be more realistic, IMHO. If building starts in E1, say, and in retaliation the Palestinians try to join some UN agencies or especially if they try to join the ICC to prosecute Israelis then I can start to see a Bennett/Lieberman/Netenyahu government going for an annexation bill in response to that. I am hearing rumors that the idea was floated as retaliation over the UN bid, and the ICC would be a much bigger problem for Israel so if that sort of exchange develops I think it is a possibility not to be so lightly discounted.

        I would agree it is not likely to come out of the blue, AFAIK openly annexationist parties will still be less than a third of the Knesset and while that’s up from none a decade ago, it is still very much a minority.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 6:01 pm

        the article should describe him as “average Joe” or better yet, let’s market Bennett as “Plumber Joe”, wholesome, folksy, someone with whom you can have a glass of manischewitz.

        avi, i rather like ‘the modern face of Jewish extremism.’ ( i didn’t say israeli or zionist extremism, that isn’t how he’ll be remembered) besides, i bet him and wifey are into a more upscale wine.

  15. yourstruly
    January 20, 2013, 8:41 pm

    more jewish = more racist?

    something about a religious institution’s core beliefs and its practices being in sync?

    otherwise the risk of an institution run amok?

    as per the catholic church’s putting its popular image before the security & welfare of its most young & vulnerable?

    as per bennett’s claim that supporting ethnic cleansing is the measure of one’s jewishness?

    again casting the jew as the devil?

    at least throughout occupied palestine?

    & seen live everywhere?

    justice for palestine?

    this year?

  16. Mooser
    January 22, 2013, 11:32 am

    What’s this? Another article on an angry white rapper? Oy Gevalt!

Leave a Reply