Friendly profile of Goldberg in ‘Washingtonian’ is a window on tribal power group

A long and highly-favorable Jeffrey Goldberg profile in the Washingtonian Magazine portrays Goldberg as hilarious and aggressive, a little bit juvenile–but lovable– and the most powerful Jewish journalist in the U.S. At one level, the piece is about the Jewish establishment and a Washington guild of insider Jewish journalists. Author Paul Starobin informs us that he also is a “M.O.T.”–member of the tribe–and that he “performed volunteer duty a few years earlier at the [Israeli] kibbutz, Mishmar Ha Emek, where Goldberg lived.” Is this the kind of journalist to report objectively on the Israel lobby?

No; the piece is claustrophobic. Starobin approvingly cites Atlantic editor James Bennet’s concern about “the survival of the Jewish people,” in noting that Bennet and another powerful editor, Foreign Policy editor-at-large David Rothkopf, are the sons of Holocaust survivors. 

“I would put Jeff’s body of work on the subject of Israel, the broader Middle East, and Iran up against anybody, certainly in this country—actually anywhere[,]” [says] Bennet, whose mother is a Holocaust survivor, can appreciate the intensity of Goldberg’s commitment to the survival of the Jewish people.

The piece opens a window, a little bit anyway, on a social klatch of journalists and Israel supporters, some of them members of a “Jewish studies group”:

“He has put himself at risk for his beliefs” in the Jewish state, and that makes him one of a kind—“sui generis”—among Washington journalists, says Michael Oren, the American-born Israeli ambassador to the United States.

Oren, too, is a good friend of Goldberg’s. “We just schmooze about things,” the ambassador says, especially when “I need a good laugh.” …

Another friend is David Gregory, host of Meet the Press. Goldberg and Gregory are part of an informal Jewish-studies group that includes other Goldberg buddies such as Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic; David Brooks, the New York Times columnist; and Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel.

The piece says that when Goldberg, fearing anti-Semitism in the U.S., moved to Israel in the 1980s, he wanted to go into Israeli intelligence– before he became a mere corporal in the Israeli army, working in a prison for Palestinians and exulting that his rifle “was electric with the promise of Jewish power.”

The tribal claustrophobia of the piece is punctured only by Andrew Sullivan, who puts his finger on it as usual:

“Jeffrey really believes that there is a high-priest caste of journalists at a certain elite level, whose job it is to tell people what they need to know,” Sullivan says. “That is not being a journalist—that is being an operator.”

What’s more, he adds, Goldberg “is a Jewish journalist before he is a journalist.” What Sullivan, who is Catholic, seems to feel exasperated by is that Goldberg is so unrelenting in asserting a Jewish identity. Sullivan recalls the misunderstood jew phrase on Goldberg’s door at the Atlantic: “You can’t even walk into his office without seeing ‘Jew.’”

The piece supplies valuable information about Goldberg’s hitjob on Walt and Mearsheimer’s book back in 2007. Leon Wieseltier, the New Republic editor, ordered up the hatchet job:

In 2007, Wieseltier invited Goldberg to review The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a controversial book by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt arguing that America’s misguided embrace of Israel was due to the influence of powerful, pro-Israel pressure groups in Washington. Goldberg responded with a 7,000-word article, the usual suspect, that appeared on the New Republic’s cover. The review called The Israel Lobby “the most sustained attack, the most mainstream attack, against the political enfranchisement of American Jews since the era of Father Coughlin.” Wieseltier recalls that he gave Goldberg the book to “demolish” it, and “he did demolish it.”

But Goldberg’s piece didn’t demolish the book. It called the writers anti-Semites in the company of Coughlin and Duke; but every assertion that Walt and Mearsheimer made is now a commonplace among journalists. Tom Friedman says Congress is “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” Peter Beinart has said that AIPAC, which he once worked for, has prevented the U.S. from taking any action against illegal Israeli settlements. Ezra Klein called Goldberg’s attack implausible, and tribalist, which was worrying to him as a journalist:

The implausible rejection of the idea that America’s behavior toward Israel might be heavily influenced by groups interested in Israel, just as its behavior toward corn subsidies is heavily influenced by the corn lobby, and that this might have worrying consequences. I found myself shocked to see liberals engaging in all of this out of what struck me as a fearful tribalism. Not just shocked, but worried.

As I have pointed out, Goldberg has repeatedly called Walt an anti-Semite, and never provided any evidence for this vicious charge. Washingtonian writer Starobin never takes on the Israel lobby here (no, he’s part of it); though he does quote Walt:

Walt says he feels outraged by “this vile smear tactic” that “has made me somewhat radioactive in policy circles.”

Is it really any wonder that Walt has become “somewhat radioactive in policy circles” given the prevalence of tribalism in those precincts? He is not a member of the elite caste, he is not in a Jewish studies group, is not the child of a Holocaust survivor. He was just calling things as he sees them. 

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. yourstruly says:

    jeffry goldberg has put himself at risk?

    for his beliefs in the jewish state?

    not for being an israel-firster?

  2. Krauss says:

    Another interesting tidbit. Notice just how white and male Goldberg’s influential friends are. Nary a woman in sight who can be reliably quoted.

    Only a bunch of AIPAC hacks like Indyk or the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren and people like that.

    The piece reinforces the fact that ethnic tribalism, basically an alien notion to white Gentile liberals, is the force that carries Goldberg forward. Not his writing. His friends.

    But Goldberg is an ultra-nationalist. He was a fervent follower of Kahane in his youth and failed to unilaterally denounce him even in his memoirs, where he managed to sneak in a few words of praise. As I’ve often written on this site: no non-Jewish white ‘liberal’ journalist would get away with writing in lukewarm terms of David Duke, nor even have been a follower/admirer of David Duke in his youth and still been able to climb the ranks.

    People ask why Jewish racism in Israel is allowed. It’s because there are Jewish racists at high positions in the American MSM who enable it, like Goldberg, who are given the support of a reactionary community, of which Goldberg’s friends are a part of.

    He has made clear numerous times that the only people who can warn about Israeli apartheid are people he approve of, basically hawkish Jewish nationalists and racists. He will pay lip service to Israel’s racism, but in effect he tries to destroy anyone who actually favours the U.S. doing something about it. Walt is a good example, but he’s gone after Beinart too(until Beinart told him to stop doing ‘drive-by’s’ on Twitter) as well as Daniel Levy, formerly of J Street.

    The solution isn’t more ethnic tribalism. That will increase racism as a whole in America and we don’t need that. Last we need is white nationalists to counter Jewish nationalists. We need to disarm the Jewish racists, like Goldberg, just as we have made white racists taboo. And we’re not there yet. But we’re getting there.

    • Krauss says:

      A quick follow-up on the white maleness of Goldberg’s friends.
      This was also manifested when Rudi Joduren was appointed as the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief as she accidentally messaged Ali Abuminah on Twitter and all hell brooke loose(with Goldberg leading the charge).

      I don’t remember who remarked it at the time, but it was pretty striking that literally every single Jew in the media who attacked her was a white Ashkenazi male, as well as middle-aged.

      When it comes to Israel, apparently, Jewish women aren’t welcome into the discussions. And the same is true generally in the Jewish organizational world. On position after position, the male patriarchy dominates.

      Pretty striking for a group that votes liberal over 70% in national elections and that includes the ultra-Orthodox and others. If you look at only secular Jews, my guesstimate is probably over 80%. So why? Because as Beinart has pointed out, Jewish organizations used to be more active on domestic policy, but this was before the rise of the Israel Firsters. Soon, Israel and Zionism became the main reason of existance for many of them. And as you’ve pointed out Phil, on Israel we’re all supposed to be Tea Partiers(or as former Congressman Weiner used to say, between his denouncements of Obama as too centrist, he is in the ‘ZOA Wing’ of the Democratic party. The ZOA is a group who thinks even AIPAC is too soft, FYI).

      As Israel has begun to dominate the Jewish organizational world, it’s only logical that reactionary old white men would dominate the organizations themselves, and appoint others like them. That’s why these people like Goldberg. He’s one of them.

      And these people fear – probably rightly so – that women might actually be in favor of peace, and not get the unspoken message that you’re just supposed utter the words “2 state solution” through gritted teeth and not mean it.
      That fear was manifested when Goldberg and his male friends attacked Rudi for her innocent tweet, heckling her in public for being a ‘bad journalist’(insufficiently slavish towards Israel, or so they feared) and his buddies joining in the hate mob.

      So the problem isn’t just from a general American point of view, it also shines a light on the internal Jewish debate, dominated by bigoted Ashkenazi men, who keep women out of their groups, as well as Jews of color, both groups who are suspect and may be guilty of an actual pro-peace sentiment. People like that, you know scary liberals, are hard to control.
      They don’t get the actual message, as supposed to the official message.

      • sardelapasti says:

        Krauss:
        “People ask why Jewish racism in Israel is allowed.”
        Is this some kind of “theater of the absurd”??
        Do people ask why cutting bread and ham in a deli is allowed?

        “When it comes to Israel, apparently, Jewish women aren’t welcome into the discussions”

        Wrong again. Racist, murderous harpies, see Jane Harman or Pamela Geller, are very welcome. This is equal-opportunity racism, with Nazi shites of all possible sexes not only allowed but especially promoted, especially homosexuals for pinkwashing.

        Zionism is in fact an exceptional specimen in which one particular type of nasty racism has precedence over all others!

      • tokyobk says:

        I have wondered but am not sure that Jews of color are less pro Israel than white Jews, though the official Jewish world (even what we think when we say “Jewish”) is run by Ashkenazi Jews, mostly men.

        I belong to several Jews of Color groups and know many other multiracial Jews and I am just not sure this is the case.

        • Mooser says:

          “I have wondered but am not sure that Jews of color are less pro Israel than white Jews”

          Tokyobk, there are just as many bigoted stupid Jews of all colors as there are of any other type or class of person. I am sure that a “Jew of Color” (to use your phrase, although it reminds me a little of the status associated with the early color TV’s ‘Oy, did you know the Wineskins got one? Yes, they are “Jews of Color” now. and twenty-one inches! Don’t mind me, I’m a Jew of Choler) with the right qualifications can be as fervent a Zionist as any other!

          Of course, if you want to make up a sort of skin-swath book (they got em!) showing the shades and the relative percentage of Zionist enthusiasm, go right ahead. Maybe it’ll help show, well, something.

      • W.Jones says:

        Krauss, I tend to think you are right, but what about Golda Meir, Tsipi Livni, Caroline Glick, and the nationalistic reporter at the Washington Post?

        • Mooser says:

          “Krauss, I tend to think you are right, but what about Golda Meir, Tsipi Livni, Caroline Glick, and the nationalistic reporter at the Washington Post?”

          Look, an awful lot of us were against having any stupid girls in the club from the very beginning. And besides, if a Jew has his God, a sport bike, and a good clonewheel rig, what does he want with a woman?

        • W.Jones says:

          Oh, I was thinking of Jennifer Rubin.
          And what about the legislators Nancy Pelosi and Wasserman?

          I’m not saying there isn’t at least a grain of salt in what you are saying though. Wasn’t there a religious ban on women learning Hebrew in medieval Europe? And isn’t there a ban on women learning Caballa, celebrities notwithstanding?

    • But Goldberg is an ultra-nationalist. He was a fervent follower of Kahane in his youth and failed to unilaterally denounce him even in his memoirs

      i believe he referenced supporters of that ilk as ‘the lunatic fringe’ which i linked to here. i am not here to defend goldberg but it doesn’t further an argument to transform him into something he isn’t. also, the article did cite at least one woman who was in his ‘book group,’ that i recall.

      • seanmcbride says:

        Annie,

        See this:

        ARTICLE AUTHOR Richard Silverstein TITLE
        Jeffrey Goldberg was a Follower of Meir Kahane PUBLICATION Tikkun Daily DATE November 5, 2012 URL link to tikkun.org

      • American says:

        Goldberg had a bit more than a passing romance with Kahane. He’s a supremist tribalist…that opaque gown he throws over his ‘journalism’ doesn’t quite cover it up.

        link to tikkun.org

        Jeffrey Goldberg was a Follower of Meir Kahane By: Richard Silverstein on November 5th, 2012

        Yasha Levine published an amazing, little known story that was there in the bright light of day for anyone to report (but which no one did). He discovered in Jeffrey Goldberg‘s magnum opus, Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror (first published, 2006), that the latter was a youthful hasid (follower) of the American-Jewish ultra-nationalist, Meir Kahane:

        ”…Soon enough I came across the writings of Meir Kahane, on a high shelf, and it was Kahane who provided a not un-Panther-like but specifically Semitic model of self-defense. Kahane was the Brooklyn rabbi who founded the Jewish Defense League in 1968 to shake Jews out of their fatalistic and feminized passivity. He argued, infamously, in favor of the bat, the bomb, and the gun. (“Every Jew a .22,” he said, to the shame and horror of the Manhattan Jewish elite and to the secret joy of every beaten-down Jewboy in the tristate area.) . . .But for a time he held all the answers for me. In the locker room, I was a kike, but in the sanctuary of the library, I was a revolutionary kike, one of Kahane’schayas, a beast, a street-fighting Jew.’

        Goldberg currently blogs at The Atlantic and was a staff writer for The New Yorker. He is a sort of Jewish media mandarin who defines what is polite pro-Israelism in American society. He is one of the most popular arbiters of Jewish politics. If you pass muster, you become part of the acceptable Jewish mainstream. If not, you are sentenced to a form of anti-Israel Siberia.

        The above passage is endlessly fascinating for what it reveals about Goldberg’s identity as a Jew and his view of Jewishness and Jewish peoplehood in general. First, the way he described how he first comes across Kahane’s writing, portrays it as a moment of savoring the forbidden fruit, not unlike a young boy coming across his dad’s hidden Playboys. Except instead of forbidden sex, he discovers the forbidden fruit of Jewish violence, which he euphemistically calls “Semitic self-defense.”
        In associating the term “Semitic” with Kahane’s teaching he gives it a tribal coloring as if the Jewish leader were somehow more historically authentic, because of his tribal ethnic identity, than more mainstream Jewish leaders.

        Next comes the famous Kahaneism: “Every Jew a .22,” whose power Goldberg magnifies with the self-aggrandizing statement that it brought “secret joy to every beaten-down Jewboy in the tristate area.”

        His book Survivors contains other passages redolent of Kahanism. Here he talks about the first time in his life he held a gun, during his IDF training:

        ”I was exceedingly happy – the rifle was electric with the promise of Jewish power – and so, too, were my new comrades, all of us from the Diaspora, most of us having lived our lives in the company of quisling Jews who, for reasons inexplicable and bizarre, believed that the main lesson of the Shoah was that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, instead of the actual lesson of the Shoah, which is that it is easy to kill a unilaterally disarmed Jew but much harder to kill one who is pointing a gun at your face.”

        After his military service ended, Goldberg began writing for the Jerusalem Post. Even crediting this piece of ersatz satire, More Tear Gas, Please, as the product of a callow 26 year-old with much too high a level of self-regard, it’s hard to swallow the grotesque images of this 1991 piece:

        ”Nothing breaks the ice better between two warring peoples than a little light-hearted fun. And what is a better example of light-hearted fun than a beauty pageant? The Israeli administration would be highly praised if it sponsored an annual Miss Occupied Territories Contest…

        Arab women would compete in “Miss Gaza Refugee Camp” and “Miss Mother Who Sends Her Children into the Street to Catch Israeli Bullets with Their Heads” contests.”

        When did his ambivalent love affair with Kahane end? It certainly continued as late as 1990–when he was age 25–and told Kahane’s grandchildren about his view of their grandfather:

        “When [Kahane's]grandsons asked me what I remembered of him, I answered, ‘He had very profound thoughts,’ which was true.”

        • kalithea says:

          Ahhhh…Silverstein, crying day in and day out about the evils and injustice against others that Zionism has wrought, tallying up Palestinian casualties, and STILL, a Zionist. Behind that OBVIOUS contradiction one might discover therein lies a laser-precise and just analogy with 50 pieces of silver.

          If someone were to ask me what the highest form of betrayal is, I might reply: SELF-DELUSION, and mark my words, “idealism” that is beyond the reach of the increasing brutal reality he laments every day is the worst form of betrayal. It just sickens me.

  3. Goldberg is not, per Andrew Sullivan, “a Jewish journalist before he is a journalist.” Goldberg is a shill, and a bigoted one at that, who clearly manifests confused and divided loyalties with every word he writes or speaks.

    Anyone looking into exactly what goldberg did as a prison guard during his stay in Israel?

    Anyone care to remind Goldberg of the legal term “expatriating acts” [though for all intents and purposes a dead letter]?

    If Goldberg and his fabulist beliefs weren’t so dangerous to the welfare of the USA, he’d be as pathetic as Louis Farrakhan nattering on about “mother ships” and whatnot.

  4. seanmcbride says:

    Jeffrey Goldberg’s tribal network as described in this article:

    1. David Brooks
    2. David Gregory
    3. Franklin Foer
    4. James Bennet
    5. Leon Wieseltier
    6. Martin Indyk
    7. Michael Oren
    8. Paul Starobin

    What topics does this “Jewish studies group” discuss? Do those topics mingle Judaism with Zionism? It would be interesting to know.

    The ethnocentrism index: the frequency with which one mentions one’s ethnic identity, issues, problems, conflicts and enemies. Jeffrey Goldberg pegs the meter.

    Most high-quality journalists on the American scene mention their ethnicity and ethnic issues barely at all in their work — they are not passionate ethnic nationalists. Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with fundamental American democratic values and the American interest.

    Phil does mention his ethnic issues frequently, but with a radically different and more positive intent: he is trying to lower the level of aggressive and confrontational ethnic nationalism in his community.

    Compare the level of Jeffrey Goldberg’s ethnocentrism with that of Andrew Sullivan, James Fallows, Stephen Walt or Andrew Bacevich. Goldberg has only one issue that preoccupies him: his narrow ethnic nationalist interests, which revolve around the endless and ever-escalating problems of a foreign government. Sullivan and Fallows are broad humanists and universalists who address a wide array of issues of concern to Americans and humanity at large.

    The closest analogue to Jeffrey Goldberg among other leading ethnic groups in America is David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. And one is reminded that he is former Kahanist.

    • tokyobk says:

      Sean,

      Yes, universalism is better than ethnocentrism.

      About Goldberg, though, I think you overstate by kind and degree. You are comparing people who belong to the dominant ethnic category to someone who belongs to a minority group (however influential). Sullivan my have a better, more general heart than Goldberg and lets say he does, but he has also occupied in both the UK and the US (for just another 25 years though) the position of membership in the majority.

      Goldberg is not a Duke or Farrakhan. He is in the sense of ethnic nationalism a Tavis Smiley or Al Sharpton, someone who sees the world through an ethnic lens. There are equivalents form every American ethnic variety and plenty of organizations which advocate not universally but for Latinos or Muslims etc…

      Whether Jews or Zionism is more powerful than other groups lobbies is immaterial to the issue of specific group rather than general advocacy by ethnic journalists.

      • Whether Jews or Zionism is more powerful than other groups lobbies is immaterial to the issue of specific group rather than general advocacy by ethnic journalists.

        no it’s not when your argument is based on comparing people who belong to the dominant ethnic category

        i think the hagel hearings are a clear example of whose ethnic category is more dominant in our society. the significance 2% of the population is affiliated with that ethnicity is something we can ponder over wrt the meaning of ‘minority’. but the dominance is quite clear, at least in government and media which just happen to be rather influential institutions in our society, to say the least.

        • hophmi says:

          IE, the Jews dominate the government and the media, right Annie? But you’re not antisemitic.

        • what? when tokyobk was claiming sullivan belonged to the dominant ethnic category was that racist? what qualifications make an ethnicity dominant? money? power? david brooks can write an op ed bragging about percentages of successful jewish americans but i call that a dominant ethnicity and it’s anti semitic? you don’t scare me hophmi and i didn’t bring up the topic. there’s a difference between population numbers and dominance.

        • Cliff says:

          ‘The Jews’ is your idiotic whitewash, hoppy.

        • Ellen says:

          hop,

          Only you said,

          “the Jews dominate the government and the media,”

          No one else.

        • marc b. says:

          david brooks can write an op ed bragging about percentages of successful jewish americans but i call that a dominant ethnicity and it’s anti semitic?

          there it is in a nut shell. yet another example (as if one were needed) of the absolutely, fundementally anti-democratic impulses of the elite, no matter the species. annie’s right hoppee; you got a gripe about the labeling of ‘the jews’ as an integral even predominant component of the decision-making class, go complain to brooks, dershowitz, abrams, etc. etc. etc. whose peacock tribal arrogance never sleeps, and who view the whole world through a jew/non-jew dichotomy. effin’ fraud.

        • hophmi says:

          Ellen:

          Annie wrote: “the significance 2% of the population is affiliated with that ethnicity is something we can ponder over wrt the meaning of ‘minority’. but the dominance is quite clear, at least in government and media which just happen to be rather influential institutions in our society, to say the least.”

          What do you interpret that to mean?

        • hops, what do you think Starobin meant when he wrote (sometimes citing goldberg)

          “the most influential journalist in Washington—indeed in America“…. “I think journalism is a very Jewish profession”…. “Jews are very interesting. I think pound for pound we are the most interesting people in the world. There’s 12 million of us, and we make so much noise. And we’re so controversial and everybody is in everything and it’s absolutely fascinating. ..”….Goldberg’s ascent to his current station as Washington’s go-to journalist on Israel and the Middle East ….. Wieseltier—a kind of philosopher-king..daunting pedigree …a member of that university’s august Society of Fellows for “persons of exceptional ability,”

          does “most influential journalist in Washington—indeed in America” represent a dominant ethnic category, especially with the continued emphasis on ethnicity thru the course of the article? how does the “ascent” to “most influential journalist in .. in America” reflect a dominance?

          and what do you think of a profession (journalism in this instance) being labeled as ‘ethnic’ as ‘jewish’? if journalism is practiced all over the world by every ethnicity, wouldn’t the declaration of this profession as being ‘jewish’ signify a dominance? what if someone said the medical profession was ‘jewish’. healing is ‘jewish profession’. would that mean anyone entering into it would be engaging in jewishness?

          if you think Starobin and goldberg are racist for saying these things just say so. or explain to be how ascension or a profession being essentially labeled as an ethnicity doesn’t reflect a ‘dominant ethnic category’.

          or how you think dominance is more reflected in the quantity rather than quality or influence, if that’s your point.

        • hophmi says:

          “hops, what do you think Starobin meant when he wrote (sometimes citing goldberg)”

          I have no idea. People say really dumb things. Do you think journalism is a “Jewish profession?” Is it racist? I don’t know. Is it racist if someone says there are a lot of black people in the NBA or a lot of Indians in the National Spelling Bee or a lot of Indians and Asians in medicine?

          Is spelling an Indian thing? Is medicine an Asian profession?

          We’re definitely interesting people, that’s for sure. But so is just about everybody else. Are we interesting because we’re us, or are we interesting because people talk about us incessantly?

          “and what do you think of a profession (journalism in this instance) being labeled as ‘ethnic’ as ‘jewish’?”

          I think it’s wrong and untrue. Journalism is journalism, whether it’s done by Jews or non-Jews. Phil’s a Jewish journalist. Do you think he fits into whatever Starobin is talking about?

          ” if journalism is practiced all over the world by every ethnicity, wouldn’t the declaration of this profession as being ‘jewish’ signify a dominance? ”

          No. It would signify a common stereotype about Jews owning the media, and the unfortunate tendency, which we find in many minority groups, to embrace these stereotypes in some respect. It’s the Avenue Q thing. Everyone’s a little bit racist, and stereotypes are based on truth. It’s all in good fun until people take it too far, as here, by asserting that Jews “dominate” the media, and have some sort of organized nefarious effect on society.

          “or how you think dominance is more reflected in the quantity rather than quality or influence, if that’s your point.”

          I don’t accept the premise that Jews “dominate” the media. It’s a stereotype, little more.

        • sardelapasti says:

          “IE, the Jews dominate the government and the media,”
          Of course they do, stupid. Just look at the ongoing Hagel confirmation and its rendering in establishment media.

          People who would be immune from your racist characterization are a. those who do not define themselves as Jewish, b. those who are religious and explicitly reject Zionism. Those who accept the fake- nationalist identity automatically place themselves within a collective.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Annie,

          Tags for this Starobin article:

          1. ethnic braggadocio
          2. ethnic chauvinism
          3. ethnic cronyism
          4. ethnic grandiosity
          5. ethnic narcissism
          6. ethnic nepotism
          7. ethnic self-celebration
          8. ethnic self-obsession
          9. ethnic self-promotion
          10. ethnic self-worship
          11. ethnic supremacism
          12. ethnic triumphalism

          From Wikipedia:

          In sociology, the term ethnic nepotism describes a human tendency for in-group bias or in-group favouritism applied by nepotism for people with the same ethnicity within a multi-ethnic society.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Personalities like Paul Starobin are so mired down in this kind of thinking that one suspects that they are unconscious of the impression they are making on the world.

          Or: their ethnic self-esteem and egotism are so great that they don’t care what the world thinks — they may even revel in rubbing the nose of the world in their arrogance.

          Might the term “personality disorder” fit the bill?

          When exhibited by most groups, we simply describe this mentality as racism.

        • Mooser says:

          “IE, the Jews dominate the government and the media, right Annie? But you’re not antisemitic.”

          Anti-Semitic? It is to laugh! Hophmi, Annie acknowledges our superior position and influence. I hardly call that anti-Semetism! After all, you blockhead, we say it all the time about ourselves!!

          Would you have Annie doubt us? Say that we lie about ourselves? If Annie said the Jews in America were a bunch of no-account, poor, unknown and unheard, ignorant prozakniks would that be philo-Semitism? Hell no, you’d be screaming like one of those things which begins with “b” and screams. Not a “dervish”, they whirl. Not that you wouldn’t do that if not impeded by bulk.
          So who the hell are you trying to kid, Hophmi. You made the Jewish AIPAC-pie bed, you big AIPAC macher, you, don’t complain about what you find between the sheets. And you might try changing them, they stink, and some of those stains look contagious.

        • Cliff says:

          Jews are part of the Establishment. They are high positions in media, government, education, etc.

          That doesn’t mean it’s all Jews or that there aren’t Jews who don’t fit this model.

          Any Social Inequality class will teach you that this is an example of group mobility.

          Only a Zionist charlatan would straw-man reasonable arguments like this as some cartoon Nazi propaganda.

          You’ve been on this blog for years and you know Annie is not an antisemite or makes those kinds of statements.

          You’re just so intellectually bankrupt that this is ALL you can do now.

        • (I don’t accept the premise that Jews “dominate” the media. )
          hops, i hope you realize you are quoting yourself in this sentence.

          me: ” if journalism is practiced all over the world by every ethnicity, wouldn’t the declaration of this profession as being ‘jewish’ signify a dominance? ”

          you: No. It would signify a common stereotype about Jews owning the media,

          iow, you think goldberg, who was the one who stated he thought journalism was a jewish profession (that is not my opinion btw), was engaging in a common stereotype?

          btw, the word dominance and dominant when applied to strategy/game theory, economy/market, and social hierarchy pertains to degrees of dominance. it has a different connotation (at least to me) than the word you’ve chosen (repeatedly i might add), quoting yourself: “dominate”. whereas tokyobk (and i) referenced a different word. are you aware dominant/dominance and dominate are different words? and if so, why do you prefer arguing with one and not the others? especially while implying you are quoting me and not yourself.

          and do you think that tokyobk, referencing sullivan (who is catholic) meant catholics dominated all other ethnic groups, population wise?

          because one could just as easily classify sullivan as ‘white’ in which case the majority of american jews are just as white as the majority of catholics. this thing of referencing jews as a minority, what’s the point?

        • Mooser says:

          “because one could just as easily classify sullivan as ‘white’”

          Yeah, I know. Oh well, if Sullivan thinks that’s the way to be, okay, but wow, me, I’d give almost anything to engender confusion in that area.

        • Mooser says:

          “I have no idea. People say really dumb things.”

          Yes, they do, Hophim. Yes, they do. But I just tell myself, ‘don’t worry, Hophmi is still around, and he’ll never do that”

        • marc b. says:

          “hops, what do you think Starobin meant when he wrote (sometimes citing goldberg)”

          I have no idea.

          you have ‘no idea’? and yet you’re engaged in a running gun battle over people’s responses to the starobin commentary, insinuating that annie’s an anti-semite in the process. like i said. effin’ disingenuous fraud.

        • American says:

          I don’t accept the premise that Jews “dominate” the media. It’s a stereotype, little more.”….hoppie

          Actually they do but to describe it as Jews dominating the media isn’t totally accurate…it’s the campaign started by Jewish/Israel orgs long ago that controls the media.

          Here’s how it works……anything negative said about Jewish individuals, Israel, politically or any other way, etc.,etc……is anti semitic because it is ‘related’ to ‘The Jews’.
          Anything having to do with ‘A’ Jew or with ‘any’ Jews or with Israel is ‘indivisible’ from All Jews.

          Therefore any criticism on anything Jewish related is a direct anti semitic attack on All Jews and can lead to a German style holocaust on the Jews again.

          They use the public horror at the holocaust to get the media and the public to ‘self censor’. Those who don’t self censor their orgs go after and attack.

        • lukelea says:

          Throughout history until the emergence of modern democracy the dominant group in almost every society has been a tiny minority who considered themselves, and often were, ethnically distinct. They called themselves the nobility. They were distinguished by breeding. European Ashkenazis were often allied with these nobilities in the West, most notably in the cases of Poland and Spain. These are the facts of history which need to be taken into account in any discussion of this kind. I particularly recommend a book first recommended to me by Marty Paretz, namely, The Fatal Embrace.

          Though not Ashkenazi myself I am a Jew and identify with the Jewish people and am highly invested in the survival of the state of Israel, which finds itself in an impossible situation through no real fault of its own. (I blame European anti-Semitism and the Balfour Declaration.) That said, the greatest favor Ashkenazi Americans can do for themselves and for American support for the state of Israel is identify themselves more closely with the interests of ordinary working families in America, the majority (plurality?) of whom are of Protestant descent. They are the bedrock of Israel’s support in this country, not the new immigrants coming in from Asia and Latin America. Today’s column by David Brooks on immigration reform is a perfect illustration of how not to care about the welfare of ordinary working families in the United States, of all races. They need friends and support. Why do you assume they will continue to care about Israel if they don’t get that support? Don’t be foolish or naive. Read The Fatal Embrace and then look yourself in the mirror. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. Reciprocity is the name of the game.

        • lukelea says:

          Until the rise of popular democracy every society throughout history has been dominated by a tiny minority which considered itself to be, and usually was, distinguished by ethnicity. They were called the nobility. Throughout European history Ashkenazis were often allied with these nobility, most notably in Poland and Spain. These are basic facts of history of which everyone needs to be aware in discussions of this kind. In particular I recommend a book first recommended to me by Marty Peretz, The Fatal Embrace, which describes the pitfalls of these alliances.

          And while not myself Ashkenazi, I am a Jew and am heavily invested in the survival of the state of Israel, which today finds itself in an impossible situation through no real fault of its own. (I blame European anti-Semitism and the Balfour Declaration). That said I think the greatest favor people like Goldberg can do to cement future American popular support for the state of Israel is to ally themselves with the economic interests of ordinary working families in this country. Today’s column by David Brooks is a perfect illustration of how not to do that. It is in Europeans of Protestant and, to a less extent, Catholic descent that you find the bedrock of Israel’s support, not in immigrants from Asia or Latin America. If people like Goldberg would champion the core interests of these people (I am talking about living standards, of all our citizens, regardless of race) it would do a world of good for the future of Israel. At present they have no one speaking for them. They need friends.

          Don’t be naive about the nature of politics. Strategy, not tactics, is what wins in the end. Read The Fatal Embrace and then look yourselves in the mirror. Put yourselves in the others’ shoes. It is all about reciprocity.

        • Mooser says:

          “like i said. effin’ disingenuous fraud.”

          But he amuses us so! And marcb, as I’m sure you know, a hit is a hit. If Hophmi chooses to spend his time raising Mondo’s web profile, I am all for it.

        • Israel… finds itself in an impossible situation through no real fault of its own.

          oh really.

          At present they have no one speaking for them. They need friends.

          the protestants and catholics, working families? i am confused. please link to this david brooks article.

        • lukelea says:

          David Brooks on immigration reform: link to nytimes.com

          Be sure to look at the comments, all of them, not just the picks.

          The best book on the diplomatic intrigue behind The Balfour Declaration is Friedman’s The Question of Palestine: 1914-1918. If I may briefly summarize, it originated as a cynical plot between England, France, and Russia to lure the allegiance of European Jewry away from Germany (the Jews greatest friend in Europe at the time) and bring America into the war on the allied side. Three powerful groups in the U.S. were opposed to this, viz., the Germans, for patriotic reasons, the Irish, because they hated the English, and the Ashkenazis, because they hated the Russians. The Balfour Declaration was decisive in winning over the latter, who were also working behind the scense — I believe I am right about this? — to undermine the Russians (as was Germany of course with that sealed car with Lenin in it). In addition, Balfour himself wished to redirect the flow of Eastern European Jewry away from England’s shores, France didn’t want them to come there, and Russia wanted to get rid of as many as it could. This is all brought out in Friedman’s book, based on official diplomatic correspondence which was secret at the time.

          One of the ironies of WWI is that is spawned three major problems in later 20th century history which are still with us: the Russian and Chinese revolutions and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (In the case of China the allies signed a secret deal with Japan to bring them in on the allied side in return for Germany’s Chinese colonies after the war; when those colonies were turned over to Japan it sparked the May 4th movement, which led to the rise of communism in China, aided by Russia and the Comintern — with a number of Ashkenazis playing a prominent role in the latter by the way, as they did in the Cheka which helped alienate the Poles and Ukranians).

          As the Chinese like to say, everything has a cause.

        • lukelea, i find your comments confusing. the implication of your history lesson, coupled with your assertion Israel just ‘found’ itself in an impossible situation ‘through no real fault of its own’ implies no actions taken by the israeli government since its founding (or before) are responsible for the conditions today. i find this is narrative delusional and in drastic denial.

          furthermore when you state
          If people like Goldberg would champion the core interests of these people (I am talking about living standards, of all our citizens, regardless of race) it would do a world of good for the future of Israel. At present they have no one speaking for them. They need friends.
          it implies people will support friends regardless of their morality. as if immoral behavior and actions plays no part in people’s support or lack thereof for israel. this is crazy. it might work for a little while (like befriending the african american community) but once people see the light they will abandon support for israel not because they are fickle or don’t need you (should their lives improve) but because morals and values matter to people, even the poor.

          you can’t put the cat back in the bag as the news is out about the apartheid state. most people have moved on from merely blaming so last century circumstances. especially the younger generation. have you thought of that?

        • Mooser says:

          “Therefore any criticism on anything Jewish related is a direct anti semitic attack on All Jews and can lead to a German style holocaust on the Jews again.”

          So then why do it? Are you trying to give every Jew a stake in Zionism, just so you can dislike them all? (I dare you to try that with me. You’ll end up throwing yourself at my feet and begging to have my babies! Well, as long as you’re not a woman, that is).

        • American says:

          Mooser says:

          “Therefore any criticism on anything Jewish related is a direct anti semitic attack on All Jews and can lead to a German style holocaust on the Jews again.”

          So then why do it?>>>>>>>>

          Because I don’t play by Zionist rules. I play by Truthiness rules.
          Got a problem with that?………so sue me.

        • Ellen says:

          Hop, it means, or implies, that a relatively small group of the population that identifies itself is successful in society, very integrated.

          You are projecting the bogy man of “antisemitism,” whatever that is.

        • american, i didn’t think you were referencing yourself when you wrote

          Therefore any criticism on anything Jewish related is a direct anti semitic attack on All Jews and can lead to a German style holocaust on the Jews again.

          They use the public horror at the holocaust to get the media and the public to ‘self censor’. Those who don’t self censor their orgs go after and attack.

          (my bold)

          you don’t think any criticism on anything Jewish related is a direct anti semitic attack on All Jews and can lead to a German style holocaust on the Jews again, do you?

          i never got the impression when you criticized something jewish related you were making an anti semitic attack on all jews. maybe my head is swimming in circles and i’m not reading everyone correctly.

        • hophmi says:

          “Would you have Annie doubt us? Say that we lie about ourselves? If Annie said the Jews in America were a bunch of no-account, poor, unknown and unheard, ignorant prozakniks would that be philo-Semitism? Hell no, you’d be screaming like one of those things which begins with “b” and screams. ”

          We Jews sometimes joke about the role of Jews in the media. We do not, in my experience, joke around about dominating government. Those Jews that do are, in both cases, simply reflecting the internalizing of long-held, untrue, societal stereotypes.

          Let’s not play this game of accepting that just because something is discussed intracommunally, it’s OK for people outside the community to throwing out stereotypes like this. Or do you think non-African Americans should throw around the N-word because African-Americans use it?

        • hophmi says:

          “Here’s how it works……anything negative said about Jewish individuals, Israel, politically or any other way, etc.,etc……is anti semitic because it is ‘related’ to ‘The Jews’.

          That’s nonsense. You’re setting up a straw man. No one ever said all criticism of Jews or Israel is antisemitic.

        • hophmi says:

          “Hop, it means, or implies, that a relatively small group of the population that identifies itself is successful in society, very integrated.

          You are projecting the bogy man of “antisemitism,” whatever that is.

          You’re acting as an apologist for bigotry. Perhaps unwittingly, but that hardly matters.

      • seanmcbride says:

        tokyobk,

        Jeffrey Goldberg belongs to what is now one of the most privileged, wealthy and powerful ethnic groups in the United States. Generally in America when ethnic groups achieve great success, they reduce the level of their ethnocentrism (not to mention their foreign ethnic nationalism) and fully integrate into American society.

        I can’t think of any American mainstream media pundit who is as obsessive-compulsive in the expression of his or her narrow ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism as Jeffrey Goldberg — there is something grotesque about him. And the viciousness with which he attacks his ethnic “enemies” (like Walt and Mearsheimer) makes one wonder if he ever really gave up his Kahanism.

        I catch Tavis Smiley sometimes on the radio. He has a broad range of interests. He is not a fanatical black nationalist. He is not obsessed with the problems and enemies of a foreign government. Your analogizing of Goldberg to Smiley doesn’t work for me. Not even Al Sharpton is a relentless propagandist for a foreign nation.

        Wait: there *are* other Jeffrey Goldbergs among American pundits: Jennifer Rubin, Charles Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz, Pamela Geller, etc. — but they all share precisely the same ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist agenda as Goldberg. Why is this happening? Seriously: do you have any thoughts? What is driving them?

        Why are some people so much more ethnocentric than others? And does it occur to them that their overexcited ethnocentrism is a powerful driver of conflict and friction with ethnic outsiders?

        • hophmi says:

          “Jeffrey Goldberg belongs to what is now one of the most privileged, wealthy and powerful ethnic groups in the United States. ”

          Yes, he is part of the conspiracy of the Elders.

          “Generally in America when ethnic groups achieve great success, they reduce the level of their ethnocentrism (not to mention their foreign ethnic nationalism) and fully integrate into American society.”

          And in the reality-based world, Jews have fully integrated into American society and are, collectively, one of the least ethnocentric groups around.

          “I can’t think of any American mainstream media pundit who is as obsessive-compulsive in the expression of his or her narrow ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism as Jeffrey Goldberg”

          How about, oh, ANY CONSERVATIVE THAT WRAPS HIMSELF IN THE FLAG ON FOX NEWS?

          “there is something grotesque about him. ”

          Actually, there’s something grotesque about you. I wasn’t going to tell you, but someone had to.

          “And the viciousness with which he attacks his ethnic “enemies” (like Walt and Mearsheimer) makes one wonder if he ever really gave up his Kahanism.”

          There’s no need to wonder. Goldberg’s harsh criticism of the Netanyahu government, his support for the two-state solution, etc, all indicate that Goldberg is not a Kahanist. I know; all Zionists are Kahanists to you, Sean.

          “Wait: there *are* other Jeffrey Goldbergs among American pundits: Jennifer Rubin, Charles Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz, Pamela Geller, etc”

          Case in point. With the exception of Dershowitz, these are all hard-right figures who hold views that have nothing in common with Goldberg. But “they’re all the same” to you, right? You’ve got to jam them in a category. Save me the response about how this is all based on your “research” and how great your “intellect” is.

          “And does it occur to them that their overexcited ethnocentrism is a powerful driver of conflict and friction with ethnic outsiders?”

          Are we Jews having a conflict with ethnic outsiders in this country? I thought we were powerful and dominant. Which is it?

        • Jews have fully integrated into American society and are, collectively, one of the least ethnocentric groups around.

          for the most part, with respect to the american jews i know personally, i agree with you. but i’m curious…wrt this article and the continued reference to ethnicity(tribe, book club, list goes on etc)by both goldberg and the author (iow, not necessarily the reality-based world you speak of) i was wondering if you could direct us to another article, any other as an example of this same kind of ethnocentric focus. just so that i can get a sense of what you mean by least ethnocentric groups. thanks.

        • Mooser says:

          “Jeffrey Goldberg belongs to what is now one of the most privileged, wealthy and powerful ethnic groups in the United States.”

          Not a present, he doesn’t. You might find it hard to believe (and I guess, sean, you could honestly find it offensive, or shocking given your reverence for the machine) but the entire thing is run through the telephone and the mail. (We can’t decide between the three alternatives, that is Apple or PC) Things take time, and frankly, the clerks and secretaries are getting somewhat long in the masticaters, you know, and well, the upshot is this: Goldberg threw his pants in the wash, and left his wallet in the pocket (oh come on, like that hasn’t happened to you, or me, or anybody) and his card was obliterated. The rules, Sean, are strict. Until his application is processed, and the card mailed and received, he is, in the interim, not a member of the club which will accept him. I know this seems very inconvenient, but it is what we must do, given the number of ringers, phonies and snitches who try to worm the way into the club. (You should seen em outside of Bergen-Belsen, trying to bribe the maitre de. As if!) Should only be two-to-four weeks.

          Oh, BTW, Sean, you said “privileged”? If there’s something I don’t know, tell me! Last I knew, I had to follow the same laws as anybody else, and pay the same taxes. Was there a rebate or exemption or immunity I missed? I mean damnit, if I’m entitled to it, I’m gonna get it, so tell me what it is.

        • Cliff says:

          American Jews are what? 2% of this country? Right?

          The ethnic makeup of America is a concern to White nationalists and perhaps Christian fundies.

          This is not the Jewish State and there is no Jewish component to our nationalistic origins. There is a Christian component and there is ‘White’ racism associated with our nationalism. Manifest Destiny and all.

          Israeli Jews and American Jews (a majority I assume) want the Jewish character of Israel – the JEWISH STATE – to remain Jewish dominantly.

          American Jews don’t care about in the same context, about our ethnic makeup, as they do with Israel.

        • Cliff says:

          Annie, that is absolute nonsense.

          You know Jews who are what? Zionist hardliners? Are those the Jews you know by and large? What are the politics of the Jews you associate with? Liberal Zionist/Conservative/anti or non-Zionist? Etc.

          Politics matter. And judging by your own politics, I find it hard to believe that you associate with any representative segment of American Jewry.

          I’m just going to assume that because you are an activist and anti/non-Zionist, that you are friends with people (in the context of who you are friends with in the local politically active circles) with similar politics to your own.

          If you’re friends with Alan Dershowitz, then I stand corrected.

          These inane whitewashing of any critical perspective on American Jews as a ‘group’ part of a whole (American society) is mind-numbing and racist.

          In college, I remember we regularly brought up statistics about how African Americans were disproportionately poor and so on and so forth. I don’t recall any African American students in my class going berserk and calling everyone racist and anti-Black.

          This is something unique to Zionist Jews like hophmi. They are intellectually dishonest and pathological liars. They are only interested in Brand Israel style advocacy and not discussion.

          And no where is this more evident than on an American college campus. My history teacher would talk about the notion of Black agency during slavery. I.e., slaves may not have done their slave-jobs well as a form of daily resistance. This ‘resistance’ functioned as it did because of the overwhelming force slaves had to contend with. Psychologically, physically, etc.

          And from examples of Black agency such as this, arose the stereotypes of African Americans as ‘lazy’.

          If this was related to Jews in any way, you’d have some hair-brain Zionist going completely bonkers calling everyone in the classroom antisemitic or complaining to the Hillel or StandWithUs.

          Even in a Social Inequality course, there are papers that talk about how American Jews have become ‘White’.

          Taking things out of context and into the cartoony, one-dimensional landscape of Israel advocacy is a ****ing waste of everyone’s time.

          Phil permits this from our resident Zionists all the time. Since this blog started in fact.

          I wonder if you ever went to college. Phil too. Do either of you recall your experiences? Weren’t you ever asked to use the ‘sociological imagination’?

        • sardelapasti says:

          Hoppmi
          “Goldberg’s harsh criticism of the Netanyahu government,”
          is that what sycophantic support of all policies is called?

          ” his support for the two-state solution”
          Oh sure. Goldberg struggles for a fully sovereign, geographically coherent Palestinian state with effective defense of its borders, full sovereignty over its territory and full independence in its decisions, right?

          Unfortunately the time when one could have been charitable in judging you, i.e. attributing your nonsense to mental retardation instead of malignancy, is past.

        • Mooser says:

          “Jews have fully integrated into American society…”

          You may have, Hophmi, but thank God I haven’t. Anyway, I congratulate you on the extent of your assimilation, Hophmi. You talk just like the people I know (and we got lots) who are Christian millennialists, or merely good old white bigots. Yup, only in the Goldenah Medina could a Jewish boy hope to grow up to be like that!

        • cliff, my friends are not ethnocentric, in fact some of the least ethnocentric people i know. that is why i stated “with respect to the american jews i know personally” this would be my experience. however, the evidence (especially as it pertained to the article about goldberg) suggests my friends don’t represent a good portion of the american jewish community many of whom do seem ethnocentric. so much so in fact i can’t think of another ethnic sub group of americans more ethnocentric, which is why i requested hops to direct us to another article (from a more ethnocentric group) as an example of this same kind of ethnocentric focus (as the goldberg article) to demonstrate his ‘least’ allegation.. perhaps i wasn’t clear enough. sorry.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Annie,

          Regarding the ethnocentrism issue, there is a simple question to ask: who are the Anglo, Chinese, German, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Swedish, etc. equivalents of Charles Krauthammer, Dan Senor, Daniel Pipes, David Frum, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Fred Hiatt, Fred Kagan, Jeffrey Goldberg, Jennifer Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, Ken Adelman, Meyrav Wurmser, Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cohen, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, etc. at the Washington Post?

          Who are they?

          Most Americans are not into ethnic nationalist politics organized around foreign governments. Thank God for that.

        • Mooser says:

          “This is something unique to Zionist Jews like hophmi. They are intellectually dishonest and pathological liars. “

          Cliff, you better sit down. I got bad news for you. Being intellectually dishonest and pathological lying is not unique to Jews, not is it even uniquely Zionist Jewish. If you were thinking maybe you could rid the world of intellectual dishonesty and pathological lying by getting rid of Zionist Jews, or even Zionism, hey, it’s a noble thought, and a high aim, but it won’t work. If you don’t believe me, just think of how much intellectual dishonesty and pathological lying the British manufactured while they were helping the Zionists, for instance. And the amount the US needs to keep helping the Zionist regime in Palestine. No, Cliff, Jews may excel in some things, in others we are merely one among equals.

        • Mooser says:

          “Most Americans are not into ethnic nationalist politics organized around foreign governments. Thank God for that.”

          Spend some time learning about the China Lobby.

        • Cliff says:

          To be fair, I do conflate Zionism with Zionists like Hophmi.

          That being said, we sit here discussing this issue every week. For me, continuously since I was about 21.

          So Zionism is my focus (not other imperialist/colonialist movements) and these interactions with Zionists have come to represent Zionism to me. So when I make the statement regarding intellectual dishonesty – it’s not as if I’m disregarding other movements.

          I’m an anti-Zionist and Zionism is my political opponent in this context. Why would I talk about something else? Why rank sophistry accordingly? It doesn’t matter. I’m not concerned with whatever pseudo-scientific approximation is to be made about who is more dishonest – Manifest Destiny or The Land of Israel (LOL).

          hophmi didn’t invent sophistry. He just excels at it.

        • American says:

          Mooser says:

          “This is something unique to Zionist Jews like hophmi. They are intellectually dishonest and pathological liars. “

          Cliff, you better sit down. I got bad news for you. Being intellectually dishonest and pathological lying is not unique to Jews, not is it even uniquely Zionist Jewish.””>>>>>>>

          Zionism /Israel is what is under discussion here.
          Cliff said unique to ‘zionist’ Jews (as ‘among Jews’)….and you ‘conflated’ it to Jews.
          You have the habit of conflating remarks about zionist to Jews exactly the way zionist insist that Israel can’t criticized without also listing ‘all the other’ rouge countries.

          I have bad news for you, your obsession with the ‘Jewish part’ of zionism is revealing…you are obsessed with ‘the damage to Jews’ by zionism…..instead of the overall damage of the zionist to many others. Neither you nor your attitude is “Jewishly individualist” as you present to be … ..it is in fact tribal.
          And tiresome.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Has anyone here noticed many Chinese Americans promoting Chinese ethnic nationalism and China’s national interest in the pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.?

          I can’t bring to mind a single example.

        • Mooser says:

          “Even in a Social Inequality course, there are papers that talk about how American Jews have become ‘White’.”

          It’s part of the National Anthem! Our “alabaster titties gleam, from sea to shining sea” Only in America!

        • Mooser says:

          “hophmi didn’t invent sophistry. He just excels at it.”

          Cliff, that is very disheartening to read. I always had you picked for a guy with high standards. When someone excels at sophistry it isn’t immediately evident their arguments are strictly whole-cloth material.

        • Mooser says:

          “Jews have fully integrated into American society and are, collectively, one of the least ethnocentric groups around.”

          Oh Jesus Christ, what a farce. All day it’s “anti-Zionist, you’re not a Jew”, “secular, you’re not a Jew”, “leftists are traitors to the Jews”

          Oh but when Hophmi needs some “least ethnocentric groups” cred, where does he go, right to us. To use our liberal cred to bolster Zionism. Ah, but actually incorporate (as if it could be done) any of those ideas into his Zionism? Nah, they’re not “purely Jewish enough”

          What a pathetic farce you are, Hophmi. Do they really put up with this kind of intellectual malingering over there?

        • Mooser says:

          “Taking things out of context and into the cartoony, one-dimensional landscape of Israel advocacy is a ****ing waste of everyone’s time.

          Phil permits this from our resident Zionists all the time. Since this blog started in fact.”

          Cliff, who is the “resident Zionist” on the Mondo staff? And you know the comments are as open as the limits of the law allow. So I can’t see where Phil has much control over it.
          And I didn’t go to college, but even I know that in a situation like this, if your opponent wants to make a complete fool of himself, and alienate people into the bargain, you let ‘em. Gladly.
          Or would you rather Mondo said that Zionists have something so powerful, so true, so moving to say, we can’t risk them saying it here? Thinki about it, Cliff, they come here, they say it, and they build up an archive of it, to boot Sounds like a win-win to me.

        • marc b. says:

          Oh Jesus Christ

          aha! we got you. another convert praying openly to the son of g_d. it was only a matter of time mooser. to be modest though, on behalf of christians everywhere i’d like to thank hopmie for pushing mooser into our camp. we couldn’t have done it without you.

        • marc b. says:

          All day it’s “anti-Zionist, you’re not a Jew”, “secular, you’re not a Jew”, “leftists are traitors to the Jews”

          Oh but when Hophmi needs some “least ethnocentric groups” cred, where does he go, right to us.

          he is a remarkable specimen, like an autistic superman. he can peer into the souls of ‘anti-semites’ with his x-ray vision, interpreting every facial tick, every heart beat and irritation as proof of murderous intent, but somehow his translation skills come up short when asked to ‘interpret’ the plain english rantings of some dip sh*t zionist.

        • Shegetz says:

          Or would you rather Mondo said that Zionists have something so powerful, so true, so moving to say, we can’t risk them saying it here? Thinki about it, Cliff, they come here, they say it, and they build up an archive of it, to boot Sounds like a win-win to me.

          Absolutely – “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

          Because, as you say, let people be known for their words and deeds. If you don’t let them act or speak, then how will you really know them?

          This place is a treasure trove of debate, rhetoric, and links to historical archives and articles.

          None of this would exist without the Mondoweiss staff, the Zionists, the Anti-Zionists and uh…Mooser. ;)

        • hophmi says:

          “Oh but when Hophmi needs some “least ethnocentric groups” cred, where does he go, right to us.”

          Eh? I find it boring to talk about my ideas in places where everyone agrees with me. I don’t know how you stand it.

        • Mooser says:

          “aha! we got you. another convert praying openly to the son of g_d.”

          Please don’t count on my religious devotion, Marc.b. I judge religions strictly on the music. Music is good, I believe! Music’s over, I’m a heretic again. And if the music is bad, and a lot of it is, I blaspheme like crazy.
          So don’t count on me.

        • marc b. says:

          I find it boring to talk about my ideas in places where everyone agrees with me.

          well i doubt very much that ‘everyone here agrees’ with everything i say. and your presence here really has nothing to do with intellectual curiousity and everything to do with psychopathology. you find it comforting to think that you are being confronted by ‘anti-semites’ because you can’t imagine an identity without them. no, your commentary here has nothing to do with coming into contact with and debating contrary views. in fact, it’s quite the opposite. you’re here to have your opinions substantiated because every disagreement is another piece of evidence in your mind that you’re correct. there you go. and you didn’t even have to lie on a couch or talk about your mother.

        • marc b. says:

          mooser, i’ve consulted my stylist and your coloring would work perfectly in the catholic church. just have a look:

          link to te-igitur.blogspot.com

          those shoes are you.

        • Mooser says:

          “i’ve consulted my stylist and your coloring would”

          Some people might say that guy has way too many orfreys on his chasuble, but I’m no expert. Religiously, I’m mostly aural. Religious visual art doesn’t really do it for me. But give me good Gospel music, or a Bach Cantata, for instance and I’m ready to take a dip in the font.

        • Mooser says:

          “Cliff said unique to ‘zionist’ Jews (as ‘among Jews’)….and you ‘conflated’ it to Jews.”

          That’s funny, I thought most Zionists are Jews, and a great many Jews, maybe a big majority of them, identify as “Zionists”. Is that not true?

      • lysias says:

        In the UK, Sullivan was gay, Irish, and Catholic. That’s not majority there. Certainly not 25 years ago. As you would know if you had heard as many Paddy jokes as this Irish-American had to endure at Oxford 40 years ago.

        In the U.S., Sullivan, besides being regarded as a Brit, is very much gay. That’s not majority either.

    • kalithea says:

      “The closest analogue to Jeffrey Goldberg among other leading ethnic groups in America is David Duke or Louis Farrakhan.”

      I disagree. He’s much more dangerous. The other two aren’t part of a powerful cult (Zionism) that puts the screws on Washington politicians and loads the deck to get everything it wants.

      Lemme put it this way, DD and LF are small pertaters and have a small following compared to millions of Rightist and “Liberal” Zionists and Christian rightists praying for Armageddon who exert their influence and will over the seat of power.

  5. hophmi says:

    “Is this the kind of journalist to report objectively on the Israel lobby?”

    This is very rich coming from another blogger.

    Are you the kind of journalist to report objectively on the Israel lobby, Phil?

    • sardelapasti says:

      “Are you the kind of journalist to report objectively on the Israel lobby, Phil?”

      At least he is not officially part of the 5th Column Lobby. The indicted guy, Starobin, is; this disqualifies him from any pretense of objective reporting, just as Hoppmi’s official role as all-weather defender of racist murder disqualifies him from any role but that of Bozo.

    • jimmy says:

      there is no israel lobby…just ask all the US senators

    • kalithea says:

      Lobby getting too much exposure for ya? Tough, there’s no putting it back in the box. Suck it up.

    • Cliff says:

      Phil definitely reports honestly on the Israel Lobby.

      Mainstream journalists do not, which is why people go to blogs in the first place.

      In Europe the press is much more open. As Chomsky notes, as you move away from centers of power where public opinion is very important, things open up.

      Chomsky was saying this in the 80s when the media was already pretty concentrated. Now it’s even more concentrated and colludes with the government and army to a higher degree (and in ways Chomsky didn’t mention).

  6. Bumblebye says:

    He must be up for some new high profile position or other.
    Why else write this piece?
    Anybody know which ring his hat’s in?

  7. marc b. says:

    What topics does this “Jewish studies group” discuss? Do those topics mingle Judaism with Zionism? It would be interesting to know.

    sorry, sean, it might be interesting to you (interesting as in the interest my dog shows for TV news programs) but it would all be above your head in any event. you just don’t have the genetic bona fides to ‘get it’. weiss has touched on this before:

    When someone tells [Elif Batuman that] she’ll never understand [Isaac] Babel’s ‘specifically Jewish alienation’, she says: ‘Right. As a six-foot-tall first-generation Turkish woman growing up in New Jersey, I cannot possibly know as much about alienation as you, a short American Jew.’ (‘So you see the problem,’ the man replies.) That’s as much as we hear about Turko-New Jerseyan alienation, in a discussion which is framed as a debate over the extent to which literature can ‘render comprehensible different kinds of unhappiness’….With regard to her distaste for the identity politics-tinged self-exploring encouraged by creative writing schools, she puts her money where her mouth is, and there’s no arguing with that. All the same, I wouldn’t have minded hearing more.

    it’s not that goldenberger, indick, et al are scheming behind closed doors, er, i mean, engaging in informal study groups, they’re just sparing you the inevitable popsicle headache you’d suffer if you tried to analyze their brilliant musings. (seriously, it is hard to comprehend how profoundly stupid goldenberger must be. the best he could aim for in the IDF was a post as prison guard. how he made the leap from prison guard to author of the best “body of work on the subject of Israel, the broader Middle East, and Iran [of] [] anybody, certainly in this country—actually anywhere[,]” is also a topic much too complicated for the likes of you, sean.

    • Citizen says:

      marc b
      sean’s not the only one partial to lists as index of character actors–doesn’t AIPAC keep a list? Does that list reveal anything to the list keeper? It must, if AIPAC keeps one. Ditto re America’s list of terrorist names?

    • Mooser says:

      “is also a topic much too complicated for the likes of you, sean.”

      And when I think how simple it all is, that’s really a pity. Look, marcb, don’t be hard on him. A man, unless he is willing to think in a different way, or has experienced things which force him to think in a different way, will think the way he knows to think. How much time you got to waste?

      And BTW, fella, great reading comprehension on the quoted article and gosh, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an intellectually honest use of a quote.

    • American says:

      “When someone tells [Elif Batuman that] she’ll never understand [Isaac] Babel’s ‘specifically Jewish alienation’, she says: ‘Right. As a six-foot-tall first-generation Turkish woman growing up in New Jersey, I cannot possibly know as much about alienation as you, a short American Jew.’ (‘So you see the problem,’ the man replies.) “…marc.b

      rotflmao!.. ..thanks, that’s the funniest story I’ve seen in quite a while.

  8. Donald says:

    “I would put Jeff’s body of work on the subject of Israel, the broader Middle East, and Iran up against anybody, certainly in this country—actually anywhere”

    That’s just an amazingly stupid thing to say. What about the late Anthony Shadid, just for starters?

    The really galling thing is that Goldberg failed upward. He wrote an influential piece in the New Yorker linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, which was BS, and that should have left him abjectly apologizing for years. Instead he gets to be the journalistic top dog on Israel and US issues. (He also wrote a two part piece about Hezbollah, which showed great interest in Hezbollah links to terrorism, with only a snide passing reference to allegations that Israel and its SLA allies were guilty of torture at their prison at Khiam.)

    There’s a term used by some of the liberal bloggers to describe the incestuous Washington consensus that develops because people in that setting only talk to each other and think that you have to share certain beliefs or you’re not a Very Serious Person like they are. So it was the Very Serious People who “knew” that Saddam posed a great danger to us, and it is the VSP’s who think that the deficit is the all-consuming economic issue. You have no credibility on an issue unless you’ve been wrong in the correct Very Serious way. Only people who supported the Iraq War at the beginning are taken seriously on Iran now, for example. Only people who keep making incorrect economic predictions can be taken seriously about the economy.

    Goldberg is part of that group (certainly on Iraq). So it’s not surprising a magazine named the “Washingtonian” would fawn over him.

    • Krauss says:

      The really galling thing is that Goldberg failed upward

      Yes, this is basically the gist of it. Goldberg’s career has taken off despite a history of failures and incitements to war. The reason is because of the current power structure in Washington, there’s a need for a guy like Goldberg to exist. He fills a role. But as Sullivan stated, it’s that of an operator, not a journalist.

      • Mooser says:

        “Goldberg’s career has taken off despite a history of failures and incitements to war.”

        And Krauss, when I think of how nobody but a Jew can do that in America, and can do it without the help of a single non-Jew, (look at McCain! not for him to fail upwards!)and these incitements to war are so foreign to the non-Jewish commentariat and politicians, my blood just boils. Anyway, did you know a leech filled with boiling blood cooks and tastes like snails? I just pick ‘em of my forearms for a snack.
        Anyway when I think of how the country had a pair of veritable Ghandi’s in the Bush pere‘ and frere and Goldberg (and, as usual, his ILK!!) incited us to war, I could plotz, which is Yiddish, I think, for “syncope”.

        • Mooser says:

          It just shows you, don’t it? Everybody is getting all famischt over I-P issues, and I’m sitting here eating escargot, simmered in vintage (’53) Type B (rh+). Case closed, I would think.

    • Mooser says:

      “The really galling thing is that Goldberg failed upward.”

      Oh, that’s nothing, really. Look at me, nobody has hung me yet, and I’ve never even drawn a long jail sentence.

  9. yourstruly says:

    to be taken seriously about the economy?

    trust only people who keep making incorrect economic predictions?

    & to be taken seriously on iran now?

    trust only people who from the beginning supported the iraq war? -

    trusting the untrustworthy?

    the emperor wears no clothes?

    danger ahead?

    all the above?

    • exactly yourstruly! reminds me of something i read the other day from 2010:
      link to videocafe.crooksandliars.com

      Mr. I’m-Never-Right-About-Anything Bill Kristol shares his thoughts on Rand Paul on Clusterfox and describes Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act as “sophisticated and complicated”.

      there’s something about those neocons…they’re rarely right yet get the front seat time and again. kinda makes you wonder if the fix is in.

      • Mooser says:

        “there’s something about those neocons…they’re rarely right yet get the front seat time and again. kinda makes you wonder if the fix is in.”

        Cause ever since Reagan (oh f–k me, it probably started with Carter, who knows) made the military a cash cow for contractors, in bigger ways than ever before, and with virtually no oversight, it really doesn’t take a whole lotta anything to gin up a war. Every time you rattle a saber it’s like shaking the piggy bank for a huge amount of our economy. So it’s not like anybody even needs a plausible reason, and apparently the entire need for any political consensus (even one as corrupted as Congress) and a “declaration” has been jettisoned. And it’s not like contractors (and contractor employees)have to face am-I-willing-to-die-for-this questions, especially not the hundreds of thousands who work in the US.
        So really, looking back all the way to the War on Vietnam, I don’t see it as all that much of an accomplishment to get a foreign war started from the US. Heck, even Jews are allowed to do it now. I’m not sure it’s all that much of a privilege. Gentiles are reasonably inclusive that way, don’t you think? When it comes to loopholes which might end up to be nooses, I mean.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser
          Yeah, your comment is astute. Kept thinking the same way as I read the transcript of the Hagel vetting.

        • mooser, this particular comment of mine (re:”front seat”) pertained to (failed) predictions and analysis. your comment doesn’t really address their access. usually when people do poorly at their jobs they should be fired.

        • Mooser says:

          “usually when people do poorly at their jobs they should be fired.”

          ROTFLMSJAO!!! Oh Annie, how I wish I lived in your world! Yeah, I’ve noticed the streams of inept, corrupt and in many cases, just plain demented, politicians and administrators fleeing Washington DC, exposed as fools and theives. All except for the Jewish neocons.
          This is America, Annie. The Jews here are pretty much like the non-Jews.

        • All except for the Jewish neocons.
          This is America, Annie. The Jews here are pretty much like the non-Jews.

          as far as (msm) access is concerned i am not sure i agree with you mooser. you failed to lecture phil on that point, it’s not too late:
          link to mondoweiss.net

          What a crazy world we live in. And this is the core power of the Israel lobby, its ability to dominate the discourse, to define conventional wisdom, to conflate American and Israeli interests, and to punish those who opposed the Iraq war and who seek non-militant answers in the Middle East. Look what happened to Barack Obama! (And yes I think this reflects the prominence inside the establishment of Jews: how many readers feel included by Friedman’s comment, “your local Israel Bonds dinner.”)

          Of course Friedman as an Iraq war hawk has the ability to address this rightwing Zionist community. So his endorsement is worrying to the neocons. At 6:30 this morning, Bill Kristol posted an angry response at the Weekly Standard, leaping on the “out of the mainstream” statement. Kristol defines what the mainstream is, cossetting Israel forever:

          and wrt my initial comment about the ‘fix being in’, maybe here’s how it works if you don’t comply:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          it’s called dominating/controlling the discourse and the neocons do a damn good job of it. not saying anyone else can’t try , but neocons seem more up on the game wrt our FP.

        • Mooser says:

          it’s called dominating/controlling the discourse and the neocons do a damn good job of it. not saying anyone else can’t try , but neocons seem more up on the game wrt our FP”

          Yes, absolutely. Every dog has its day.

  10. radii says:

    this whole “survival of the jewish people” propaganda campaign is so damn tiresome … can’t any journalist, anywhere, anytime point out that jews have only been outlasted as a culture by the Chinese (5800+ years to 6000+) and that today they enjoy more peace and security and wealth and power and less persecution (collectively) than they have ever known in all their history ???

      • Citizen says:

        Maybe their religion is that they mean to keep it that way?

        • Mooser says:

          “Maybe their religion is that they mean to keep it that way?”

          Oh, Citizen, you are living in a rose-water paradise, my friend. It’s much worse then that. Think about this: (make sure you have a good grip on the wall, you shouldn’t have an acute implicatory collapse, the implications are vast. Well, actually they extend in all four directions!) What if there is more than one “Jewish” religion?? (cue: Theremin solo)
          What if every time you said, “I’ve got you, you silly weligion” the damn thing jumped around and wouldn’t stay put? And every time you’re sure you’ve got it locked in a box, it turns up beside you dentitioning a Daucus?

          But please, Citizen, go ahead. I never knew it until I got older, but some people admire Elmer Fudd.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser

          Not to worry–I’m a late bloomer too. Having a small garden like Candide does it to you. It’s work to keep out the silly thieving pests, wabbits.

        • Mooser says:

          “Not to worry–I’m a late bloomer too.”

          Me too, ’53 was actually the end of the baby boom.

        • Mooser says:

          “Having a small garden”

          You, Citizen? A “small garden”? Just from what you have mentioned here, you’ve been in the military, and I belive in the VietNam War, came back, went to school, got married, and you do something, in one of the world’s great cities, connected with law, or you are a lawyer. ( I don’t remember exactly) Well, my friend, if that, as far as experience and education is concerned, is a small garden, than by comparison I’m trying to raise my existential subsistence in a flower-pot. From my point of view, you’ve got a freakin’ plantation of experience. Much, much wider than mine could ever be.

    • yrn says:

      this whole “survival of the jewish people” propaganda campaign is so damn tiresome …
      what in the “survival of the jewish people” is propaganda……
      Prosecution and expelling of 2000 years by Christian and Muslims by the Spanish, British, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Germany……..
      Go and read some History books.
      I don’t give a damn about you or anybody else if it makes them tired……

      • Cliff says:

        yrn,

        you recommend others read history books but all your comments are little more than a few lines of nonsense.

        You go read some history books. Then come back here and back up your rants.

        • Mooser says:

          “Then come back here and back up your rants.”

          Cliff, my friend, I’d be careful. That “yrn” is a mean hand with an ellipse. You see some of those seven-dotters he’s dishing out? Yeow! And when you get a guy who can combine extended ellipses with spurious quote marks, well, anything can happen… watch yourself, Cliff, the farce is strong in that one.

        • marc b. says:

          You go read some history books. Then come back here and back up your rants.

          i think he reads a lot of captain israel comic books, cliff.

          and that’s 2,000 years of ‘persecution’ not ‘prosecution’, yurn, you half-wit. because europe was like disney world for everyone but ‘jewish people’ for 2,000 years. like cliff said, read a history book or two, you might find that one or two other people might have suffered in the past 2,000 years.

        • Mooser says:

          “and that’s 2,000 years of ‘persecution’ not ‘prosecution’”

          Not in my case, but I jumped bail. Hey, I took the money, you know I got away. I’m still on the run, headed down South, and I’m still running today.

      • RoHa says:

        Yrn,

        “Prosecution and expelling of 2000 years by Christian and Muslims by the Spanish, British, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Germany……..”

        So you are saying that everyone expels the Jews? If true, why would this be so?
        Think again of my acquaintance (not friend) Dave, who had the distinction of being barred from 23 pubs in the West London area. Why do you think he was barred?

        • Mooser says:

          “Think again of my acquaintance (not friend) Dave, who had the distinction of being barred from 23 pubs in the West London area. Why do you think he was barred?”

          No doubt anti-Davism is resurgent in West London. I think Dave should get a country house, with extensive ground’s, company’s own water, and gravel soil. And complete legal immunity. It’s only fair. All that anti-Davism, you know.
          And the rest of you Daves, you better hope he gets the house. Or they will be coming for you! Cause you’re a Dave! Us Daves better stick together! Now, show me the way to the next Whiskey bar! Oh, don’t ask why.

    • radii- “and less persecution (collectively) than they have ever known in all their history???”

      There is no question that Jews suffer less persecution than ever before in Christian dominated countries (or post Christian). But the only reason Jews suffer less persecution in Islamic dominated countries is because they left (fled) Islamic dominated countries 60 or so years ago. Based upon how persecuted Christians are in those countries, there is every reason to assume that without Israel, those Jews (had they stayed in their countries of birth) would be persecuted as well.

      (To contradict or argue with my statement you could either prove that Christians are in fact not persecuted in Islamic dominated countries or you could posit why Jews would be treated better than Christians in Islamic dominated countries.)

      • eljay says:

        >> Based upon how persecuted Christians are in those countries, there is every reason to assume that without Israel, those Jews (had they stayed in their countries of birth) would be persecuted as well.

        Based on how persecuted homosexuals are in those countries, there is every reason to assume that without “Gay State”, those homosexuals (had they stayed in their countries of birth) would be persecuted as well.

        Oh, wait, homosexuals didn’t require a supremacist “Gay State” in order to be less persecuted. Huh. Imagine that.

      • RoHa says:

        “Based upon how persecuted Christians are in those countries, there is every reason to assume that without Israel, those Jews (had they stayed in their countries of birth) would be persecuted as well.”

        Based on the historic low levels of persecution of Jews and Christians in Islamic dominated countries, there is every reason to assume that, without Israel to poison relations between Jews and Muslims, and the support historically Christian countries give to Israel, those low levels would have continued.

      • Mooser says:

        “But the only reason Jews suffer less persecution in Islamic dominated countries is because they left (fled) Islamic dominated countries 60 or so years ago.”

        I get it, Yonah. The many centuries that Jews have lived in Moslem lands, the Moslem’s knew the Jews would be leaving in 1950, and therefore didn’t feel the need to persecute them. Makes perfect sense, unless you believe that time only goes one way. But I know that you, Yonah, have a different viewpoint on that, and seem time it as much more elastic.
        Yup, those Moslem’s would get all het up to persecute the Jews, back a couple hundred years ago but then somebody says, “You know, they’ll be leaving in 1950, so really, guys, why bother?” And all the other Moslem’s say, “He’s right, let’s just forget about, we’ll only persecute them a little.”

  11. Mooser says:

    “this whole “survival of the jewish people” propaganda campaign is so damn tiresome”

    And it’s such an easily seen fraud! It’s so obvious! By any measure (why, just look at Annie’s so-called “anti-Semitism!”) it has been conclusively proven, that Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society (or a society with those ideals, and moving towards them) where religion is separated, as far as possible, from government. To say that Jews will do better where religious and ethnic supremacy is in question is absurd.
    But gosh, am I a self-hating anti-Semite for acknowledging that Jews are doing better in the US, or am I a philo-Semite? It’s so hard to know.
    But just look: All the Jews in “Israel” (as they call it) are afraid of the Arabs. Jews in America aren’t afraid of anybody, as many articles about US politics in Mondo will show you.

    Luckily, I happen to know what terrifies Zionists. Honest, I do, I’ve seen it many times. They are very, very frightened of Jews. Sends them into a panic.

    • Mooser says:

      “it has been conclusively proven, that Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society (or a society with those ideals, and moving towards them) where religion is separated, as far as possible, from government. “

      And before anybody starts telling me just how entangled and influential Jews are with the US government, remember, you are just proving my point. We do well, and would do even better if they quit it. I didn’t say we were perfect, or the society was perfect. But I don’t remember anybody firing a home-made rocket at me because I am Jewish. In fact, if I put a bag over my head, and don’t talk, nobody knows what religion I am. Oy Only in the Goldenah Medina can a Jew walk around like that, with no hindrances, except curbs and walls!

    • mooser, speaking of what terrifies zionists,(other jews) what did you think of the end of the article…about goldberg chewing out that one author who happened to write something he didn’t like? i thought it was funny.

    • yrn says:

      “Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society ……” as Democratic Germany …….. oh ye they flourished and survived…… until someone came….. and showed them who he is and who they are……. I bet they were not afraid of anybody too……
      You are so Naive and so superficial….
      All Jews in Israel are afraid of ARABS…. you are so intelligent and so wise, that its better for you to be in the US……..
      So here are some news for you, my grandpa in Germany was afraid all the time for the future, as he had no confident…..
      No one in Israel is afraid of the Arabs, you know why….. because we don’t ….. if we were so afraid we would all come to your America………..

      • Mooser says:

        “oh ye they flourished and survived…… until someone came….. and showed them who he is and who they are……. I bet they were not afraid of anybody too……”

        You know, yrn, when a person grow up all fearful, like you are, it’s usually because of childhood abuse. That’s really, although we are pretty goddam compassionate here, not something you want to advertise about yourself.

        And I’m not afraid of anybody. Oh, I can imagine lots of things to be afraid of, but I hardly see how that helps, especially if they’re not real things.

        “….. if we were so afraid we would all come to your America………..”
        You would more than likely be in jail, on misdemeanor battery and assault charges, before a month passed. Given six months, I bet you could commit a felony. We pay for stuff here, and we don’t assault each other without consequences. I don’t know if you would fit in.
        Look, yrn, if Israel shows how you act when you think you have something to be afraid of, I shudder to think what you might do when you have nothing to be afraid of. And I wonder if you have any concept of being afraid of, or concerned with the la…. oh, screw me, what am I thinking?

        • Mooser says:

          “and showed them who he is and who they are…….”

          You poor kid. I bet he did. Impossible not to feel sorry for you, yrn. G’nossen tsum emess , you know what I mean?

        • yrn says:

          Mooser

          “Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society ……” as Democratic Germany …….. oh ye they flourished and survived…… until someone came….. and showed them who he is and who they are……. I bet they were not afraid of anybody too……”

          As I have seen that it was hard for you to understand what I wrote, let me explain it for you again.
          Did the Jews flourish in Democratic Germany between 1919–1933 ???
          The ‘Golden Years’ The outstanding feature of this period was the polarization between the unprecedented integration of the Jews in every sphere of life, in the theater (Max Reinhardt), in music (Arnold Schönberg), in the visual arts (Max Liebermann), in philosophy (Herman Cohen) and in science (Albert Einstein).

          And then came 1933 and Hitler Showed the Jews WHO IS IS AND SHOWED THEM WHO THEY ARE…….

          Understood……… so get back to your comment
          ““it has been conclusively proven, that Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic,”……….

          Is Germany your case…… vus sugste chuchem……

        • eljay says:

          >> Mooser: Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society …
          >> yrn: As I have seen that it was hard for you to understand what I wrote, let me explain it for you again.
          >> Did the Jews flourish in Democratic Germany between 1919–1933 ???
          >> The ‘Golden Years’ …
          >> And then came 1933 and Hitler Showed the Jews WHO IS IS AND SHOWED THEM WHO THEY ARE…….

          How strange that you would think Hitler and Nazi Germany represent a democratic and egalitarian society. Because, y’know, they don’t (and didn’t), which fact agrees perfectly with Mooser’s assertion.

        • Mooser says:

          “Understood……… so get back to your comment
          ““it has been conclusively proven, that Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic,”……….
          Is Germany your case…… vus sugste chuchem……”

          Oh God, somebody pull his tongue out of his throat, and put a stick between his teeth! “Yrn” is having an epillepsive fit!!

          Look, yrn, it was an uncle, an older brother or maybe even (God forbid, and a stomach should grow in my bellybutton for saying it) your Dad or a religious figure who “showed you who he is and who you are”. I’m very sorry for you, but we don’t do personal therapy here.
          BTW, it’s as clear as day and as bright as the sun, pal, nuff said?

        • yrn says:

          You say:
          “Hitler showed them who he is and who they are…….
          You poor kid. I bet he did. Impossible not to feel sorry for you”,

          and as you are so sarcastic I bet you don’t feel sorry for the millions of Jews he killed………….

        • Mooser says:

          “and as you are so sarcastic I bet you don’t feel sorry for the millions of Jews he killed………….”

          That was a horrible and hurtful thing to say, and that’s why you said it. It’s really killing you that some Jews aren’t as fearful and abused as you, and that there are Jews you can’t control. Well, yrn, get used to it. It’s a world-wide (if somewhat attenuated) religion and culture, and you are not the center of our world. In fact, you are becoming a real embarrassment, you know? Shape up.
          I would tell you what would happen if you said that in my presence, but it would just give the moderator trouble, and besides, every indication is that it’s exactly what you crave.

          You know what’s really bothering you “yrn”? It’s that I won’t feel sorry for you.

        • yrn says:

          If Jews like you can write “Hitler showed them who he is and who they are…….
          You poor kid. I bet he did.”
          I bet you don’t give a damn about anyone.
          So I should I even bother what you think about me.

          Nothing that you could say could be worse then what you said already.

        • yrn says:

          Mooser: Jews survive and flourish best in a democratic, egalitarian society

          Did the Jews flourish in Democratic Germany between 1919–1933 ???
          >> The ‘Golden Years’ …

          So…….. they flourished and then what Happened eljay.???
          Did this flourish era helped them from extermination from 1933 and on????

          Would that Happened, if the Jews in Germany had a country like Israel to save them.??

          which fact agrees perfectly with Mooser’s assertion.???

      • Mooser says:

        yrn, landsmann, I’m a little famischt (really, I’m mica schist!) over your comment. What is the significance of all the …’s? Some have 4 or 5 .’s and some 7 or more .’s. I’m not into numerology, not a caballero. Would you please tell me what they mean?
        I can see that they’re scary, but they must have a deeper meaning not clear to me.

      • Mooser says:

        “you are so intelligent and so wise, that its better for you to be in the US……..”

        No wonder there’s so many .’s on that one. yrn, if you want to agree with me that a country which doesn’t even recognise Jews as a group is better than Israel for them, and that Zionism is a criminal fraud, you can make your ellipses as many dots long as you please.
        Yup, pal, you hit it right on the head, friend. It doesn’t take a whole lotta brains to figure it out.

        But remember yrn, you can’t just throw people out of their houses, and take them over, with the “security police” (or whatever you call those goonems) arresting the real owners. It’s good here, but that good it’s not. But there very little ethnic-based opposition to Jews getting a mortgage.

      • eljay says:

        >> You are so Naive and so superficial….

        Coming from a Zio-supremacist, that’s very funny.

        >> All Jews in Israel are afraid of ARABS…

        And why shouldn’t they be? They’ve terrorized, ethnically cleansed, killed and maimed them, and destroyed their homes, lands, villages and livelihoods. “ARABS” have a right to be pretty f*cking pissed about what “Jews in Israel” did – AND CONTINUE TO DO – to them.

        >> So here are some news for you, my grandpa in Germany was afraid all the time for the future

        Why? Was Germany ARAB? What “the future” ARAB? If he was afraid of Nazis and he chose to kill, terrorize and ethnically cleanse ARABS and steal and colonize their land, then your grandfather was a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist. Nothing to be proud of.

        >> No one in Israel is afraid of the Arabs …

        If no-one is afraid Arabs, what’s with all the walls, fences, checkpoints, destruction, assassinations, murder, theft, colonization, cleansing and general supremacism?

        You sound like the rapist whose got someone chained up in his basement. You whisper a lot in public, you’re very nervous and won’t let anyone into your house but, no, you’re NOT AFRAID! of justice and morality.

        • Mooser says:

          “You are so Naive and so superficial….”

          He is absolutely right, eljay. That’s pretty good description of me. It’s just amazing how much stress and disillusionment, how much health-destroying anxiety, how much soul-crushing ideology you can sh-t-can, if you just don’t fall for Zionism. And it always gives me something to be comforted by. I’ve fallen for a lot, I know it, but at least not that.

  12. Mooser says:

    “mooser, speaking of what terrifies zionists,(other jews) what did you think of the end of the article…”

    First of all, Annie, that only works for a few minutes. They get over it pretty fast, and go: “Well, you obviously aren’t a Jew anymore, if you ever were really one in the first place” and that’s the end of that. But it’s sometimes fun for a minute or two. But let that pass it’s not important.
    Articles have “ends”? I did not know that! I thought they only had headlines and comments. Sometimes there’s pictures, but most have that same stupid > thing in the center. Can you get rid of that? Anyway I’ll look into this “end” thing and get back to you. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, Annie, but I gotta check.

    ” i thought it was funny.” Yeah, as soon as that hard knot in my kishkas loosens, and I stop grinding my jaws, I’ll remember to laugh. Damn, I knew I shoulda stuck to the headlines and comments.

    • i’ll blockquote it for you…!! hold on a sec

      edit, here it is (pg 4…middle stuffing)

      Part of the problem is that Goldberg—once the quarry of schoolyard bullies—has displayed a taste for punching at targets well below his weight, and in a no-holds-barred, ad hominem fashion. For example, he went after the not particularly well-known journalist Allison Benedikt for an article she wrote for the Awl, an online magazine. The piece was about Benedikt’s disillusionment, as an American Jew, with Israel—specifically about how she felt “sick” about a recent trip, with her non-Jewish husband, to an Israel that felt like a war zone.

      In one post, Goldberg castigated her for her “stunning lack of curiosity” as to why Israel is besieged and attacked her “dickish husband” (who likewise blasted Goldberg in a tweet). The battering seemed so out of proportion to the offense that Goldberg pulled back, quoting a reader who had been following the episode: “Jeffrey, do you also like to kill little puppies for fun? Leave this girl alone.”

      And yet, as Goldberg noted on his blog, about 60 percent of his mail was running in support of his assault on Benedikt. “Here’s the real psychosis,” says a Jewish journalist who knows Goldberg but asked not to be quoted by name for fear of his ire. “At some level, American Jews want that level of aggression in a spokesman” because of their history of oppression. And Goldberg “gets pleasure out of torturing people.”

      They get over it pretty fast

      you’re sooo bad mooser.

  13. Mooser says:

    “And yet, as Goldberg noted on his blog, about 60 percent of his mail was running in support of his assault on Benedikt. “Here’s the real psychosis,” says a Jewish journalist who knows Goldberg but asked not to be quoted by name for fear of his ire. “At some level, American Jews want that level of aggression in a spokesman” because of their history of oppression. And Goldberg “gets pleasure out of torturing people.”

    Excuse me, I fail to find anything the least bit risible about it. I think Sean is your man for that stuff. He keeps tautogs, (was it Shmuel or Hostage who noted that?) and has even gotten them to breed in captivity. As to why that section of article turned up in your comments, look, I can barely manage e-mail.

    • Mooser says:

      Funny, ha, ha. I went to the cardiologist last week and he told me my blood pressure was so high a stint wouldn’t do any good, I really need an overflow-bottle installed.

      • Mooser says:

        You know, it’s not as inconvenient as I feared, and it really relieves the pressure. Anyway, I was popping the leeches, poor guys.

    • it turned up in my comments because i thought Allison Benedikt terrified goldberg. here she was just an unknown writer sharing her experience and it must have so terrified him he went out of his way to publicly crucify her (of all people!), unmercifully. for what? phil wrote about her article here:
      link to mondoweiss.net

      and the author, Starobin, explains it by citing another ‘anonymous Jewish journalist’ saying “American Jews want that level of aggression in a spokesman”? really? they do? iow, american jews want goldberg? says who? anyway, i thought it was funny/weird to read. very actually. sorry for messing w/your blood pressure.

      • Mooser says:

        “it turned up in my comments because i thought Allison Benedikt terrified goldberg. here she was just an unknown writer sharing her experience and it must have so terrified him he went out of his way to publicly crucify her (of all people!)”

        Gold berg did that? And he calls himself Jewish? My God, is there no end to the evils of assimilation? I mostly stay out of churches, for that very reason. Ideas can take hold of your mind and lead to awful consequences. It just show’s ya, donnit? Over there, a bloody and excruciating form of capital punishment, and over here, the perfect design for a set of “mag” wheels!

        Hedge!

  14. Mooser says:

    “says who?”

    Annie, you must watch this. Your “says who” implies that there is, besides top Jewish journalists like Goldberg, top Jewish pundit, Jewish leaders and Chief Rabbis, some mass or polity of ordinary Jewish people who have a voice and who’s needs must be considered.
    And if there was such as mass of ordinary Jewish people like that, tribal unity would demand that people like Goldberg take their needs into consideration. How on earth would he (or the other leaders and such) get anything done in that case? It would simply gum up the works. But that has been the great advance, the great modern refashioning of Judaism, which makes almost every other religion, well, obsolete. Judaism has faced the fact that religion is not a job for amateurs, but should be administered almost solely by professionals. I’m not sure any other religion has streamlined itself like that for the modern corporate era. But then, it’s all a matter of recognising opportunities in events that appear to others as tragedy.

    • And if there was such as mass of ordinary Jewish people like that, tribal unity would demand that people like Goldberg take their needs into consideration.

      tribal unity if a farce. goldberg and that author can make whatever claims they want. obviously somebody has decided ‘American Jews need that level of aggression in a spokesman’ but it’s more economical or effective to claim ““American Jews want that level of aggression in a spokesman”

      but obviously not all american jews want that and if they did it stands to reason they could opt for a hard hitter like mj rosenberg. but downright bulldog abuse is generally enjoyed by rightwingers and it’s a marking of gop lingo.

      there are enough stereotypes in the article to sink a ship. i think there are plenty of american jews turned off by goldberg and we can ask ourselves why someone like goldberg is held up as the top dog when he’s so wrong all the time! who died and made him king? or forthat matter who decides to shove lil bil kristol up front day in and day out, and provide a platform for jennifer rubin’s causticity to be splashed all over the msm day in and day out(or weekly or whatever). somewhere there’s powerpushers and we all know it. goldberg is simply not as brilliant as he’s made out to be. he may be charismatic, he may be a decent writer, but as an analyst he sucks.

      anyway…rambling.

      the great modern refashioning of Judaism…..Judaism has faced the fact that religion is not a job for amateurs, but should be administered almost solely by professionals. I’m not sure any other religion has streamlined itself like that for the modern corporate era.

      i don’t know, but i’m ready for this zio phase of judasim to run it’s course, completely.

      • Mooser says:

        “i don’t know, but i’m ready for this zio phase of judasim to run it’s course, completely.”

        Well, considering what lengths Zionists had to go to get “human material” to make the “new Jew” out of, I would say it was just about still born, really, and has been on life-support, ever since. And you know what they used to say about old Charles the Second.
        And I have great faith in my fellow Jews when it comes to desertion. Given the vagaries of Jewish history, we should rival norvegicus in detecting a foundering, and scrambling down the spring-lines.

        “tribal unity is a farce.”

        Nah, can’t be. If it was, I don’t think Phil, and so, so many others* would be making such strenuous efforts, and risking so much, in some cases their lives, to try and do something, anything to make it better, make things turn in to less of a tragedy. Now, I’m sure for the most part they make these efforts on a humanitarian level, that is, a consciousness that tries to consider the consequences and justice for everyone, everywhere, but it can’t be denied that they may feel they have a special insight into this situation (I-P issues) or more likely, an extra spur to their commitment given by feelings which could be described as a facet of ‘tribal unity’.

        But any way when it comes to the motivations and actions of Goldberg and Rubin and their ilk, I have no clue. The balebatisheh yiden are a mystery to me. I’m strictly prosteh leit, you know?

        • not strictly, you’re a mensch too

        • Mooser says:

          “i don’t know, but i’m ready for this zio phase of judasim to run it’s course, completely.”

          That’s funny, I thought you didn’t believe in God, or religion, or something like that (with of course, an exception for the Amish) and would make it all disappear. So it seems to me that if God doesn’t exist, and religion is invalid, all we can do is waste time and avoid doing things while we screech at God to help us and intercede for us, which He’s not going to do, because, well, He doesn’t exist. (Of course, when it comes to She, well, like the song says: “Not a trace of doubt in my mind, I’m a believer”) See, if we all sat in Temple and kibbutzed and nagged God about Zionism, would anything get done? I doubt it. Unless, of course, you worry that God might answer our prayers. Of course, an atheist might think that, but as a believer, I never do.
          From what I’ve seen, helping the Zionists is the last thing on God’s mind. (Not, of course, that I would know what was, but really, do you think anything the Zionists have done so far smacks of divine help? God is supposed to be smart and good.)

        • mooser, i said ‘organized religion’ (religion institutionalized), nothing about god, erasing god or invalidating belief in god . and zionism is a political construct that has co-opted religious tenets to support the construct.
          link to mondoweiss.net

          also, i said i was a secular person, not an atheist.

        • “zionism is a political construct that has co-opted religious tenets …”
          ——————————————–
          Yes Annie,
          but Mooser doubts that in Israel (and elsewhere) …

          ‘There are Jews who don’t believe in God but who still believe that He
          gave to the Jews the ownership of the Land of Israel.’ (Israel Shahak)

        • Mooser says:

          “but Mooser doubts that in Israel (and elsewhere) …”

          But as far as supplying a single quote to support your statement, you came up empty? Gosh, that could cause a person to maybe think you are full of it, you know? Just saying…

        • Mooser says:

          “and zionism is a political construct that has co-opted religious tenets to support the construct.”
          Yes, it co-opted the religion. Hardly a big accomplishment, unless you think God was guarding the purity of the Jewish religion. But yes, as you said, Zionism co-opted the religion, (at least as far as we see it, I don’t know what Jews in far-away places are doing.)
          Which is why looking for religious explanations, or even Jewish cultural explanations, while, I admit, lot’s of fun (I do it all the time if you haven’t noticed) and for some people it seems to be extremely personally satisfying, but it’s dead end as far as doing anything about Zionism. (And BTW, it’s also why a site like this needs to put up a pretty high “Berlin” wall) And it is exactly where the Zionists want you to go!! (That was bold, italic and all caps) If you are a secular person, and an American, do you really think that Jews are responsible, as Jews, for what other Jews do?
          What happens when you go there (Zionism as “Jewish” rather than just another bad political ideology) is you enter a long labyrinth which dumps you out at a dead end.
          And Annie, if those lower-case “G”s cost you in eternity, don’t blame me. I treat God like I do Jewish women, with extreme respect, bordering on frantic fear.

        • According to Shahak (at MIT in 1994) it’s a “very famous joke” in Israel.
          ———————————————————————————————————-
          I’ve already told you that. Don’t you believe me or don’t you believe Shahak? Or didn’t you get it?

        • Yes, it co-opted the religion. Hardly a big accomplishment

          i agree. just a cheap attempt at trying to co-op people’s faith to bolster a political agenda. as far as exposing the crimes of the state and moving forward i think attacking the religion is a bad move. i make a distinction between religions and how people interpret them. especially as a secular person i think it’s important to be mindful of the faithful.

          (And BTW, it’s also why a site like this needs to put up a pretty high “Berlin” wall) And it is exactly where the Zionists want you to go!!

          don’t i know it.

        • oh, and as for your questions mooser, maybe you just don’t read many of my comments. it’s hard to believe you would even ask me that.

        • “do you [Annie] really think that Jews are responsible, as Jews,
          for what other Jews do?”
          ———————
          Well Mooser,
          When these Jews support the “other Jews” (Israel), religiously, politically, financially, militarily – and say that they are supporting them AS JEWS –
          what do you say? – I’m just asking you as a Jew who makes a big deal of himself being Jewish and not supporting the “other Jews”.

        • Mooser says:

          “oh, and as for your questions mooser, maybe you just don’t read many of my comments. “

          Oh my gosh, Annie, I hope I didn’t imply I was thinking of your comments when I wrote that. So why read my unclear writing when the first part of this article explains it much better than I ever could. The fact that it’s nominally about Gilad Atzmon isn’t really relevant, it’s not like his sentiments and POV is original.
          Of course, it all depends on what you think will do the most good.

        • Mooser says:

          “Or didn’t you get it?”

          There’s no getting past you, Klaus. You’re right, I didn’t get it, and I was just trying to cover up by joking. Maybe if you could explain it some, so I know what is going on? Or would you rather just mock me and make fun of me?

        • Mooser’s Berlin Wall

          “a site like this [Mondoweiss] needs to put up a pretty high ‘Berlin’ Wall.”
          ————————————————————————————————————
          Mooser means that there has to be a “high ‘Berlin’ Wall” to keep out blaming Judaism or the Jewish culture for the faults of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’.

          The Berlin Wall is in fact a very good metaphor/analogy for what he means:

          The Berlin Wall was not only meant to keep people from leaving East Germany. It was also meant to keep out critical ideas of Communist East Germany – by blocking information and ideas to the public of the DDR –
          ideas that said:
          - ‘Your faults as a state are the faults of the Communists/Marxist ideology.’
          ———————————————————————————————————–
          Israel’s faults are the faults of Judaism/the Jewish ideology – but Mooser wants a Berlin Wall to keep that sort of criticism out of Mondoweiss.

        • lukelea says:

          “zionism is a political construct that has co-opted religious tenets …”

          Not exactly. Zionism was closely tied to the tenets of the Abrahamic covenant from the beginning. The difference is that today many Zionists in Israel think they have an unqualified promise to the land of Israel, whereas in the Patriarchal narratives are clear that the promises are conditional — conditional on adherence not simply to ritual requirements but to certain moral principles which are clearly laid out in the middle chapters of Genesis. I explicated those principles in detail based on a very close reading of the texts in an article published in the journal Judaism in the 1980′s, back when the West Bank settlers were first advancing religious claims to “Judea and Samaria.” I urged the secular leftists at the time to take those texts seriously and debate their literal meaning just as you would any other text, going toe-to-toe with the orthodox rabbinate with no quarter given. In other words, be serious intellectuals. The results were . . . well, judge for yourselves:

          link to docs.google.com

        • ” Abrahamic covenant … promise to the land of Israel … conditional on adherence … to certain moral principles … laid out in the … Genesis.”
          —————————–

          lukelea -
          Does it matter that the “promise to the land” is conditional on something said in the Genesis? – It’s still a transcendental claim to the land. – Do you take a transcendental claim to a piece of real estate seriously?

        • lukelea says:

          “Does it matter that the “promise to the land” is conditional on something said in the Genesis? – It’s still a transcendental claim to the land. – Do you take a transcendental claim to a piece of real estate seriously?”

          If you read the paper you will see that it is not a transcendental claim — it is something even an atheist could believe.

        • lukelea-
          What’s your answer to my question? – I have another question:
          ——————–
          As a convert to Judaism, you are an adopted child of the Jewish family.
          You now belong to the Jewish community of heirs to the “promised land”.
          Right? – Do you think you now have a right of return and rightful claim to
          the ‘promised land’ (this piece of real estate called Palestine)?

        • lukelea says:

          Klaus Bloemker asks if I, as a convert to Judaism, “have a right of return and rightful claim to the ‘promised land’ (this piece of real estate called Palestine)?

          Let me reflect on this. No, I don’t think so. For one thing, I already have a place to live, in America. And as I am not being persecuted as a Jew I have no need to take refuge in Israel. If I were being persecuted I would like to know that I might have a legal right to move to Israel to escape persecution. But of course legal rights and moral rights are two different things.

          But for those Jews already living in Israel the question is a little different. The most they can hope for is that they might have a recognized legal right to live in certain parts of Palestine not in the eyes of the so-called “international community” — they already have that — but in the eyes of the Palestinians themselves and of the Arab world and the world of Islam in general. Once they obtain that legal recognition then I think they would have a moral right to remain there so long as they did not attack their neighbors are do anything else to nullify that right.

          Because part of European Jewry fled Europe for Palestine to escape persecution, indeed annihilation, they (or rather their descendants) find themselves there, thanks to the Balfour Declaration and the encouragement of the victors in World Wars I and II. This is a matter of historical fact. They remain there as a matter of necessity, because they have no other place to go, no other country to call their own. The only right they can claim is the right of self-preservation. Some people, Lubos Motl for example, say they are there by right of conquest but I don’t believe there is any such thing as a right of conquest in a civilized world, no matter how often it may have been invoked in ages past.

          So the real question is how can the Israeli Jews living in their own sovereign state become acceptable in the eyes of their neighbors. This was essentially the problem faced by a small band of West Semitic people at the end of the Bronze Age, escaping the collapse of an ancient civilization in which they had lived for many generations. The solution to that problem was a principle discovered by the first genius in Jewish history, who remains one of the greatest geniuses in all of world history. The situation on the ground is very different now than it was in the days of the Patriarchs, it is a much more crowded place today (as indeed it was in the days of Moses) but the same principle still applies. It is the principle of reason (and justice) in place of force and fraud as the means of settling international disputes. It is no accident that a tiny and therefore relatively powerless people (“few in numbers”) discovered the potential of this approach nor is it surprising that it eventually appealed to the oppressed majorities in the surrounding states: the very notion of a universal standard of justice and equity by its very nature appeals to the weak. Nor is it surprising that this principle has had such a long, hard time getting established as the only legitimate basis of a civilized state. To me at least it seems little short of a miracle — a miracle for which the Jewish people can take a certain amount of credit I suppose. It is certainly their best hope for survival now as it was in the beginning some 3500 years ago.

          I hope this answers your question. You really should read that paper I referenced*, a completely foot-noted version of which you can find in your local library (Judaism, 1987, Summer Issue, published by the American Jewish Congress). The footnotes are the best part.

          * link to sites.google.com

        • seanmcbride says:

          lukelea,

          I much enjoyed your article from the journal Judaism, and I noticed that you made an important point back in 1987 that I have been trying to make on Mondoweiss in 2013:

          The proponents of territorial compromise, by contrast, have thus far been content to rest their case on what, in their own view, are the perfectly adequate grounds of fairness and the long-term interests of the state: internally for democracy, and externally for peace with Israel’s neighbors. What is more, the leaders of the peace movement (as they will be the first to admit) are not really conversant with the governing religious texts in this matter. Neither do they care to be — an attitude that springs, no doubt, from the deep sense of aversion that many of them must feel, as intellectuals, to the whole Orthodox enterprise of bibliolatry (or rather Torah-olatry) with its sacerdotalism and fetishism of the texts. As secularly educated individuals they are repelled by the posture of superstitious awe. The result, however, is a curious one for intellectuals. They refuse to debate the meaning of a book. And not just any book, but one that is, by all accounts, a primary document of Western culture and civilization. Rather than engage zealots in controversy over the interpretation of Scriptures, they prefer to remain silent. And so they allow the Biblical claim to pass unchallenged.

          But in ceding this point the doves are committing a serious tactical error. I say this partly because, in a closely contested parliamentary system such as Israel’s, every segment of opinion holds the balance of power. Even a comparatively minor shift could — and some day very well may — prove decisive in the final disposition of the occupied territories. Hence, no stone should be left unturned. But there is an even more important reason why the Orthodox right needs to be challenged on the question of the territories. A close, critical reading of the Torah reveals that no such unqualified or exclusive claim to the West Bank and Gaza (or to any other part of Eretz Israel for that matter) can be made. Here I want to review what the relevant texts do say, for the benefit of readers who may be unfamiliar with them.

          I couldn’t agree more.

          It’s possible that Mondoweiss would prefer not to pursue this discussion here. If that is the case, you are welcome to post your thoughts on this subject here:

          link to friendfeed.com

          Also feel free to start any new threads on controversies concerning religious Zionism and the entanglement of contemporary Judaism with Zionism (or any other topic on Mideast politics for that matter).

        • eljay says:

          >> In other words, be serious intellectuals.

          About god and religious scriptures. That’s funny. Well, once they figure all that out, perhaps the “serious intellectuals” can let us know which parts of Middle Earth belong to Jews, which parts belong to non-Jews and which parts the hobbits get to live in once we Men divvy up all the land.

        • that’s a great link mooser. thanks for clarifying!

        • Israel’s faults are the faults of Judaism/the Jewish ideology – but Mooser wants a Berlin Wall to keep that sort of criticism out of Mondoweiss.

          uh huh, because colonialism is so ‘jewish’.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Klaus,

          You can discuss Luke Lea’s Judaism article here without encountering any friction, resistance, moderation or “Berlin Walls”:

          link to friendfeed.com

          I think it’s an important article and deals with some core issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that need to be fully addressed.

          I don’t think that Zionism — especially religious Zionism — can be explained or understood by standard left-wing political theories on colonialism.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “If you read the paper you will see that it is not a transcendental claim — it is something even an atheist could believe.”

          As an atheist who read your paper, I would say that it assumes, on a broader level, that the religious argument itself is valid–that religious texts and tenets can play a role here. To that, the only reasonable and acceptable response from any thinking person is: no, religious views are irrelevant to political claims and anyone who proposes religion as a basis for the claim has forfeit his or her right to even have his or her voice heard, let alone have a place at the table when the decisions are being made.

          However, israel has permitted itself to reside in the swamp of humanity, where religious claims aren’t simply laughed out of the court of public and governmental opinion. (Not that it’s alone in this arena. Cf, e.g., USA, KSA.) But even if one assumes the premise, however, the problem with the argument is that there is no such thing as a “right” religious answer, that can be gleened from the conflicting mishmash of nonsense, supersitition, myth, bigotry and tribal history that makes up the heart of any religion’s scriptures and traditions. (The article also, in the end, exposes why monotheism is one of the five worst things ever invented by man.) The fact is that one can make an argument from the text for basically any point with more or less the same level of persuasiveness, depending upon which inferences one wishes to accept. There is no right answer, because there is nothing external to the texts against which to judge your thesis. (Which is why theology of all kinds is not actually a subject of study, but merely exercises in reasoning and rhetoric, with a context but devoid of any actual content.) It thus reduces to a question of acceptance, ad-hoc rationalizations and appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.

          So, sure, if one accepts the series of premises concerning “God’s covenant,” then your conclusion has some logical soundness, but one needs simply to reject a number of your premises to leave your conclusion riven in the dust. And — and this is the important part — there is and can never be any objective basis for favoring either the acceptance or the rejection of the premises, by the very nature of religion itself. (See, e.g., your rather graceful dance around the question of whether Christians are in fact monotheists) Therefore, there can never be a right answer.

        • sean, i appreciate your blog serving as a host for this discussion on the political/ religious merging and your ideas about ‘ancient judaism’. be interesting to see if luke joins you over there but even if he doesn’t good luck.

        • Mooser says:

          “As an atheist who read your paper…..”

          Thank you Woody. I can’t thank you enough. I’ve been waiting six months, possibly more to read what you just wrote. You would think it was so simple nobody could miss it.
          (And as far as I can see, you don’t even have to be an atheist to lodge those objection, not at all. All you have to do is worship a different God, or Gods, as the case may be.)
          Thanks for taking the time to write that comment, if nothing else, you helped me.

        • Mooser says:

          “uh huh, because colonialism is so ‘jewish’.”

          Or possibly, because it’s not. But an awful lot of people are. And projection is a m—-ucker, as they say.

        • Mooser says:

          “that’s a great link mooser. thanks for clarifying!”

          Annie, thank you so much for looking at it. Even tho it is referencing a different event (the Scarfe cartoon) I though it was very relevant.
          Even tho it’s probably pretty damn presumptuous of me, I feel a lot better. Thanks.

        • Mooser says:

          “To that, the only reasonable and acceptable response from any thinking person is: no, religious views are irrelevant to political claims and anyone who proposes religion as a basis for the claim has forfeit his or her right to even have his or her voice heard, let alone have a place at the table when the decisions are being made.”

          Gosh, if the religious arguments against Zionism are valid, well then, I guess the religious arguments for Zionism are equally valid, huh?
          Maybe more so.
          A guy who had a predilection for short pithy aphorisms might say “There’s no way around it anti-Semitism (conventional def.) is Zionism.”

          If, and I’m not saying I know, that is an aphorism. Well, it’s pithy, damn it, like a helmet! Whataya want, gutta-percha? And I would like to remind certain people that my other predilictions are not at issue here!

        • Mooser says:

          “The fact is that one can make an argument from the text for basically any point with more or less the same level of persuasiveness, depending upon which inferences one wishes to accept.”

          So, another words, that “level of persuasiveness” is an excellent (“depending upon which inferences one wishes to accept”) and endless source of humor and jokes. It’s like having an in-house straight man. I can’t resist that, you know that.

        • actually i was joking mooser, your link doesn’t open

          link to mondoweiss.net

          i thought that was intentional. if it wasn’t you should post it again.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Klaus,

          Mooser means that there has to be a “high ‘Berlin’ Wall” to keep out blaming Judaism or the Jewish culture for the faults of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’.

          The Berlin Wall is in fact a very good metaphor/analogy for what he means

          A recollection:

          Roger Waters performed the Pink Floyd album The Wall just north of Potsdamer Platz on 21 July 1990, with guests including Bon Jovi, Scorpions, Bryan Adams, Sinéad O’Connor, Thomas Dolby, Joni Mitchell, Marianne Faithfull, Levon Helm, Rick Danko and Van Morrison. David Hasselhoff performed his song “Looking for Freedom”, which was very popular in Germany at that time, standing on the Berlin wall. Crosby, Stills & Nash performed the song “Chippin’ Away” from Graham Nash’s 1986 solo album Innocent Eyes atop the wall.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Roger Waters and many of his fellow artists are trying to tear down Berlin Walls, not build them.

        • Mooser says:

          “– I’m just asking you as a Jew who makes a big deal of himself being Jewish and not supporting the “other Jews”.”

          No Klaus, as Jews, you, me, all of us, must support other Jews to the best of our ability and according to the dictates of our conscience. But I’m glad to hear you are Jewish, Klaus! Now I know why you are like you are, and I love you just the way you are.
          Don’t, Klaus, go changing, to try and please me!

        • Mooser says:

          “i thought that was intentional.”

          Please give me a break, huh? I do a lot of dumb stuff, but I don’t think I’ve ever done that, intentionally. If I go through all the strum and drek of linking something, I’d like it to work! Anyway, here they are, the two links from Tony Greenstein’s website:

          link to azvsas.blogspot.com

          link to azvsas.blogspot.com

          or go to: link to azvsas.blogspot.com probably under “older posts” by now.

          I tested the links, but I must have done something wrong. Thanks for bringing the non-working links to my attention.

        • American says:

          ‘the only reasonable and acceptable response from any thinking person is: no, religious views are irrelevant to political claims ‘…Woody

          Totally. To see how insane religion can make people look no further than religious zionist and christian zionist.

        • Mooser says:

          Oh fer Gawd’s freakin’ sake! GRETA BERLIN!!!!

        • Mooser says:

          “I don’t think that Zionism — especially religious Zionism — can be explained or understood by standard left-wing political theories on colonialism.”

          No, that would be really messy, huh? I would like to thank you two, Sean and Lukela. Oh well, as they say, the hour will produce the commentor.

        • Okay Luke,
          you waive your claim to the ‘promised land’ – at least for the time being.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Klaus,

          Were the German establishment and German ethnic nationalists during the 1930s and early 1940s largely responsible for Nazism? Just a bit. :) But one shouldn’t mention that fact for fear of stirring up anti-German sentiment. (Yes, that statement is laden with heavy sarcasm.)

          99% of the time, discussion about Israel and Zionism is completely crazy — utterly detached from reality — pure Alice in Wonderland. Just an endless succession of weird evasions.

          The worldwide Jewish establishment has been the main driver behind Israel and Zionism, which is a Jewish nationalist movement. This much should be able to be said without fear of contradiction from rational people. And, yes, it would require a Berlin Wall constructed by Soviet-style thought police to censor a truth that is this obvious.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Thanks for taking the time to write that comment, if nothing else, you helped me.”

          You are quite welcome.

        • lukelea says:

          Thanks for your kind words, Seanmcbride. I wrote that piece as a kind of testament to my rabbi and mentor, Abraham Feinstein, but except for one woman I met in NYC during the founding of American Friends of Peace Now, no one has paid the least attention to it (not counting my editor at Judaism of course). I thought this was an original piece of scholarship, of discovery really, and certainly the best thing I ever wrote. I’ll check out your blog site.

  15. Mooser says:

    “not strictly, you’re a mensch too”

    Look, I’ve just never been very neat. But let me say, in my own defense, that even if I am mensching up this thread, think of all the threads I’m not commenting on. It’s not like I go all over, leaving a mensch behind me, for somebody else to clean up.

  16. lukelea says:

    BTW, only Europe has the power and resources, and the historic responsibility, to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and save Israel. Ponder that.

    • RoHa says:

      “only Europe has the power and resources, and the historic responsibility, to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and save Israel.”

      No one has the responsibility to save Israel. Israel should not be saved.

    • eljay says:

      >> BTW, only Europe has the power and resources, and the historic responsibility, to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and save Israel.

      Israel has the responsibility and the power to save Israel. The first things Israel needs to do – things it has the power to do immediately and completely – are:
      - halt its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
      - withdraw to within its / Partition borders; and
      - offer to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      >> When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things.

      Good, you understand why Palestinians sometimes do ugly things. Now if only Israel would stop putting the Palestinians in impossible situations…

  17. lukelea says:

    Dear Annie, When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things. All in all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances, at least so far, though there are worrying developments among the settlers and ultra-orthodox which if not nipped in the bud will do inestimable harm to Israel’s standing in the eyes of the American public. This is just my opinion, which seems obvious to me from my perspective which is not so different than that of the average American I suspect. Anyway, best to you and everyone who comes to this site. You need some fresh perspectives.

    • there’s nothing fresh about unaccountability lukelea, it’s old and stale.

    • sardelapasti says:

      “When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things”

      I knew it! I knew the time would come when even a bloody Zionist like lukelea would recognize how Palestinians have been driven to fighting for their lives and have to resist the Zionist aggressors by all means possible.

    • RoHa says:

      “When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things.”

      The Israelis are not fighting for their lives. They are fighting for Israeli Jewish ethnic supremacy. They are not in an impossible situation. They simply refuse to accept any possibility that does not maintain that dominance.

      • Citizen says:

        @ RoHa
        Yep. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. And it will stay there until Hollywood produces, not Exodus, but Nakba–with Aryan-looking replacements for Newman and his girl friend. Don’t hold your breath. See if 5 Broken Cameras gets to play, as a lead-in for insiders. Maybe Mel Gibson will do it for career’s sake–but last I heard he was doing a blockbuster on the heroic Maccabees for that purpose.

        Back East, we just watched the Senate sneer at the phrase “Palestinians in chains” on primetime CSPAN TV. Have a bagel, not a hagel.

    • Cliff says:

      lukelea said:

      Dear Annie, When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things. All in all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances.

      [...]my perspective which is not so different than that of the average American I suspect[...]

      Your perspective is not representative of the average American. The ‘average American’ is likely uninformed on this conflict as he or she is on most issues outside of the domestic.

      And if you honestly think there is widespread and deep support for Israel in the American public, then cite the evidence.

      As for your hasbara meme of ‘tough neighborhood’/’Israel drops leaflets before bombing civilians’ – all nonsense of course.

      Israel wants the Palestinian’s land and water. That is it. Israel is at war with the Palestinian people and Palestinian agency.

      Hamas or the PLO before them are nobodies. They are simply ways for Israel to pivot around a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Whether it be the worthless rockets on S’Derot (juxtaposed to the far higher number of munitions and casualties felled on Gaza Palestinians) or the Hamas charter or the parallel diversionary memes directed at the PLO before Hamas ~ Israel is only interested in the land.

      This is a colonial conflict not a ‘War on Terror’ and not a conflict between civilization and savages.

      This is a conflict between Palestinians unwilling to be erased by Zionism and Zionists willing to erase the Palestinians.

      Mondoweiss has been around for years and there have been a wide variety of Zionist commentators on this blog.

      And LOL@your ‘fresh voices’ line. You are not the first nor the last. Most stick around for a little, get bored and defeated (because the only thing you have in this conflict is money/propaganda/more firepower) and then leave.

      • lukelea says:

        This is a conflict between Palestinians unwilling to be erased by Zionism and Zionists unwilling to be erased by Palestinians. That’s what makes an impossible situation, on both sides.

        At the end of Oslo everything was resolved except the problem of the Palestinians refugees. Because there was no possibility of a right of return, there was nothing in it for them, and since they are the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people Arafat knew he would be lynched if he dared to sign.

        There was an interesting conversation at the very end of the negotiations between some second-tier representatives of the Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans, who were sitting around a table discussing what if anything it would take to make a deal possible. (I read this story in Haretz or one of the other major Israeli publications — I wish I had bookmarked it.) Anyway, the Palestinian said that a compensation package of around $500 billion might do the trick. Of course the Israelis and Americans just laughed. But in truth this exchange got to the heart of the matter. The Palestinians have been harmed. They deserve compensation. The problem is that Israel hasn’t the resources nor, in my judgment, the moral responsibility to make this compensation. Look at it abstractly: if A pushes B into C forcing a fight between B and C who is responsible for the damages to C (and to B too for that matter, but let’s stick to C for right now). The answer, of course is A. Unless there are extenuating circumstances the party that causes the conflict is responsible for the consequences. This is not morality 101 because three parties are involved. Call it morality 201, a course the civilized world has yet to master.

        The fact is that it was European anti-Semitism that drove the Jews out of Europe and it was European statesmen who decided to solve their “Jewish problem” by giving someone else’s land away. Europe is responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the root of the whole Arab-Israeli conflict that threatens the peace of the world.

        Europeans need to acknowledge their moral and historic responsibility for this state of affairs and be prepared to take appropriate measures to resolve it. That would involve not only an ongoing program of aid and investment in any new Palestinian state which might be agreed to between the parties (as at the end of Oslo) but it also would probably require a willingness to let as many Palestinians who wish to emigrate to the European Union to do so. The U.S. could be in on the deal too if we wish, but the main player must be Europe.

        The Palestinians have a justified sense of grievance and humiliation and if I were in their shoes I would feel the same way they do. Hopefully I would be smarter than they have been, would be able to see the situation more clearly — but, hey, the Israelis are plenty smart and they can’t see the situation either. Anyway, smarts don’t determine human rights. Everybody has a right to live. But also everybody has a right to be compensated for the wrongs that have been committed against them. In a civilized world that is. Thank God for nuclear weapons. If we don’t get this right we will blow ourselves up. Call it blood money if you like, but it’s still a civilized concept. This is a tribal feud and there is no other way to end it.

        Go back and read those Patriarchal narratives.

        • Mooser says:

          “Europeans need to acknowledge their moral and historic responsibility for this state of affairs and be prepared to take appropriate measures to resolve it. “

          Anti-Semitism is Zionism. Gosh, lucky those Europeans hated us, huhlukela? Or else, no Israel “miracle”.

        • seafoid says:

          “The fact is that it was European anti-Semitism that drove the Jews out of Europe”

          It isn’t Europeans doing the torturing in the West Bank. It’s not my fault that the Shoah happened. Grow up and get real.

          Either human rights are universal or Israel disappears along with Prussia.

    • Mooser says:

      “All in all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances…”

      Let me guess, lukela! You’re not-a-Zionist, right?

      • seafoid says:

        “All in all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances…”

        That is complete tripe .
        My Yiddish book suggests that Lukelea “iz nisht in gatnsn” or is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

        • lukelea says:

          Nice argument. Would you care to fill in the details? Can you point to a counterexample? Name calling is just a form of sputtering. One word dismissals — stale, delusional — are equally lacking. Every unfamiliar idea appears crazy at first, even the good ones. Your objections are verbally pathetic.

    • American says:

      lukelea says:

      Dear Annie, When people are in impossible situations, fighting for their lives, they do ugly things. All in all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances,”…

      Stuff the hasbar.

      I suggest you start at the beginning…..of your behavior.
      Zionist carried out a reign of terror against Palestine’s –from the Beginning. They have since the Beginning continued to steal Palestine land and terrorize and occupy Palestine for one purpose- to acquire their land and resources..

      The zionist have never ‘behaved well’. They have been racist, supremist, thieves, killers, war criminals since day one in Palestine.

  18. Citizen says:

    @ lukelea

    Thanks for the link–informative. Explains a lot of cable TV reality shows depicting various non-mainstream culture groups in US.

  19. lukelea says:

    Author: Annie Robbins

    Comment:

    “there’s nothing fresh about unaccountability lukelea, it’s old and stale.”

    I’m not sure what you are referring to, but since when are freshness, oldness, and staleness the criteria for whether analysis of a problem is helpful or not? If I may make a general observation, Ashkenazis both here and abroad too often value brilliance and originality over truth and common sense. Freud and Marx are the iconic examples. Meanwhile discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not only stale but blinded by ideological preconceptions and a lack of realism. This discussion has been going on for over a century and is going nowhere as far as I can tell. Are there any ideas in this forum for example which have not been expressed hundreds of times before (aside from my own that is)? Name one. And grow up. You are talking to someone who knows a lot more about the historical background of this problem than you do. Finally, rather than making vague characterizations (“delusional,” “stale”) make specific criticisms and I will answer them.

    • Cliff says:

      lukelea said:

      You are talking to someone who knows a lot more about the historical background of this problem than you do.

      I doubt that very much. You’re not going to last here long.

      And yes, this discussion is ‘stale’. It’s stale because the conflict is not complex at all.

      Zionist Jews stole the homeland of another people with the aid of Western superpowers during a period of widespread decolonization.

      Welcome to the forum, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • marc b. says:

        oh, cliff, we have a live one here.

        Are there any ideas in this forum for example which have not been expressed hundreds of times before (aside from my own that is)?

        too funny. but you’re right, it’s fair too complex for annie or cliff to understand, and in any event your brilliance and originality are like pearls before swine. thanks for the effort, though. can’t say you didn’t try. we dolts will just have to soldier on without you.

    • “there’s nothing fresh about unaccountability lukelea, it’s old and stale.”

      I’m not sure what you are referring to, but since when are freshness, oldness, and staleness the criteria for whether analysis of a problem is helpful or not?

      i was referring to your comment here: link to mondoweiss.net

      all, I don’t think any other people would have behaved half so well as the Israelis have under the circumstances….. This is just my opinion…… You need some fresh perspectives.

      we’ve been hearing excuses for the ongoing nakba for years so none of it sounds fresh to us. and as for your ‘analysis’? what is this:

      there are worrying developments among the settlers and ultra-orthodox which if not nipped in the bud will do inestimable harm to Israel’s standing in the eyes of the American public.

      not one little bit of concern for the havok these people inflict on the lives of palestinians, but your concern for ‘Israel’s standing in the eyes of the American public’ is noted. $100 million a year invested in israel’s image yet continually pursuing the expansion policy.

      • marc b. says:

        he needs ‘fresh perspectives’, annie. how about a little action, maybe?

        • Mooser says:

          “he needs ‘fresh perspectives’, annie. how about a little action, maybe?”

          I got a better idea, marc b. Why don’t you get fitted for the vest? You want action, go act. I’m sure we could raise your one-way plane-fare, if it’s coach.

        • marc b. says:

          I got a better idea, marc b. Why don’t you get fitted for the vest? You want action, go act.

          that’s not the kind of action i’m talking about, mooser. i’m talking about actually doing something for the palestinians besides the interminable circle jerk that’s called negotiations.

        • Mooser says:

          “i’m talking about actually doing something for the palestinians besides the interminable circle jerk that’s called negotiations.”

          Well, then, I would say JVP is where you should go. JVP sure as hell is seeking other, effective avenues to ameliorate (if not solve) the situation. Do JVPs proposals go far enough for you?
          And of course, complete boycott.

        • marc b. says:

          absolutely. JVP is about as close a statement to my opinion as there is. (and i’m sure that’s a big morale boost for them to hear that.)

    • Mooser says:

      “If I may make a general observation, Ashkenazis both here and abroad too often value brilliance and originality over truth and common sense. Freud and Marx are the iconic examples. “

      Busted! Wow, I better resort to a prussic acid coctail. No, not necessary, that one pierced me right through the heart!
      And BTW, lukela have you said anything which has had a fraction of the ramifications and results that Freud and Marx got (especially when they worked hand-in-glove)

    • American says:

      @ luke lea

      If I may butt in.
      Most of us don’t care about the Ashkenazi or about Jewish history or about any of the other esoteric minutia of the Jewish or Judaism question, studies or the constant navel gazing into it some commenters do here.

      We are interested in the current day problem of Israel- US-I/P-ME. The history of the Jews or of Judaism, with some people ascribing the Israel/Zionism problem to it and others excusing the Israel/zionism problem because of it —is totally useless.

      And I seriously doubt you know ‘more’ of the history of Israel than annie and most other commenters here….whose objectivity is not clouded by religion or myths and who depend on ‘real’ history not zionist revisions of history.

      If anything is stale it’s your ideas, we’ve seen them and dozens of varations of them a thousand times on here already.

      Realism?….stay tuned. You’re probably going to get smacked in the face with real world realism before this is over.