Natalie Portman and Woody Allen see anti-Semitism as pervasive

Israel/Palestine
on 225 Comments
Natalie Portman

Natalie Portman

Woody Allen and Natalie Portman have both lately made pro-Israel statements in the context of anti-Semitism. Their comments are an indication of the broad support Israel continues to enjoy in American liberal culture as some kind of ideal place– another symptom being the attack on Max Blumenthal’s new book from inside The Nation, of all places. American Jews don’t want to surrender their ideal of Israel. (South Africa of course never enjoyed such transnational appeal.)

Allen and Portman live in the United States; but both portray anti-Semitism as pervasive, with Portman saying there’s hostility toward Jews “pretty much everywhere”–except LA, NY, and Israel. (I disagree with these statements, as a Jew who’s traveled widely, and been to 48 states.)

The actress was interviewed by Elaine Lipworth for the Telegraph:

Fulfilling another closely held dream, Portman is about to direct her first film, A Tale of Love and Darkness, based on the bestselling memoir by the Israeli author Amos Oz. She also wrote the screenplay.

“It is his coming-of-age story set during the creation of the state of Israel.” …

She describes working in Israel as “absolutely fascinating. It is the kind of country where you put your finger on a windowsill and you get an interesting story. It’s interesting to be from a place and feel part of a place, but also a stranger in it.

“I’m definitely a foreigner here. People here would not think of me as an Israeli. The culture I grew up in, the way I look at the world, is American,” says Portman, a practising Jew, who is raising her son in the religion….

“The older I get, the more I realise how different it is to be a Jew in a Jewish place as opposed to a Jew in a non-Jewish place,” she says. “It’s definitely a different feeling in terms of how freely you can be yourself and celebrate your culture and religion.

“It’s very different being in Israel than in cities that don’t have big Jewish populations, where it can sometimes feel dangerous to be Jewish, and you understand why there is a need for a place where you don’t feel that way. I feel it in lots of places. Pretty much everywhere.

“New York and LA [where she currently lives] are the exceptions. On holidays in New York the city shuts down. My non-Jewish friends know how to wish you Shanah Tova, Happy New Year in Hebrew. In other places in the world it ranges from people who aren’t familiar with Judaism to people who are hostile towards it.”

Here’s Woody Allen, 12 days ago in the Jerusalem Post:

In an interview with Lior Friedman of Channel 2 television that aired on Monday, 77-year-old Allen, born Allen Konigsberg, said that political criticism of Israel can conceal a deeper hatred – that of the Jewish people.

“I do feel there are many people that disguise their negative feelings toward Jews, disguise it as anti-Israel criticism, political criticism, when in fact what they really mean is that they don’t like Jews,” he said.

Allen did, however, have praise for his native country for its acceptance of Jewish people.

“America’s always been – you know by the low standards of tolerance for Jews all over the world – America’s been a very tolerant country,” he said.

225 Responses

  1. Obsidian
    October 31, 2013, 12:38 pm

    More celebrity bullshit from our star struck host.

    • Krauss
      October 31, 2013, 3:58 pm

      Why are 71% of non-Orthodox Jews – who represent a full 90% of the total Jewish population in America – currently intermarried, of those who have married since 2005?

      Because they don’t buy that kind of bullshit. Portman is a gifted actress and I respect her, but she was also born in Israel, in Jerusalem. And Woody Allen is almost 80 years old. He still remembers WWII with his own memory.

      Facts do not lie; the vast majority of American Jews simply do not agree with Natalie Portman. If America was such a dangerous place, why the sky-high intermarriage rate? That, if anything, is a sign of being comfortable with your surroundings, and the people who inhabit those surroundings. And most American Jews do not live in NYC or LA, furthermore, there are more Orthodox Jews inside NYC than non-Orthodox Jews, and their intermarriage rates are almost zero, so the people doing the intermarrying are not necessarily in the big cities to the same extent she may think.

      This all reminds me of a recent Howard Jacobson speech, where he essentially embraced the same doom-laden mentality. The problem for these people is that most Jews can see with their own two eyes that they are peddling bullshit, Jews are insecure in America? Please. If that had been the case, we’d seen a mass exodus a long time ago, and certainly not nearly the rates of assimiliation and intermarriage we’ve now come to see.

  2. Shmuel
    October 31, 2013, 12:47 pm

    “The older I get, the more I realise how different it is to be a Jew in a Jewish place as opposed to a Jew in a non-Jewish place,”

    Even if that Jewish place is a living, breathing Hillul Hashem (desecration of God’s name), a mockery of Jewish tradition and experience? Sometimes I feel that the least Jewish place in my city is the synagogue.

    “It’s definitely a different feeling in terms of how freely you can be yourself and celebrate your culture and religion.”

    I cannot be myself and celebrate my culture and religion among those who distort and destroy it, and commit atrocities in its name.

    • Pamela Olson
      October 31, 2013, 6:34 pm

      Beautifully said, of a very ugly reality. What blindness and arrogance to say these things while others, every day, are suffering from oppression, dispossession, and worse so she can enjoy the stories of windowsills… Never mind the screams she doesn’t seem to hear.

      That’s what’s so infuriating about Ari Shavit’s piece in the New Yorker. He *just almost* hears the screams. Then he sighs and says, “Oh well…” Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

      • Philip Weiss
        October 31, 2013, 10:48 pm

        I echo that, Pamela. Beautifully said. And a road forward…

      • pabelmont
        November 1, 2013, 3:25 pm

        Yes, Pamela, and GOLIATH is a record of the screams, and it will be hidden (so that Americans, and especially Jews, will not be able to hear the screams). I suppose that’s why Auschwitz was located far outside Germany in Poland so that Germans would not have to heard the screams and smell the smoke.

        Let’s by all means hide our crimes, but never stop committing them!

    • OlegR
      October 31, 2013, 6:47 pm

      /I cannot be myself and celebrate my culture and religion among those who distort and destroy it, and commit atrocities in its name./

      I am sorry that you feel that way.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 1, 2013, 12:44 am

        have you seen this photo oleg? link to mondoweiss.net

        this is what judaism looks like to me today. this is its public face.

      • miriam6
        November 1, 2013, 2:58 am

        this is what judaism looks like to me today. this is it’s public face.

        No it is not Judaism in action.
        You are slurring Judaism when you say that.
        It is the result of a political conflict over land between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

      • FreddyV
        November 1, 2013, 7:41 am

        @miriam6:

        You Zionists spend inordinate amounts of time trying to conflate Judaism with Israeli nationalism and its occupation of another’s lands. Hell, even Israel’s leaders demand Israel to be recognised as “The Jewish state”, but the moment someone points out a “Jewish” negative, you’re all over them as though they’ve made some antisemitic slur.

        Do us a favour and choose one way in which you’d like the Jewish / Zionist / Israeli occupation of Palestine to be described then let us know so we can address this violation of human beings in a manner that you can’t contort legitimate criticism into baseless accusations of antisemitism.

      • Shingo
        November 1, 2013, 8:11 am

        It is the result of a political conflict over land between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

        No, it is the result of Zionism, which led to the conflict.

      • tokyobk
        November 1, 2013, 9:46 am

        I am genuinely surprised to see you say something so intemperate and borderline bigoted like this, Annie.

        This is analysis from the Jihad-Watch school on Islam.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 10:35 am

        “It is the result of a political conflict over land between the Israelis and the Palestinians”

        Who are the Israelis? Jews and the 1948 Palestinians.
        The conflict is between Jews and the 1948 and the 1967 Palestinians.
        Taking Judaism out of the mess is incoherent. Judaism is the greater part of the mess.

      • miriam6
        November 1, 2013, 10:39 am

        Shingo@;

        Annie R said it was the face of Judaism – she did not say Zionism.

        I merely corrected her.

        You should’ve aimed your little comment at her not me.

        But evidently you are too much of a pathetic little a**e kisser to criticise HER..

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 11:05 am

        Jewish self determination is what they call it.

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 2:12 pm

        Annie R said it was the face of Judaism – she did not say Zionism.

        Miriam, you are a Zionist. That means you support the idea of Israel as a “Jewish state”. Therefore, you should agree with the statement that Israel’s deeds are the public face of Judaism.

      • pabelmont
        November 1, 2013, 3:37 pm

        When anything close to 50% of American Jews stand up in public — in Jewish public, such as synagogue, and in American public, like NPR — and decry Zionism and/or Israel and/or merely the occupation THEN it will be time to reconsider the CARE needed to make the distinction between Jewish and Zionist.

        The Zionist claim that Israel is the State of the Jewish People and the failure of (most American and also most other) Jews to publicly deny this claim (at least as to themselves) makes the claim believable to most of the world.

        Silence gives consent.

        That is why I wish that JVP were even more forceful than it is. And sorry that Neturei Karta is as small as it seems to be.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 1, 2013, 4:17 pm

        i didn’t say it was the sole face of judaism, i said it was how it looked to me yesterday when i wrote it, after looking at the photo of the little girls face.

        i know judaism is a religion and interpreted by many good beautiful people, and i also know it is the religion of a bunch of fanatics , many of whom are running israel’s government. so one cannot really claim it is divorced from the political conflict over land when there are a bunch of religious fruitcakes voted into the knesset at this time, using the religion to justify the oppression of millions of people. and the 4th most powerful army in the world protecting those fanatical settlers for the benefit of stealing more land.

        it’s unfortunate,(very sad) but this is part of the public face of judaism right now. if you don’t like it, go change it. or would it be better if we didn’t have evidence of the ethnic cleansing? that little girls face with the tears running down it?

        and those rabbis who write books about killing gentile babies, that’s not judaism either i presume, but it is part of the public face of it. just like at one time this was part of the public face of christianity:

        link to history.howstuffworks.com

      • Sumud
        November 1, 2013, 11:55 pm

        But evidently you are too much of a pathetic little a**e kisser to criticise HER..

        Miriam why don’t you instead direct *your* antagonism to the psychopaths who commit all these atrocities in the name of Judaism…?

      • talknic
        November 2, 2013, 2:12 am

        miriam6 “You are slurring Judaism when you say that”

        Coveting other folks property, lying about it and killing to get it is slurring Judaism

      • Shmuel
        November 1, 2013, 8:38 am

        I am sorry that you feel that way.

        Why?

      • OlegR
        November 1, 2013, 4:25 pm

        Because being in such a conflict with your own identity must be really hard and painful.

      • RoHa
        November 2, 2013, 1:52 am

        Shmuel, I didn’t know you had one of these identity things.

      • Walid
        November 2, 2013, 3:34 am

        OOOOOOH!!! Oleg has resorted to using the final argument as all else has failed; he called Shmuel a bad Jew.

      • Shmuel
        November 2, 2013, 4:26 am

        Because being in such a conflict with your own identity must be really hard and painful.

        Ah, the self-hating canard. I should have seen it coming. My identity/ies and I get along just fine, thanks. It’s your identity (or rather the actions and attitudes associated with it) that gives me grief.

      • Shmuel
        November 2, 2013, 4:28 am

        Shmuel, I didn’t know you had one of these identity things.

        More than one, as a matter of fact. I suspect you’ve got a few tucked away somewhere too.

      • EUR1069
        November 2, 2013, 10:07 am

        OlegR: Apparently you have no conflict with your identity as a Jew. So why are you bearing an ancient Russian name instead of something more fitting from the OT?

      • Obsidian
        November 2, 2013, 11:46 am

        “So why are you bearing an ancient Russian name instead of something more fitting from the OT?”

        Because his parents named him?

      • EUR1069
        November 2, 2013, 3:00 pm

        “Because his parents named him?”

        Obviously, Sherlock. But like many of the ex-Soviet Jews & Zionist heavyweights of his ilk (Oleg/Avigdor Lieberman [a former Kishinev bar bouncer], Anatoly/Nathan Shcharansky, his wife Natalia/Avital Shcharansky, etc, etc.) he is at the liberty to change his first name thus adjusting the “identity” issue, assuming he has one. Judging from his projection onto Shmuel it definitely looks that way. Most of the ex-Soviet late starters certainly do have “identity” anxieties.

      • bintbiba
        November 2, 2013, 3:45 pm

        We are all made up of multiple identities… Our strengths come from being able to reconcile and accept our ‘selves’ and celebrate our union with Humanity!

      • Shmuel
        November 2, 2013, 3:53 pm

        We are all made up of multiple identities… Our strengths come from being able to reconcile and accept our ‘selves’ and celebrate our union with Humanity!

        Thank you. Well said, bintbiba.

      • RoHa
        November 2, 2013, 11:03 pm

        “I suspect you’ve got a few tucked away somewhere too.”

        I can’t find any. Probably my wife has tidied them up.

    • Kathleen
      November 1, 2013, 12:24 am

      Heart felt Shmuel

  3. seafoid
    October 31, 2013, 12:50 pm

    “It’s very different being in Israel than in cities that don’t have big Jewish populations, where it can sometimes feel dangerous to be Jewish”

    Israel is safe for Jews and it’s the Palestinians who feel the danger . Like that’s progress.

    link to haaretz.com

    “Arabs targeted in hate crimes left to cover costs, unrecognized by Israel as terror victims
    Government’s decision to classify perpetrators of ‘price tag’ attacks as members of illegal organizations rather than terrorists makes victims ineligible for compensation from the state.”

    link to ynetnews.com

    “Street cleaner attacked in TA: ‘They called me ‘stinking Arab’
    Israeli Arab admitted to hospital with head wounds says group of drunken Jews assaulted him on seaside promenade. Victim: Jews are like brothers to me ”

    • ErsatzYisrael
      November 1, 2013, 1:24 am

      seafoid says:
      October 31, 2013 at 12:50 pm

      “Israel is safe for Jews and it’s the Palestinians who feel the danger . Like that’s progress.”

      It’s long past time that the absurd and abhorrent myth of Israel-the-one-true-Jew-Sanctuary was put to bed already.

      Israel is in fact one of the least safe places in the world for Jews, and by a wide margin.

      Jews are and always will be in far less danger in places like London, New York and Paris than in “Tel-Aviv”.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 10:37 am

        Fair enough. But Jews have the backing of the law in Israel. Palestinians do not.

  4. EUR1069
    October 31, 2013, 12:52 pm

    Portman saying there’s hostility toward Jews “pretty much everywhere”–except LA, NY, and Israel.

    How the hell would she know when she has never been to anywhere, “except LA, NY, and Israel”? ROFL

  5. David Samel
    October 31, 2013, 1:08 pm

    Portman’s account reminds me of things I have read about college dorms segregated by race or similar characteristics. For instance, I remember a black student talking about why she prefers an all-black dorm – she doesn’t have to explain this or that to her fellow dorm residents, all of whom already “get it.” It didn’t sound very convincing to me, as I think exposure to diversity should be an important part of college, but at least her preferences would not necessarily disadvantage other students. By the same token, if Portman, when she’s living in the US, wants to surround herself with a significant Jewish population, she can choose to live in NYC or LA or Skokie or Shaker Heights or Newton, etc. But Portman, and Allen, use this discomfort to justify a place where there not only are a lot of Jews, but there is inherent systemic discrimination against non-Jews. That is no longer a matter of personal preference. It crosses the border into morally indefensible.

    As for Allen: “I do feel there are many people that disguise their negative feelings toward Jews, disguise it as anti-Israel criticism, political criticism, when in fact what they really mean is that they don’t like Jews.” I’ve heard that one before. Allen is worried that there are real anti-Semites out there who are too timid to admit their animosity toward Jews, and get their jollies by criticizing Israel. What a crock! Actually, Woody, there are some people who would like to defame all Israeli critics as anti-Semitic, but are too timid to do so, and so they speculate that “many” of Israel’s critics actually are Jew-haters. How many is “many”? 10%? 50%? 17 people? 85 people? And how do you prove if your suspicions are correct? It’s just a weasel way of smearing all Israeli critics without actually accusing anyone in particular.

    btw, Phil, which are the two states you have not been to? For me, it’s three – Arkansas, N. Dakota and Alaska. I’ll bet ND is on your list as well.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 31, 2013, 1:28 pm

      I don’t really have a problem with Allen’s statement, except for the word “many.” I’m sure there is the very rare person who disguises a hatred of Jews with opposition to israel, but basically none outside of the occassion Klan rally or Neo Nazi gathering.

      • David Samel
        October 31, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Woody, I think you have no problem with the technical accuracy of what he is saying, especially if he had used the word “some” rather than “many.” My problem is with what he is really saying. He is trying to cast aspersions on all Israel critics, placing a burden on them to establish that they are not anti-Semitic as he suspects. The only way to identify an anti-Semite is by observing statements and/or behavior that is anti-Semitic. Frankly, if an anti-Semite is too timid to make such statements or act hostilely to Jews, he or she is not much of a threat. Allen’s speculation about what is really on the mind of “many” Israel critics is a thinly undisguised smear of all critics, who are placed under suspicion even if they have never said or done anything offensive.

        Throughout the course of his career, Allen has made innumerable self-deprecating jokes not only about himself but Jews in general. There are many who have considered him anti-Semitic because of this, and his defense surely would be that he is a comedian and was not actually suggesting that Jews are cheap or Jewish mothers smothering or whatever. While I don’t agree with them, those Allen-critics have much more to go than Allen has in his suspicion of Israel-critics.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2013, 2:42 pm

        David,

        I believe the way he spoke could mean one of two things, depending on what he meant by many. If, as you say, he meant “all” then I would of course find that objectionable. If he were being factual and simply noting the rare person who is, that would be unobjectionable. That was what I was trying to get at. I guess I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

      • W.Jones
        October 31, 2013, 3:00 pm

        Good analysis, David, especially this part:

        The only way to identify an anti-Semite is by observing statements and/or behavior that is anti-Semitic. Frankly, if an anti-Semite is too timid to make such statements or act hostilely to Jews, he or she is not much of a threat.

        The term “many” is very open. In line with what you said, my impression is that this term would mean a very significant portion of “political critics”, let’s say anywhere from 35%-65% of those critics. If the number was 70%, you would say a large majority, if it was 25%, you might say “some”. “Many” on the other hand, means “a lot”. He is basically claiming that “a lot” of politics critics are racist.

        In fact though, that cannot really be the case. David, won’t you agree with me that the whole idea of “leftist anti-semitism” is an oxymoron? People with deep humanitarian values are motivated by them to take progressive stands on basic human rights issues, as well as political ones. If someone is a leader in the civil rights movement and believed strongly in equality of all races, it would be unexpected if that person hated Indians. Yet at the same time, the critics of the oppression in the Holy Land are strongly based in the Democratic Party, while among Republicans the opposite is the case.

        This is why the word “many” is very misleading- the percent of people making political criticisms of the bitter situation in the Holy Land who are racist cannot be anywhere near half. It would basically be made by people with various racial ideas, and like you said, the only way you could actually know for certain would be to have a range of statements that were indisputably racist.

      • W.Jones
        October 31, 2013, 10:58 pm

        Your article on Abunimah was good. You have a good mind.
        Peace, friend.

      • David Samel
        November 1, 2013, 10:09 am

        Hi WJ. I think you’re right that leftist anti-Semitism, at least theoretically, is an oxymoron, because genuine leftists would be repulsed by ethnic discrimination of any kind. But left and right are losing their meaning these days. For example, between Ron Paul and Diane Feinstein, who is more “liberal”? I’m not at all opposed to this loss of meaning in the terms, as the left-right spectrum is often a convenient but lazy way to paint with a broad brush.
        Sure, opponents of the Jewish State might just hate Jews. Then again, some anti-Semites might love the Jewish State idea. If they live in the US or Argentina or France, maybe they would love all their Jewish neighbors to move to Israel. Who knows? My problem with Allen’s speculation is that it presumes that anti-Semitism is widespread among Israel critics and casts all of them under suspicion. Even though he acknowledges that some are not, he reinforces the notion that anyone who criticizes Israel might have an anti-Semitic motive, and should be scrutinized for it before his or her opinion is evaluated. It is as unfair as speculating that non-Jewish supporters of Israel are hoping to empty their own countries of Jews.

      • MHughes976
        November 1, 2013, 10:23 am

        I suppose that some people who are left-wing in the sense of anti-capitalist have tended to see many intersections between the Jewish population and the capitalist class and thus have developed a degree of prejudice against Jews – Marx would probably be an example. And some people who think that ‘Jews don’t belong here’ might be quite enthusiastic about setting up a Jewish State well away from their own backyards.

    • pabelmont
      October 31, 2013, 2:18 pm

      Not to defend Allen’s notion here, but a lot of the many-anti-Zionists-are-really-anti-Semites crowd will follow up with, “Why in a world over-run with horrors do you spend all your energy and time attacking (only) Israel?” Those who say this are coming close to ADMITTING the horrors in I/P, but still, they are onto something.

      Speaking only for myself, my energy is focused in this way because I want to correct the errant behavior, as it seems to me, of many Jews (of whom I count myself one, and whose deserved-reputation I’d like to improve) and because, having been married to a Palestinian for many years, I have a very strong association with Palestinians (indeed, far stronger than with Jews generally).

      And, of course, most of the horrors of the rest of the world even though occurring today, are follow-up to yesterday’s imperialisms and/or manifestations chiefly of the tragedy of international capitalism (the oppression of the many by the few in government) rather than deliberate oppression of one people by another people.

      • German Lefty
        October 31, 2013, 7:05 pm

        Why in a world over-run with horrors do you spend all your energy and time attacking (only) Israel?
        – The German government supports Israel against the will of the German people.
        – The Zionists misuse Nazi crimes to justify Zionist crimes.
        – Israel claims to be part of the Western world but doesn’t act accordingly.

      • stephenjones
        November 1, 2013, 8:50 am

        “Israel claims to be part of the Western world but doesn’t act accordingly.” – au contraire, they act very accordingly… and at the behest of many interests of said “Western world”…

      • pabelmont
        November 1, 2013, 3:43 pm

        Governments (in USA surely, and you seem to say in Germany also) are the “few” oppressing the “many” (the people) and the way this works is that capitalism has used its wealth not to buy yachts but (or also) to buy governments.

        I didn’t know that “[t]he German government supports Israel against the will of the German people” but glad to hear it and hope the GP find a way to make their government listen to them.

      • SQ Debris
        November 1, 2013, 5:51 pm

        - Israel claims to be part of the Western world but doesn’t act accordingly.

        Israel is, in its foundations, the ultimate assimilation. Zionism’s New Jew ain’t Jewish. Israel’s great accomplishment is a near perfect aping of the “Western World.”

      • German Lefty
        November 2, 2013, 6:20 am

        @ pabelmont
        I didn’t know that “[t]he German government supports Israel against the will of the German people” but glad to hear it
        See here:
        link to globalpost.com
        link to cityncountrybranding.files.wordpress.com

      • alan
        November 1, 2013, 6:27 am

        Jew/Palestinian = false dichotomy = obscurantism.
        Sort yourself out mate!

    • German Lefty
      October 31, 2013, 6:56 pm

      I remember a black student talking about why she prefers an all-black dorm

      Yay! Let’s go back to the Jim Crow era and have racial segregation. The good old days.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 1, 2013, 6:46 am

        Oh you don’t understand what’s going on if you think today’s self-segregation and Jim Crow are remotely comparable.

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 1:20 pm

        @ Woody
        Wanting racial segregation is racist, no matter which group of people advocates it. If I started talking about why I prefer an all-white dorm, the very black student who wants an all-black dorm would probably be outraged and accuse me of racism. Such double standards are unacceptable. All people must be treated equally.

    • broadside
      October 31, 2013, 8:27 pm

      I think you’re missing the point. Allen’s career is almost done. How he will be remembered — paedophile or iconic filmmaker — is up to the US media. Twenty-five years ago Allen penned an op-ed in the Times blasting PM Rabin’s “breaking bones” policy. The Israel-first crowd has never forgotten it. Allen would prefer to be remembered as a filmmaker. Fadeout. malvernthenovel.com

      • flyod
        November 1, 2013, 7:42 am

        excellent broadside. i remember that. live ammunition used by the israelis for crowd control….woody was no doubt paying attention to the conflict and he took some flack. rubber bullets it is

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 5:18 pm

        Another one to add to the list. Can anyone thinking love Israel without either money or coercion ?

  6. MHughes976
    October 31, 2013, 1:09 pm

    I’m sure that being an X among Xs is and must be a different experience from being an X among Ys. Being English in the United States is different from being English in England, not that that fact creates any rights, wrongs or justified demands. That it is actually dangerous to be an X among Ys isn’t always true and I wonder what reason there is to think that Jewish people are in danger in normal Western communities. There are few Jewish people in my little bit of southern England, only one family in our fairly wide social circle. But I don’t think that there’s danger lurking round the corner for them. There’s a local branch of the very pro-Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, whose Jewish members presumably live secure and assertive in this region.

    • yrn
      October 31, 2013, 1:40 pm

      MHughes976
      “I wonder what reason there is to think that Jewish people are in danger in normal Western communities. ”
      Many thought the same in 1925-30 in a Western Democratic Liberal normal community named Germany.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2013, 2:17 pm

        “Many thought the same in 1925-30 in a Western Democratic Liberal normal community named Germany.”

        See, there’s your problem right there. You don’t know history if you call Germany during that period a “Western Democratic Liberal normal community.”

      • yrn
        October 31, 2013, 3:35 pm

        “Germany’s first national experiment in democracy lasted exactly 14 years. From January 1919 to January 1933, Germany was a democratic, parliamentary republic with all the national institutions characteristic of a modern state: a constitution, parties, a parliament, elections, coalitions, oppositions and governments. The establishment of this democracy was a huge step for German society which had been a monarchy for hundreds of years. Many citizens welcomed the new liberty but others opposed the winds of change and nationalist and royalist parties and organizations emerged. Many government officials had been in their positions since the days of the Kaisers; not only did they not support democratic progress, but they actively tried to sabotage it.”
        From Democracy to Dictatorship: 80 Years Since the Fall of the Weimar Republic Dr. Stefan Litt, Archives Department

        I guess your History understanding is different, that’s why you don’t understand the Israeli Palestinian History Tanaka

      • EUR1069
        October 31, 2013, 4:34 pm

        The issue of democracy vs. autocracy in Germany 1918-1933 has very little bearing on antisemitism. Germany’s 20s, especially in big cities with the large concentration of Jews were remarkably tolerant & the German, Austrian & Hungarian Jews were the most assimilated ones in Europe. Barely anyone had a problem with them until antisemitism was made state policy after 1933. Prior to 1933 the public sentiments and attitudes in France, Poland & the U.S. (no dogs & “Israelites” on country club beaches) were more antisemitic than Germany.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2013, 4:44 pm

        yarny,

        Nothing in your quote rebutted anything I said. Go back to grade school and maybe learn something this time.

        And I understand Palestinian-zio history just fine. “Invasion and theft by an alien people and the continued subjugation — under the brutal and racist ideology of zionism — of the native Palestinians, the rightful owners of the land” is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

      • W.Jones
        October 31, 2013, 7:44 pm

        Woody,

        N.Portman was saying it feels dangerous outside the big cities. I took this to mean it is currently dangerous.

        YRN’s 1920’s Germany analogy does not line up, because that analogy is about the possibility of an anti-semitic danger in the future.

        Anyway, your comment is not incorrect, either. Alot of researchers into the WWII genocides say that anti-semitism had a serious strain that existed in German history or culture, so it was at least foreseeable. Of course, the thing about those genocides is that there were 5 million non-Jewish Holocaust victims as well.

        In the US at the moment we are talking about a “sliver” of the population that would be pro-Nazi. Secondly, in the US the main minorities are of course African Americans and Hispanics, which make up, what, almost half the population when combined with other minorities? This would make those two other groups much more visible targets, as they have usually been. So there are many reasons why the potential danger analogy to 1920’s Germany, which you occasionally hear, does not work.

      • yonah fredman
        October 31, 2013, 10:03 pm

        Eur 1069- Maybe prior to 1929, but after 1929 the percentage of the vote that the Nazis received most certainly reflects a popularity to the unsavory parts of the Nazi program along with the other parts of their platform. Also in the immediate aftermath of WWI, Einstein among others wondered how the extreme Jew hatred that he encountered would finally end. So maybe between 1920 and 1929 Germany was less antisemitic than the other countries that you mentioned, but you’d have a hard time proving that this was also the case between 1918 and 1920 and between 1929 and 1933.

      • Ellen
        November 1, 2013, 1:03 am

        yrn, the Weimar Republic was by no means a functioning democracy. Democratic instututions were forced onto Germany after WWI. The country
        (which had not been a unified country for very long) went from a deperate and failing Kaiserreich to a failed nation under surrender to a chaotic Weimar Republic that fell into complete dysfunction with the Weltwirtschafts Krisis (world economic depression).

        This opened the door to despots who would blame the source of mysery onto “the other.”

      • MHughes976
        November 1, 2013, 6:30 am

        It is true that if things change sufficiently Jewish people will be in danger in southern England. Equally true that if things change sufficiently they will be in serious danger in New York, or in Jerusalem. These statements are true because the conditional clause is so sweeping. If you look at statements of this kind – ‘powerful conditionals’ – you see quite plainly that they are, in their whole nature and structure, not comments on how things are now: whereas Portman’s comments clearly were comments of that kind, so cannot be defended by these conditionals.
        It is just as true that if things changed sufficiently non-Jewish people in southern England would be in danger from our Jewish compatriots. But that truth is not a good reason, quite the opposite, for me to be suspicious of Jewish people as they now are.
        If you move from the sweeping ‘if things changed sufficiently’ to ‘if things changed in a way we can specifically and rationally predict Jews will be in danger’ then the proposition becomes much more alarming. It implies that Jewish people and other people cannot ever really trust each other. I deny this implied claim. It is false.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 1, 2013, 6:55 am

        “Anyway, your comment is not incorrect, either. Alot of researchers into the WWII genocides say that anti-semitism had a serious strain that existed in German history or culture,”

        that wasn ‘t the point of my objection to yarny at all. But more to the point, yes, there were undercurrents of antisemitism present in Germany (though the portrait painted by, e.g., Dan Goldhagen is nonsense), it was not that antisemitism which directly caused the Holocaust; Nazism was. That’s why yarny is wrong: On this point, looking for antisemitism is a fool’s game. One need to on guard for those political systems which would place political considerations or abstract ideological points above an individual’s rights. (This is not to say that we shouldn’t be concrned about all kinds of prejudice; we should. Rather, this goes to yarny’s foolish statement.)

      • lysias
        November 1, 2013, 10:31 am

        In their electoral propaganda between 1929 and 1933, the Nazis very much played down their anti-Semitism.

      • miriam6
        November 1, 2013, 10:55 am

        Lysias@:

        In their electoral propaganda between 1929 and 1933, the Nazis very much played down their anti-Semitism.

        And where is your proof of that?

        Could you please provide links to support your statement?

        Anyway – the Nazis took their racial theories to such depths of barbarity later on – that they were bound to look almost reasonable in their early days by sharp contrast.

      • pabelmont
        November 1, 2013, 3:52 pm

        So that, for example, it is not Jews who are the enemies of Palestinians, not even the Jews who lived in Palestine (and were called Palestinians by people who didn’t know that Arabs also lived there!) in 1920s an 1930s, and surely not Judah Magnes adn Martin Buber and Ahad Ha’am, but the quasi Nazism of Menachem Begin’s and Yitzkhak Shamir’s terrorist groups which terrorized not only the British adn Arabs but also the Jews (to coerce money contributions and political cohesion with the terrorists). Read ALL of Einstein/Arendt’s 1948 letter to the NYT.

      • lysias
        November 4, 2013, 10:39 am

        So I have read in many histories, which I am not in a position to be able to consult and reference here. However, here’s a bit of proof for you: Hitler’s most important speech in the electoral campaign before the election of March 1933 was delivered in the Berlin Sportpalast on Feb. 10, 1933. Here is its text. In it, you will not find a single mention of Jews.

      • Dutch
        October 31, 2013, 11:08 pm

        @ yrn
        ‘Many thought the same in 1925-30 in a Western Democratic Liberal normal community named Germany.’

        What exactly are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that a Western country could at any time declare anti-Semitism a state policy? Do you expect this to happen, and if yes, where?

        The reason for asking is that over here Jews feel perfectly safe. I personally know no one inside the community that feels threatened, now or in the future. Besides, cities like Berlin and Amsterdam are popular with Israeli’s who chose to live there. Are they playing with their lives? I don’t think so.

        It is wise to remember what happened in Germany. But the context matters, as your point happens to be extremely popular among those who wish to claim that Israel is such a much needed safe heaven for Jews.

        That’s where the original message gets exploited. This is not about the well-being of Jews anymore, but about the well-being of Israel. The time that these ran parallel is long gone. There is no doubt that Jews outside Israel are safer than those inside Israel.

        The bizarre reality is that, if a risk for Jews around the world is in sight at all, this will no doubt be the result of Israeli behavior/policy.

    • a blah chick
      October 31, 2013, 1:51 pm

      If anti Jewish thought is so all pervasive why do the anti Jewish folk have to disguise it? That makes no sense.

      Also why haven’t Portman and Allen gone and lived in the Jewish state, or is that question impolite?

      • Dutch
        October 31, 2013, 11:17 pm

        @ a blah chick
        ‘Also why haven’t Portman and Allen gone and lived in the Jewish state, or is that question impolite?’

        Maybe they prefer to suffer in the Diaspora. So far that worked out pretty well.

      • pabelmont
        November 1, 2013, 4:01 pm

        ABC: You make a strikingly excellent point: “If anti Jewish thought is so all pervasive why do the anti Jewish folk have to disguise it? That makes no sense.”

        In Israel today, the anti-black racists and anti-Arab racists (I assume they are the same people) are quite open about it! The rabbis give formal rulings on excluding non-Jews from towns and on its being OK to kill non-Jews, even their children. The hate-spewing mobs attack people freely adn without police interference (the police are part of the racist apparatus). It’s all OPEN! That’s what racism looks like when a society allows it and celebrates it and fosters it. (IMO the UN should re-open its discussion of Zionism as racism, looking at today’s realities.)

        In the USA, anti-Black racism used to be just like that. So perhaps was anti-Jewish racism. But gradually the society has cleaned it up, and though there may be pockets of “red-neck” racism here and there, the shutting-down of public statements of racism (except, today, against Muslims) is quite wide-spread and makes it harder for children to grow up into racists. The training needed to promote the racism is in decline.

  7. Woody Tanaka
    October 31, 2013, 1:15 pm

    “Natalie Portman [has] lately made pro-Israel statements…”

    Shameful. I was looking forward to the next Thor movie, but if that woman is in it, I will have to miss it, so none of my money goes to support her ziocaine habit.

    • yrn
      October 31, 2013, 1:28 pm

      Tanaka

      I think you should stop watching movies and TV at all as most producers that take your money are Zionist…..

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2013, 4:54 pm

        yarnball,

        You might believe the antisemitic trope that the Jews run the media, but I take people as they come. People may be delusional about the Jewish Apartheid state; that is their right. If they keep their mouths shut, then so be it. When they spout ignorant crap like this…

    • marc b.
      October 31, 2013, 2:30 pm

      oh don’t skip it because of her. my daughter is a superhero fan, so we’ll see ‘thor’. (if you don’t go to a movie because of the insular stupidity and racism of one of its stars, you won’t see a thing.)

      the column itself is illustrative of Weiss’s star-opinion fixation, but all it really shows is just how clueless celebrities are. portman and allen are chauffeured from brown stone to 3-star Michelin restaurant, to movie premiere, to interview, to private party. how either of them came to believe that they’re qualified to discuss the American or Israeli wo/man on the street is a mystery to me.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2013, 4:56 pm

        I’ll eventually catch it on FX or something in a year or so. She has the opportunity to use her stature to push for justice for Palestinians but she wallows in the muck of zionism. To hell with her.

    • lysias
      October 31, 2013, 4:14 pm

      I wonder what Portman thought “V for Vendetta” was about.

      • OlegR
        November 1, 2013, 4:31 pm

        A crappy movie about a crappy comic ?

  8. eljay
    October 31, 2013, 1:17 pm

    >> She describes working in Israel as “absolutely fascinating. It is the kind of country where you put your finger on a windowsill and you get an interesting story. … ”

    I’m willing to bet that pre-Zio-supremacist Palestine was also an absolutely fascinating place full of interesting stories.

    It’s utterly shameful that hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists felt entitled to steal the land, ethnically-cleanse the indigenous population, destroy the homes (and windowsills) and wipe away all those interesting stories.

    And it’s a pity that Ms. Portman – a fine actress and a lovely woman – simply doesn’t care.

    • bintbiba
      October 31, 2013, 2:34 pm

      Yes, very lovely and beauteous Ms. Portman. I was mesmerised by her as the 12 year old waif in “Leon”.
      Unforgettable.. but since I’ve been aware of her remarks… who knows the ‘windowsill’ could have had erased stories of my childhood and/or others’ stories.

  9. yrn
    October 31, 2013, 1:17 pm

    “I disagree with these statements, as a Jew who’s traveled widely, and been to 48 states”
    I don’t wonder at all, you represent the Jews that if someone spits on them they declare its raining, or as Hostage will always find the excuse that he was wrong.
    That’s the minority jews, who see the world different and wows that everybody things different.

    • EUR1069
      October 31, 2013, 1:34 pm

      “Portman, a practising Jew, who is raising her son in the religion….”

      Bet it’s not the Torah Judaism.. Try Williamsburg, NY honey.. they will fix you up

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 31, 2013, 1:36 pm

      “I don’t wonder at all, you represent the Jews that if someone spits on them they declare its raining”

      No, he’s just doesn’t see an impending holocaust if he gets jostled on the subway.

    • RoHa
      October 31, 2013, 8:58 pm

      “the Jews that if someone spits on them they declare its raining,”

      As distinct from the Jews who, when it rains, declare an anti-Semite is spitting on them?

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2013, 5:52 am

        RoHa:

        As distinct from the Jews who, when it rains, declare an anti-Semite is spitting on them?

        Great retort!!

  10. Dan Crowther
    October 31, 2013, 1:20 pm

    woody allen’s played the same guy and told the same jokes for half a century – yeah, I’d say America is pretty tolerant. Portman thinks she’s from Israel? Interesting…..

    Don’t be such a starfcker, Phil.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 31, 2013, 1:34 pm

      “Portman thinks she’s from Israel? Interesting…..”

      She’s a dual citizen and was born in Jerusalem, so she wasn’t born IN israel, but is an israeli.

      • Dan Crowther
        October 31, 2013, 1:59 pm

        ahh – i see. that explains that.

      • Tobias
        November 1, 2013, 9:08 am

        Funny thing – while Portman no doubt has an Israeli passport – her American one cannot say she was born in Israel – as the US does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Imagine that.

  11. pipistro
    October 31, 2013, 1:48 pm

    Who needs to spread hostility toward Jews, when Israel – irrespective of any identity/ethnicity – does its best to attract tons of reprimands from “pretty much everywhere”? If you are an arrogant warmonger, very few care if you are black or white or anything you want. I don’t know for Woody, but hope Portman has way to grow up outside the overvaluation of her opinions.

  12. MRW
    October 31, 2013, 1:54 pm

    OK. Let’s say we’re all anti-semitic. All 97.8% of the goys in this country are anti-semitic. We will all go out in the street and declare our anti-semiticshkeit. We will wear t-shirts that say, “Hi. I’m anti-semitic. How about you?” And bumper stickers, “Honk if you’re anti-semitic like me.”

    OK? We all admit it. All the Christian Zionists. Every member of Congress. Pilots. The National Guard. Waitresses. Everyone.

    What happens? How does that change anything? Do our laws go away as a result? Does America crumble? Are the 2.2% suddenly subsumed under some mountain of prejudice from which they can’t breathe, work, live, prosper?

    What does it mean that 97.8% of the country doesn’t give a shit whether a Jew lives or dies because they’re trying to figure out how to make the $51 left over after paying the rent and buying gas for work to feed the wife and three kids? Does that suspicious frightened look of this husband when he serves you abruptly at the gas station after his kid just called to say mom’s not home and there’s nothing to eat mean he wants to put Jews in the oven? Proof that Jews are not safe anywhere?

    Or that bubba with the .38 on his hip at the 7-11 on your way back to Austin after the day trip to the Donald Judd Museum, what? He wasn’t properly solicitous?

    You overheard someone in the lobby bar at the Four Seasons on 57th St bitching about Netanyahu and ‘those fucking Israelis’? Your life is now in peril?

    What does this anti-semitism mean?

    In America.

    • EUR1069
      October 31, 2013, 2:47 pm

      I suggested it before & I repeat it again: We need an ironclad, codified legal definition of anti-semitism on books to defuse any & all PR shenanigans, intimidation & blackmail from hoodlums like Abe Foxman once & for all. Otherwise Allen et al will keep blurring the line between the pathological anti-semitism of the Hitlerite brand & anything else, even remotely critical of Israel or the Zionist MO. Or disliking gefilte fish, for that matter. Once we have such a golden legal standard we can start taking ADL to court for defamation. Any legal minds here, hello?

      • seafoid
        October 31, 2013, 4:58 pm

        The zionist notion of antisemitism is nonsense.

      • Talkback
        October 31, 2013, 8:30 pm

        EUR1069 says: “We need an ironclad, codified legal definition of anti-semitism on books to defuse any & all PR shenanigans, intimidation & blackmail from hoodlums like Abe Foxman once & for all.”

        We have this definition for many years, the Zionists perverted it:
        The Real EUMC Definition of Antisemitism
        link to jnews.org.uk

      • Keith
        October 31, 2013, 11:39 pm

        EUR1069- “I suggested it before & I repeat it again: We need an ironclad, codified legal definition of anti-semitism on books to defuse any & all PR shenanigans, intimidation & blackmail from hoodlums like Abe Foxman once & for all.”

        Be careful what you wish for, EUR. Laws are written by those with power. Do you really wish for Abe Foxman’s definition to have the force of law?

      • MHughes976
        November 1, 2013, 10:02 am

        If there is a law within a particular system of laws defining anti-Semitism then that definition is valid for that system but we all have the right to think outside any system that other people have created.
        My definition of anti-Semitism is ‘prejudice against at least some things Jewish’, just as ‘Anglophobia’ would for me be ‘prejudice against at least some things English’. That would not rule out all objections to Jewish or English tradition, culture or politics: it may be that some such objections spring from reason and not prejudice.

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 1:36 pm

        My definition of anti-Semitism is ‘prejudice against at least some things Jewish’
        I don’t think that’s a good definition. When people hear the word “anti-Semitism”, they probably think of actual persecution, gas chambers or death camps. Placing someone who is merely a little “prejudiced against some things Jewish” on the same level with Nazis would be totally unfair.
        To me, an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews for being Jews and who denies them equal rights and equal treatment.

      • MHughes976
        November 2, 2013, 4:56 pm

        Well, we may all use words as we like. Under your definition anti-Zionists are certainly not, unless for reasons other than merely their anti-Zionism, anti-Semites. But I’d like to say that this point holds just as good under my much wider definition of anti-Semitism, since anti-Zionism may be the result of reason.

    • Chu
      October 31, 2013, 4:21 pm

      US verses Them provides the grey matter of what they call anti-semitism. With all the double dealing wrt Israel, it’s no wonder there isn’t more anti-semitism. I may be nervous also if I knew there was some special home for me if things didn’t work out in the western world, as I could always head to the fantasy homeland built on the blood and backs of Palestinians towns. Moral consistency is what sorely lacks in the liberal Zionist – they feel it, but don’t know why.

      Although Woody was speaking to Yediot Ahronot, and may be playing to another audience, he is saying he feels ‘it’ but offers no concrete examples. The other LI princess is promoting her POV for her new film. Jewish emotional baggage is a big part of self-identity and I wouldn’t expect it cease anytime soon. I’d say part of the cohesiveness to being a Jew is to see oneself as separate(unique), so they act different and behave different (in a sense) to the society around them. Just think of the American born hasbarists on this site. I don’t think they can actually make it through the day, without some thought of the hobgoblin of anti-semitism motivating their life and cause.

  13. Nevada Ned
    October 31, 2013, 1:58 pm

    Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem, originally named Natalie Hershlag. She says she feels more at home in Israel than in the US, but she and her family moved to the US when she was only 3 years old ! Maybe she was a child genius, but I don’t think so.

    She is good-looking, but have you seen her acting in Star Wars – the Phantom Menace? She plays a character who cannot express emotion. She was well cast, because she just can’t act.

    At Harvard, she served as one of many “research assistants” to Alan Dershowitz, whose book, The Case for Israel, is riddled with errors (see Finkelstein’s Chutzpah for a devastating critique of Portman/Dershowitz.) Does Dersh actually write his own books?

    Portman is married to a non-Jewish Frenchman (they had a Jewish religious wedding service). So the Israeli far right might conceivably denounce her for committee for intermarriage. Menace to the Jewish people, etc. etc.

    • EUR1069
      October 31, 2013, 4:53 pm

      To think of it: if Portman & Allen are such proud/concerned Jews, why did they changed their names from Herschlag & Konigsberg, respectively? Just wondering.

      • Shmuel
        October 31, 2013, 5:18 pm

        if Portman & Allen are such proud/concerned Jews, why did they changed their names from Herschlag & Konigsberg, respectively?

        Fear of anti-Semitism, of course. In Allen’s case, he obviously thought that if he changed his name and didn’t let on to being Jewish in any of his movies, people might not notice ;-)

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2013, 9:00 pm

        Woody Allen is Jewish?

      • Shingo
        November 1, 2013, 8:16 am

        In Allen’s case, he obviously thought that if he changed his name and didn’t let on to being Jewish in any of his movies, people might not notice ;-)

        That’s such a bizarre notion if it is indeed true, because Allen has almost gone out of his way to become the personification of the Jewish stereotype. And I hope I don’t offend anyone when I say that.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        November 1, 2013, 8:35 am

        In Allen’s case, he obviously thought that if he changed his name and didn’t let on to being Jewish in any of his movies, people might not notice ;-)

        I certainly never noticed. D’joo?

      • Shmuel
        November 1, 2013, 8:37 am

        That’s such a bizarre notion if it is indeed true

        Just a silly joke. Alvy Singer an Episcopalian? :-P

    • piotr
      October 31, 2013, 5:50 pm

      The lack of appropriate spouse candidates of your faith is one of the humiliations that had to be suffered in the exile.

      I would not be too hard on Portman, but that comment was pretty air-headed. Was it really so dangerous in D.C. and Cambridge where she went to schools? The example she cited was that in NYC (unlike Boston?) non-Jews would wish Shana Tova in Hebrew.

      I wonder what book was assisted by Portman. Perhaps Why terrorism works? From a negative review by William Podmore:

      He discusses torture mainly in his chapter 4, what we should do in the ticking bomb scenario, not in chapter 3, on what he imagines an amoral state would do, in which he gives just one page to discussing torture. Throughout chapter 4 he puts the case for allowing torture. He has a 7-page section on the case for, but no section on the case against. He writes of `numerous instances in which torture has produced self-proving, truthful information that was necessary to prevent harm to civilians’.

    • quercus
      November 1, 2013, 5:27 pm

      @Nevada Ned. Absolutely agree with your assessment about Portman’s acting abilities or rather lack of them. I saw the movie “Leon”, not much to talk about her in that. She was dreadful in “Star Wars — the Phantom Menace” and absolutely abysmal in that horrible movie where she played the ballerina who wanted to be “perfect”. Both the Star Wars and the ballet movie (can’t even remember its name it was so forgettable) are two for the toilet.

  14. pabelmont
    October 31, 2013, 2:01 pm

    “American Jews don’t want to surrender their ideal of Israel. (South Africa of course never enjoyed such transnational appeal.)”

    Portman has visited Israel and seems to like what she sees. (But what did she see? What was she shown? Did she see Border Police beating up all kinds of folks? Checkpoints? If she approves of Israel, what is the “content” of the “Israel” that she approves?)

    Allen seems to think (and Portman too) Israel is NECESSARY as a safe place for Jews, which is a very different thing from approving of it (and certainly from approving of it in all respects). Even a visceral unwillingness to criticize Israel would not be the same as an over-all approval. (And recall there is a strong “Zionist Mafia” in the USA which can make life tough for anybody, and which has always operated in the “arts”. Think of Norman Finkelstein’s rocky path to non-tenure as an example of this Mafia in action.)

    • seafoid
      October 31, 2013, 4:52 pm

      I never want to surrender my ideal of Joan Rivers. She has such a young face.

  15. W.Jones
    October 31, 2013, 2:28 pm

    One of the best books dealing with the topic of Racism in America is TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. There is an interesting article on the topic:
    Chapter 26- What Is Ironic About The Lesson Miss Gates Is Teaching The Children?
    link to english83tkam.blogspot.com

    Another article on the topic is:
    Did Harper Lee Whitewash The Jewish Past?
    The Jewish Week
    link to thejewishweek.com

  16. W.Jones
    October 31, 2013, 2:37 pm

    “It’s very different being in Israel than in cities that don’t have big Jewish populations, where it can sometimes feel dangerous to be Jewish, and you understand why there is a need for a place where you don’t feel that way. I feel it in lots of places. Pretty much everywhere.

    I really don’t want to diminish what Portmann is saying, and one shouldn’t make fun of her either. But what is the right way to react? I am not from a big city myself. She is a major celebrity with a wide following across the country. People in those rural places do not even know she is Jewish to begin with. In fact, I am sure there are tons of rural people of all ages who would feel very honored and happy to have her visit them practically any time, whether it would be at a bus station, diner, or their own homes.

    • Ellen
      November 1, 2013, 1:24 am

      She may be welcome, but believe me, she would be very uncomfortable visiting with Bubba and his wife in their doublewide for a meal of pizza just purchased at the 7-11.

      • W.Jones
        November 1, 2013, 9:51 am

        Ellen,

        Why? Isn’t the proletariat cool? Aren’t we supposed to reach out to people? People are really not so different in their hearts whether they live in a trailer or a manor.

        If anything, one’s nervousness could be from being a woman and not knowing people.

      • Ellen
        November 2, 2013, 4:16 pm

        Jones, that is the point.

        Portman lives in a bubble and moving out of the protective bubble to mingle with others who have a completely life reality is the threat. Cute narcissistic story she tells of her sense of threat beyond the city centers, but it has zip to do with her religion.

        Ergo her romantic comments about the view of life from the window sil. She feels threatened outside of NY or LA, or wherever, only because it is not her bubble, not people to which she can immediately relate.

        (All women experience a degree of threat everywhere, at most times, Jewish or Gentile.)

        Allen humoruosly dealt with this theme about himself dysfunction and feelings of threat) in his early movies. i.e. a boat of a car into a studio wall in L.A. Life was secure and safe in New York, beyond that he could not function. Funny.

        She perceives it is those on the outside who have it in for her because of her religion. There is no self reflection that it is she who may be judging the other only because they are not Jewish.

        Life is more secure in the ghetto. She says as much with her words. Allen made comedy of this feeling.

  17. dms
    October 31, 2013, 3:32 pm

    “Israel is safe for Jews and it’s the Palestinians who feel the danger . Like that’s progress.”

    Yup. Sad to say but it is progress.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 31, 2013, 4:46 pm

      “Yup. Sad to say but it is progress.”

      Only if by “progress” you mean “fascism”

  18. yrn
    October 31, 2013, 3:45 pm

    Where is Shmuel with his story.

  19. joer
    October 31, 2013, 3:53 pm

    I actually see things completely opposite as Woody-I believe unqualified support for Israel is a cover for anti-Semitism. You take all the stereotypes about Jews being clannish, ruthless, devious, etc.-accept them-then turn it into something positive. The attitude is that it is better to have such a cunning race on your side since you can’t beat them. That is why when I hear an Evangelical say how much he loves the Jewish people and loves Israel I am a bit dubious.

    On the other hand, while people like David Duke suddenly have loads of compassion for Arabs because of Israel, I take it as a sign of respect when someone is willing to speak honestly about Zionism.

    • Philip Munger
      October 31, 2013, 5:46 pm

      I believe unqualified support for Israel is a cover for anti-Semitism.

      Living in an area – Wasilla, Alaska – that is chock full of Christian Zionists, I see this a lot. Sarah Palin is an example (God! – how I’ve come to hate writing about her). In her public persona, while she was on her short, wild ride as a front-tier politician, she was all warm and fuzzy about Israel. But the reality of what she thought and said in close circles was long known to lots of us here. She won public office as mayor of Wasilla partially through her whispering campaign among CZs that her predecessor, Mayor John Stein, was Jewish. He’s Lutheran, but it smeared him. Absent anti-Semitism in the community, it would have hurt her rather than have helped.

      Just one of many examples I’ve seen among CZs.

      • MRW
        November 1, 2013, 10:06 am

        Thank you, Philip.

        She won public office as mayor of Wasilla partially through her whispering campaign among CZs that her predecessor, Mayor John Stein, was Jewish. He’s Lutheran, but it smeared him. Absent anti-Semitism in the community, it would have hurt her rather than have helped.

        This is a whole ‘nother side to these Jesus freaks who profess love of Israel, the caterwauling about the importance of Israel in God’s plan, which is nothing but braggadocio about their Bible knowledge worthiness. The public vs the private religious stance. You scratch some of these people and they are as small-minded as they come. And as unsophisticated as the shit they really believe, and are. Christian versions of settlers. Preaching the party line in public and remaining toads within.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 5:07 pm

        I have a Palin calendar from 2012 and the September page has a ding dong quote from Bristol who insulted a Facebook adversary with “you’ll be as successful as my baby daddy”.

        The Palins sure are a classy family.

  20. bilal a
    October 31, 2013, 3:59 pm

    Is it Ok to dislike a group’s culture? If I dislike the culture of Provo, Utah , it could mean I have a racial animus against Mormons, or it could mean I dont like the exclusivist clubbiness, religion, and morals of a sub culture, even if there exists a substantial minority in that culture critical of its mainstream.

    Why can’t I dislike the majority culture of NY-LA- Tel Aviv , while still admiring many of its individuals? How is that a racial animus?

    There must be a distinction between Judaism, Jewish colonialism in Palestine, Jewish culture, and people that happen to have a Jewish ethnic background.

    • yonah fredman
      October 31, 2013, 9:04 pm

      bilal- Since this website is sensitive to Islamophobia, I think the analogy you should try out is Muslims rather than Mormons. Why can’t I dislike the majority culture of Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad, while still admiring many of its individuals?

      Is that acceptable to you?

      • bilal a
        November 1, 2013, 11:35 am

        I hate the elite culture of Cairo, the snickering and rejoicing at the murder of thousands of MB and the warm glow most of the liberals feel for the triumph of Sisi the new Mubarak but worse. I hate the quiet public approval for the building of massive new prisons for the torture of the outlawed political majority, and the fawning over the elite industrialists. But cant we all dislike these features of modern neo liberalism , whether in Cairo, Tel Aviv, or New York?

        To the extent that any subculture embraces injustice and war crimes, even hails them as their divine right, then we should oppose it with our hand, voice, or in our hearts.

      • Walid
        November 1, 2013, 12:19 pm

        “I hate the quiet public approval for the building of massive new prisons for the torture of the outlawed political majority

        Bilal, it was the US that got the reluctant Tantawi to “legitimize” them to allow them to run and win in the elections and it was again the US that got the all-too-willing al-Sissi to outlaw them back into oblivion. So much for free elections, just like what happened in Gaza when the US did not like the results. Eventhough I have no use for any of their ideology, it was still disgraceful how the Egyptians reacted to the manhandling of the Brothers.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 5:11 pm

        Masr ta’baan khaalis.
        And the future doesn’t look good at all.

      • gamal
        November 1, 2013, 5:38 pm

        yana yana, as Tamer Hosny might say, easily translated as aaaargh….

        link to youtu.be

        appropriately featuring that plain Jane Mona Zaki.

    • RoHa
      October 31, 2013, 9:09 pm

      “Is it Ok to dislike a group’s culture?”

      No. That is totally forbidden. Nor are you permitted to make even the tiniest criticism of any culture, or any aspect of any culture, save your own (assuming you have one). Further, it is totally forbidden to suggest that any group make any changes whatsoever to their culture, even if this is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances or to better integrate with the other groups they live among.
      All these things constitute an attack on their “identity”.

      Do not even think of suggesting that a group or individual might completely abandon the culture of their dreary ancestors and replace it with a more interesting or convenient one.

      • OlegR
        November 1, 2013, 4:41 pm

        /replace it with a more interesting or convenient one./
        Convenient and interesting to whom i would have to ask at that point
        though i don’t entirely disagree with you.
        Because you know if the answer to my question is as it always has been,
        the dude holding the bigger stick then there is some inherent flaw in your reasoning.

      • RoHa
        November 2, 2013, 11:04 pm

        “Convenient and interesting to whom”

        Mostly to the people who are abandoning the culture of their ancestors.

  21. lysias
    October 31, 2013, 4:09 pm

    As someone who has studied Hebrew, I can figure out what “Shanah tovah” must mean. But, as a native New Yorker (Bronxite, yet) who spent the whole first 18 years of his life in that city, and who regularly returned to the city to visit family for some 30 or 40 years after that, I do not recall ever having heard that Hebrew sentence spoken.

    • piotr
      October 31, 2013, 5:55 pm

      I wonder to what lengths people would go to make you smile at them…

  22. Keith
    October 31, 2013, 4:13 pm

    What is fascinating about these interviews are the implications. Both of these people have been hugely successful in an industry strongly influenced by Jewish power and privilege, yet, rather than acknowledge a Jewish advantage, they complain about anti-Semitism! The implication is that the high rate of Jewish success was achieved in spite of anti-Semitism. Ah, the eternal victim-hood of the rich and famous!

    Of the two, Portman is much more extreme. Her comments bespeak of thinly veiled anti-Gentile chauvinism. Yet, will she ever need to worry about suffering any consequences analogous to those who are labeled anti-Semites? I think not! Perhaps, in a more generous moment, she will offer to let the 99% eat cake. Israeli made and Kosher, of course.

    • EUR1069
      October 31, 2013, 7:00 pm

      The implication is that the high rate of Jewish success was achieved in spite of anti-Semitism.

      It’s cultural, so we just have to live with that. The better the going, the more room is there for kvetching. Whereas when the Tsores gets real thick, everyone is busy with the survival, so no one complains.

      It’s like the ex-Soviet Jews: every time they complain how persecuted & discriminated against they were in the old Soviet Union I ask them what their education is. Most of them earned university & college degrees tuition-free, on the house

      • OlegR
        November 1, 2013, 4:44 pm

        Yes but do they also tell you about the quotas on number of Jews per department per university or even forbidden routs of education
        that were deemed too sensitive by the state ?

      • EUR1069
        November 3, 2013, 5:30 pm

        Oleg, my point precisely: nothing is EVER good enough. LOL

    • seafoid
      November 1, 2013, 3:34 am

      I think it’s an example of the nonsense of the powerful, Keith . It’s usually covered up but the bots can’t help themselves from exposing it.

  23. Tuyzentfloot
    October 31, 2013, 5:03 pm

    Well, Woody Allen’s comment sucks because I like him.

    • Kathleen
      November 1, 2013, 2:50 pm

      Woody lost me when he picked up his under age adopted step child to be his wife. Creepy sociopath.

  24. Justpassingby
    October 31, 2013, 5:17 pm

    They are paranoid, a sickness.

  25. Ecru
    October 31, 2013, 5:19 pm

    “The older I get, the more I realise how different it is to be a Jew in a Jewish place as opposed to a Jew in a non-Jewish place,” she says. “It’s definitely a different feeling in terms of how freely you can be yourself and celebrate your culture and religion.

    Well what a lovely way of saying “I want to live in a Ghetto” there from Ms Portman. I bet in any other context she’d find words expressing similar sentiments appalling. And of course – “antisemitic.” But it’s OK for her to think that way of course – she’s Jewish. But some Boer talking about living apart in South Africa, well that’s just beyond the pale.

    “….it can sometimes feel dangerous to be Jewish, and you understand why there is a need for a place where you don’t feel that way. I feel it in lots of places. Pretty much everywhere.”

    Of course she feels it everywhere – because it’s all in her head!

    Modern Jewish culture seems to have a serious problem with xenophobia if this tripe is what even “Liberal” Jews can come out with.

  26. German Lefty
    October 31, 2013, 6:02 pm

    Natalie Portman: In other places in the world it ranges from people who aren’t familiar with Judaism to people who are hostile towards it.

    I see! Simply being tolerant and accepting of Jews isn’t enough. The Zionists want non-Jews to be familiar with Jewish stuff. Why do they make such insanely high demands? Do they think that we don’t have anything else to do? A while ago, I saw a report on German TV. A Jewish German complained that non-Jewish Germans don’t approach him to ask questions about Judaism. Obviously, he found it offensive that non-Jews are not interested in Jewish religion. Now, even neutrality or indifference to Judaism is misinterpreted as anti-Semitism. Everyone who is not a philo-Semite is categorised as anti-Semite.

    When I found out that Natalie Portman is a Zionist, I started boycotting her films.

  27. dbroncos
    October 31, 2013, 6:29 pm

    Portman gives the impression that she hasn’t travelled much outside of NY or LA. If she had spent any time at all in the regions – Oklahoma or Mississippi, for example, she’d realize that she’s less likely to be recognized as an actress and even less as a Jew by the man/woman on the the street. But maybe that’s what she means by a “feeling of danger” – that in Mississippi she would no longer be The Natalie Portman as opposed to just a hot babe pushing her cart down the aisle of a Piggly Wigley. The horrors!

    Her paranoia has a whiff of the class divide as well.

  28. thankgodimatheist
    October 31, 2013, 6:39 pm

    ‘At Harvard, Portman was Alan Dershowitz’s research assistant.[36][37
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Shingo
      October 31, 2013, 6:49 pm

      Yes, what hope did she have after being indoctrinated by Dersh?

      • lysias
        October 31, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Someone with spunk would rebel against the indoctrination.

        I credit my parochial school education with my being able to recognize indoctrination.

      • Ecru
        November 1, 2013, 4:25 am

        Somebody with a functioning conscience wouldn’t have taken a job that brought them anywhere near the moral vacuum that is Dershowitz.

  29. Shingo
    October 31, 2013, 6:48 pm

    “The older I get, the more I realise how different it is to be a Jew in a Jewish place as opposed to a Jew in a non-Jewish place,”

    What a facile comment. The same goes for Italians in non Italian places and every other ethnicity.

    I love Portman as an actress, but she’s obviously completely disconnected from reality if she thinks this is a profound statement.

    • MRW
      November 1, 2013, 10:19 am

      Yeah. And to think that’s the level of thinking she came away with from attending Harvard.

  30. Linda J
    October 31, 2013, 8:12 pm

    Me too. I’ll have to stop using “WWWD”(What Would Woody Do)? Sad, b/c it got me out of doing a lot of things. ;)

  31. yonah fredman
    October 31, 2013, 9:00 pm

    Another misleading (lying) headline from Mondoweiss.

    Neither Woody nor Natalie Portman said they find antisemitism pervasive in the United States.

    • Ecru
      November 1, 2013, 4:36 am

      Did you even bother reading the article?

      …..it can sometimes feel dangerous to be Jewish…….I feel it in lots of places. Pretty much everywhere.

      Considering she lives in the USA and feels threatened pretty much everywhere she goes because she’s Jewish (and apparently the victim of paranoid delusions) she’s pretty much stating the USA is antisemitic. In fact she’s doing more than that – she’s stating the entire planet is antisemitic.

      As for Alan:-

      America’s always been – you know by the low standards of tolerance for Jews all over the world – America’s been a very tolerant country

      So basically the USA’s intolerent of Jews (antisemitic) but less so than the rest of the world. Backhanded compliment to the place that gave him a startling career or what.

      • yonah fredman
        November 2, 2013, 5:55 am

        Ecru- A closer reading of Natalie Portman’s words reveal that she in fact implied that anti semitism is pervasive. (My first reading was superficial and wrong.)

        But Woody Allen said nothing like that whatsoever. Allen was talking about the long history of America and in certain periods there was extensive anti Jewish hatred in America, but nowhere near the hatred of the rest of the world. What Woody Allen said was historically accurate and he did NOT say that hatred of Jews is pervasive in America today.

        And let me add, that “Backhanded compliment to the place that gave him a startling career” is a stupid standard. Imagine applying that to a successful black entertainer who might complain about American racism. “The place gave him a startling career”, so he has no right to complain.

      • Ecru
        November 3, 2013, 5:32 am

        I think, on further reading, that you’re right about Allen. As for the “backhanded compliment” well honestly if a black comedian did say something similar, it would still be a backhanded compliment. It’d also be true of course.

  32. yonah fredman
    October 31, 2013, 9:20 pm

    Listen: If you wish to get upset by something written by a nonIsraeli Zionist Jew (although nowhere near as famous as either Woody or Natalie Portman) read this article by Howard Jacobson (winner of the Booker prize for “The Finkler Question”) in the Forward (the pro Zionist Jewish Forward, although it includes articles by JVP people and cartoons by Eli Valley, it is primarily Zionist and almost every issue has an article about the Khurban).

    He includes this mockery of the logic of some anti Jewish anti Zionists:

    Not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites.
    I am a critic of Israel.
    Therefore I am not an anti-Semite.

    Read more: link to forward.com

    • RoHa
      November 1, 2013, 12:05 am

      The syllogism is invalid, but that does not mean that the conclusion is false.

      The big question is “How does he know that some critics of Israel are anti-Semites?”

      • yonah fredman
        November 1, 2013, 1:02 am

        Maybe he logged onto David Duke’s website. Maybe he read Hamas’s charter. Maybe he read the comments section here. (Not everybody, but you really have never come across any antiZionist antiSemites here?)

      • RoHa
        November 1, 2013, 1:30 am

        “Not everybody, but you really have never come across any antiZionist antiSemites here?”

        Aside from me, I haven’t noticed any.

      • goldmarx
        November 1, 2013, 1:34 pm

        RoHa: But if you did notice any, would the moderator allow you to mention them by name?

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 1:44 pm

        Aside from me, I haven’t noticed any.
        Very funny, RoHa.

    • Ecru
      November 1, 2013, 4:59 am

      I’ve read and listened to Jacobsen before and honestly just can’t take any more of his intellectual masturbation. He’s one of those constant whiners and sees antisemitism EVRYWHERE (Full English Breakfast? English cuisine is antisemitic!) unable to see anything beyond his self imposed Jewish intellectual ghetto. He’s also not half as bright as he thinks he is. Though to be fair – it’d be hard for a quasar to be as bright as Jacobsen thinks he is.

      Nope a very clumsy piece (that this guy won a Booker just shows how little that award is worth) trying to conflate holocaust denial with anti-Zionism. Doesn’t work. For starters it’d be nice if he’d actually define holocaust denial instead of using a blanket “all its forms” that could include anything.

      He also has a problem with the flow of time. Today’s Israel is not made up of the victims of the holocaust, it was after all almost 70 years ago. For him obviously (and many Zionists who use the holocaust as an excuse) the Death Camps are still there, an eternal event outside the normal flow of time as experienced by human beings. It’s almost more a religious touch-stone than an actual event, and for Jacobsen and his fellow travellers the Goy must eternally pay the price. Especially the ones who had nothing to do with it.

      No it’s another attempt to guilt the Goy into ignoring Zionist crimes by hiding behind the Holocaust. It’s not just a failure of a barely coherent argument that will only make sense to people who already agree with him it’s also pretty despicable, turning the victims of the holocaust into human sacrifices at the alter of Greater Israel.

      The only thing he wrote that made any real sense was the bit he failed to fully understand – the quote from Tacitus.

      “It is part of human life,” he wrote, “to hate the man you have hurt.” Those we harm, we blame — mobilizing dislike and even hatred in order to justify, after the event, the harm we did.

      It’s also revealing of his complete (voluntary) blindness to his own failings and Zionist realities. For after all Israelis and Zionist Jews hate Palestinians for precisely that reason.

      • Bandolero
        November 1, 2013, 10:24 am

        Ecru

        … define holocaust denial instead of using a blanket “all its forms” that could include anything…

        As reported in The Jewish Press yesterday:

        The International Alliance for Holocaust remembrance (IHRA), comprised of 31 member states, the UN and UNESCO have accepted a universal definition of holocaust denial. According to Gideon Bachar, the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry department for the fight against antisemitism, who represented Israel in the discussions, the newly accepted definition of a holocaust denier is … anyone who includes the 1939-1945 holocaust among other great tragedies in human history.

        Source:

        link to jewishpress.com

        From Wikipedia:

        The year 2000 saw a major development in the IHRA… Yehuda Bauer was invited to head the academic committee, while Nobel Prize laureate Professor Elie Wiesel was asked to become the Honorary Chairman of the forum. A joint declaration was unanimously adopted.

        Source:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        So, now we have a universal definition of holocaust denial and no questions are left open.

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2013, 6:02 am

        [Gideon Bachar, the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry department ] …the newly accepted definition of a holocaust denier is … anyone who includes the 1939-1945 holocaust among other great tragedies in human history.

        Wow.

      • Keith
        November 2, 2013, 5:09 pm

        SIBIRIAK- “Wow.”

        Wow, indeed. This is a demonstration of power, not victim-hood. The ability to establish definitions and labels. In Europe, some countries have laws making Holocaust denial illegal. And how about being called an anti-Semite for linking to a website that practices “Holocaust denial?” I sometimes wonder if the Zionist aren’t trying to incite a low level of anti-Semitism in order to justify Zionism?

      • Ecru
        November 3, 2013, 2:03 am

        anyone who includes the 1939-1945 holocaust among other great tragedies in human history.

        Disgusting. Zionist narcissism at its worst. Well if that’s the definition of “Denialist” then all I can say is I’m proud to “Deny” the lives of one people are more valuable than those of all others and I always will be.

      • EUR1069
        November 3, 2013, 11:00 am

        Keith: “I sometimes wonder if the Zionist aren’t trying to incite a low level of anti-Semitism in order to justify Zionism?”

        You just nailed it, man. Zionism wouldn’t survive without antisemitism, real or imagined – its raison d’être, its bread-and-butter. That’s why scoundrels like Abe Foxman make 500K a year going around with a magnifying glass.

        Yoav Shamir’s movie – “Defamation” is a must see on the subject. Enjoy!

      • Sibiriak
        November 3, 2013, 7:25 pm

        EURO1069:

        Zionism wouldn’t survive without antisemitism, real or imagined…

        Absolutely. Which leads to the question: can Judaism/unified-global-Jewish-identiy survive without Zionism?

      • EUR1069
        November 4, 2013, 8:33 am

        “can Judaism/unified-global-Jewish-identiy survive without Zionism?”

        Judaism has been doing just fine for over 2000 years without Zionism to what I know.

      • Sibiriak
        November 4, 2013, 10:03 am

        EUR1069:

        Judaism has been doing just fine for over 2000 years without Zionism to what I know.

        Not really. Judaism/Jewish identity was greatly challenged with advent of modernity, emancipation etc. Zionism can be seen as a response to those challenges, not just a response to antisemitism.

      • miriam6
        November 4, 2013, 6:07 pm

        Sibiriak@:

        No – Zionism was a response to anti – Semitism.
        Many Zionist leaders were secular.

      • Sibiriak
        November 4, 2013, 6:59 pm

        miriam6

        Many Zionist leaders were secular

        Yes, and secular Jews struggled with Jewish identity as much or more than religious Jews. Zionism provided a means of continued Jewish identity via secular nationalism as well as nationalization of religious concepts, and this provided an alternative to Jewish assimilation/ loss of unity.

        (That’s why I used the expression “Judaism/unified-global-Jewish-identiy”, not simply “Judaism”.)

      • Ecru
        November 4, 2013, 7:17 pm

        @ Sibiriak

        Zionism can be seen as a response to those challenges [of modernity] , not just a response to antisemitism.

        What is Israel, the fulfilment of Zionist dreams (and everyone else’s nightmares, especially the Palestinians) but a return to the Ghetto, complete with Walls? Just look at Portman’s comment, life in a Ghetto is apparently what she actually wants not just for herself but for her child. Sad really and ultimately rather pathetic.

      • EUR1069
        November 4, 2013, 7:21 pm

        “Many Zionist leaders were secular.”

        Miriam: ALL of them were. The most educated, assimilated & successful urban Jews that Vienna, Berlin & Budapest ever produced, so they were the least exposed to any kind of antisemitism, as opposed to the Yiddish-speaking, Torah-observing shtetl Ostjuden of Poland, Lithuania & Ukraine. Zionism was a concept of nationalism they copied from Europeans [mostly Germans after Bismarck’s unification of the country] but first & foremost it was a rebellion against Judaism which they detested and hated with a passion. Herzl publicly boasted that he didn’t circumcise his son. “We’ll go to Palestine. The rabbis can go to the gas chambers” – Chaim Weizmann, 1943″!! “One cow in Palestine is worth more that all the diaspora Jews.” – Yitzhak Greenbaum, etc. It was only later, on the wave of the post-Holocaust grief, 1945-48 that the Ben Gurion, Meir & Co. changed the strategy, highjacked & corrupted the religion to be subservient to a newly adopted militant racist nationalism.

    • eljay
      November 1, 2013, 7:53 am

      >> Read more: link to forward.com

      The shocking psychological truth is that man rejects the burden of guilt by turning the tables on those we have wronged and portraying ourselves as the victims of their suffering.

      An excellent analysis of Zio-supremacists and the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”. Nicely done, Mr. Jacobson.

      • OlegR
        November 1, 2013, 4:53 pm

        Aren’t you getting bored writing
        oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist
        over and over and over and over and over again ?
        Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

      • eljay
        November 2, 2013, 8:43 am

        >> Aren’t you getting bored writing oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist over and over and over and over and over again ?

        Nope. I’d ask you if you’re getting bored of being a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist and/or part of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”, but I already know the answer to that.

        >> Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

        Elvis, Janis and Jim!

  33. traintosiberia
    October 31, 2013, 9:27 pm

    One wonders where has he ( woody Allen ) been all these times ? He has seen the attack on the Sikhs. attacks on Park 51, attacks on the occupy Wall Street. fiery spec cheers of the Republican presidential hopefuls against minorities, Iran,
    Libya, against Hamas, against Mexican immigrant, against the middle class. He has seen the NYPD police peculiar racial profiling and frisking He must have heard of the infiltration of the mosques by spy,racial profiling in the Boston airport and of American adoption of Israeli strategy in combating the fake enemies. He must have known of the powerful messages delivered in favor of Israel by everybody elected on any offices in US . He sees Antisemitism and nothing in and around that so obvious contradicting any possibility of the existence of Antisemitism.

  34. radii
    October 31, 2013, 11:22 pm

    not long after 9/11 Allen made a film with an unusual amount of violence in it and he prominently featured the color red in it – he was declaring the jewish victimhood stance with that film so I’m not surprised at his continued retrograde views and willful ignorance of the zionist state’s self-inflicted damage

    Portman always struck me as the hippy radical type – if she were a goy girl in the late 60s she probably would have joined the Weather Underground or something … the only thing keeping her from being a front-line settler radical is her movie career

  35. Walid
    November 1, 2013, 12:14 am

    A sidenote to the discussion here: The movie Portman is about to direct, “A Tale of Love and Darkness” is of the first book by an Israeli published in Beirut; this should freak out a few Zionists here and screw up their narrative:

    “Beirut publisher releases Arabic translation of Amos Oz autobiography
    By Maya Sela | Mar. 3, 2010 | 1:40 AM

    A Beirut publishing house is currently printing the first Arabic translation of Amos Oz’s best-selling autobiography “A Tale of Love and Darkness.”

    The Beirut branch of Al-Hayat newspaper already has run two stories about the translation, Oz said.

    “Both heap praise on the book, calling it a great work, but dissent from its political positions,” he said.

    link to haaretz.com

    • OlegR
      November 1, 2013, 4:57 pm

      /this should freak out a few Zionists here and screw up their narrative:/

      Why should it, Oz is a great author no reason for Arabs not read it .
      Especially in Beirut which always was on of more enlightened and liberal centers of the Arab world.

      • Walid
        November 2, 2013, 9:03 am

        “Why should it, Oz is a great author no reason for Arabs not read it .”

        I was alluding to the Zionist narrative of how ALL the Arabs hate the Jews and would want to see them drown in the sea. Your existential threat hocus-pocus could not work without the canard of massive hordes of Arabs out to annihilate ALL the Jews. We keep posting stories about the chummy relations between Israel and practically ALL the Arab countries and you guys keep playing stupid at not understanding it; the only truly existentional threat to Jews is in your Zionist-infected minds. Publication of an Israeli author in Beirut is yet another indication that there is no threat, but instead of seeing the “first” behind the story, you chose to butter it up about Beirut’s enlightened culture.

  36. Kathleen
    November 1, 2013, 12:26 am

    Neither one of them express any kind of compassion or empathy for the Palestinians. Talk about anti semites.

    • seafoid
      November 1, 2013, 8:06 am

      Woody reminds me of David Mamet. I think that generation of special people is a write off when it comes to the Israel issue.

      Absolutely zero compassion.

      • MRW
        November 1, 2013, 10:44 am

        Yeah, Mamet went goofy. I’d put Portman in that camp, too. She’s physically drop-dead beautiful, and her acting at age nine in Léon: The Professional was memorable, but as Weaver noted in 1948, ideas have consequences.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 12:27 pm

        It must be hard to smell the coffee after many years supporting what you thought was a sound institution and realise it was dealing in pure evil. Elderly catholics in the US with decades of mass going experience often found it hard to accept that their cardinals shielded child rapists but there is no other way than to take the hit and face the facts.

        This is going to be so painful for Jews who don’t want to know anything about the darkness inside Zionism.

      • Kathleen
        November 1, 2013, 2:51 pm

        Bingo dingo.

  37. talknic
    November 1, 2013, 12:39 am

    In a perfect world without antisemitism would Israel: End occupation of non-Israeli territory? Withdraw from all non-Israeli territories for once? Stop illegal settlements in non-Israeli territory? Take all its illegal settlers and go live in Israel? Pay rightful reparations? Admit it DOES have borders? Stop lying? Stop breaking the law, the UN Charter?

  38. mijj
    November 1, 2013, 1:56 am

    i think, for some, “anti-semite” is someone who denies the inherent superiority of Judaism.

    • Kathleen
      November 1, 2013, 2:53 pm

      Anything having to do with questioning the actions of the Israeli government has been quickly categorized as anti semitic. Decades of this hooey. Successful way to shut down the conversation. That has changed.

  39. Walid
    November 1, 2013, 4:23 am

    “In other places in the world it ranges from people who aren’t familiar with Judaism to people who are hostile towards it.”(Portman)

    In other words, other than NYC, LA and other cities that have large Jewish populations, the rest of the world is divided into either ignorant people or anti-Jewish ones where Jews should feel they are in danger. She grew up in the States but the paranoia is there just the same; must be from her Israeli genes. She should concentrate on being pretty and keeping her mouth shut.

    • miriam6
      November 1, 2013, 6:38 am

      Walid@;

      She should concentrate on being pretty and keeping her mouth shut.

      What a sexist comment.

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 7:16 am

        @ miriam6
        What a sexist comment.

        Bullshit! That’s not a sexist comment at all. Walid did NOT say that ALL women should shut up and serve as decoration!
        Walid’s comment could also refer to a good-looking, stupid person who happens to be a man: “He should concentrate on being handsome and keeping his mouth shut.”
        Using false accusations of sexism (or anti-Semitism) in order to stifle dissent is majorly pathetic.

      • Walid
        November 1, 2013, 7:36 am

        She is very pretty, miriam, let’s not hold it against her. As to her political adventurism, it’s best that she keeps out of it. Seems she’s also a great actress. It’s here on Mondo that I learned she was the 12 year-old genius of an actress in “Leon” that held on to Leon’s flower pot; I had always wondered what became of her. I’m sure with her directing and writing of the screenplay of the Oz biography, it will be worth seeing, unless of course, she decides she wants to use it to make more absurd political statements as the one discussed on this thread, which would make her end up with her foot in her mouth and provoke more sexists comments. Hope not, because it would spoil the story.

      • German Lefty
        November 1, 2013, 1:41 pm

        She is very pretty, miriam, let’s not hold it against her.

        LOL. However, in my view her Zionism made her ugly.

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2013, 8:08 am

        Miriam

        Do you know what would be more sexist? Tell her to put on a headscarf and wear black and have babies for YESHA.

        link to vosizneias.com

        At least she’s free to pursue a career out here in Galut.

      • miriam6
        November 2, 2013, 5:33 pm

        seafoid@;

        Orthodox women having babies to aid political Zionism is one thing –

        Orthodox women dressing a certain way , even abandoning careers and having babies because they have faith and belief in God is perfectly fine with me.

        Nothing sexist about it if that is the life they choose to lead.

      • goldmarx
        November 1, 2013, 1:38 pm

        So, Annie, do you think Walid’s comment about Natalie Portman was sexist?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2013, 10:00 am

        hmm. i’m probably the wrong one to ask at the moment. i find ms portman’s opinions so frightfully bizarre and misplaced, or paranoid, or something i find myself rather agreeing with the idea less is better wrt her opening her mouth lest she offend a huge swath of her fellow americans.

        i’ve yet to weigh in on portman’s comments in this thread, but since you asked..last i heard winning an academy award wasn’t just a decision made by jewish people. she’s a highly celebrated young actress who has been, for the most part, embraced by a society she perceives as being hostile “pretty much everywhere” to jews, and by extension to her i presume, because she too is jewish. so what, pray tell, does the young actress want more from us?

        so, i live in the bay area, and my city, SF didn’t make it into her safe zone. neither did phili or miami or chicago or a myriad of other US cities home to thousands of jews. nor did any rural areas or small towns.

        so, are we, americans allowed to take offense by someone who grew up here, was roundly embraced, found success here and then ..well, not good enough. we’re not good enough? so yeah, i kinda think she should stfu. but sure, framing it as “concentrate on being pretty” is sexist, especially given the fact ms portman is a very talented actress, he could have said ‘concentrate on her art’. but if i were advising portman i’d suggest she leave the musings about all the hostility she feels due to her ethnicity behind closed doors. lest the rest of us get the feeling she doesn’t really appreciate the adulation she’s received. casting pearls before swine and all that.

        i do think she’s extremely talented, not just a pretty face. i hope that answers your question.

      • Sumud
        November 2, 2013, 10:28 am

        so, i live in the bay area, and my city, SF didn’t make it into her safe zone. neither did phili or miami or chicago or a myriad of other US cities home to thousands of jews. nor did any rural areas or small towns.

        Portman’s Wikipedia page says she is about to move to Paris so evidently she doesn’t *really* feel too unsafe about the rest of the world.

      • Walid
        November 2, 2013, 11:46 am

        “… he could have said ‘concentrate on her art’. ”

        Annie, he profusely complimented her on her acting career and on her good looks, in spite of being an Israeli, and went further in saying that he believed she’s do a great job writing the screenplay and directing the movie about the life of an Israeli author. He went even further and posted the good news about an Israeli author’s biography, that’s being turned into a Portman movie, being published in Beirut. But he asked that she shuts up on polical issues to avoid putting her foot in her mouth. Next time, he’ll refrain from all this extravangaza of admiration and simply say that she should concentrate on her art.

    • yrn
      November 1, 2013, 6:35 pm

      “She should concentrate on being pretty and keeping her mouth shut.”

      Wow would you accept.
      Roger Waters, Play your Bass and keep your mouth shut.
      No he is an Anti Zionist, he is aloud based on the hypocrisy double standard in Mondowiess.

      • Walid
        November 2, 2013, 8:41 am

        “would you accept. Roger Waters, Play your Bass and keep your mouth shut.”

        If Roger Waters utters stupidities like Portman, I surely would. But someone beat you to it; it was Israel-lover, Eric Rosenberg in Forbes that was offended by Waters’ pro-BDS stance. He wrote:

        “Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters Should Shut Up About Israel, And Play His Guitar

        By Eric Rosenberg

        “Two things are infinite,” Albert Einstein said. “The universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.

        Einstein could have added a third element in endless supply that is a close cousin of the second: the bottomless pit of artist celebrities who feel anointed because of their success or ego to lead foreign affairs debates.

        Roger Waters, the bassist and a lyricist for Pink Floyd, one of rocks’ greatest acts, is a high-profile poster child for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, an organization embraced by the European and American left that advocates boycotting Israeli academics, culture, businesses and institutions.

        BDS calls the Israeli government an “apartheid regime.” Far from the mainstream of political thought, the organization doesn’t support a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Its leaders have no time for condemnation of Muslim nations with their gulags and police state apparatus. BDS is bent on Israel not existing as a Jewish state, if at all.

        For the rest of the diatribe that should give you a warm feeling of being understood:

        link to forbes.com

  40. kayq
    November 1, 2013, 6:00 am

    Natalie Portman reminds me of a younger Elie Wiesel.

    Also I love how she thinks anti-semitism is non-existent in LA or NY, she is delusional.

  41. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 1, 2013, 10:07 am

    Bit surprised to see so many people praise Portman as an actress. I’ve always thought she’s a horrible actress who sucks the life out of any role she’s let near. I simply won’t go to any film she’s in, and that’s without even taking her Zio-victimhood into account.

    As for her comments, nothing much to add to what’s already been said. For a Jew living in a country where Jews are apparently so under threat, she, and Mr. Allen, have both done remarkably well for themselves. Strange, that.

  42. EUR1069
    November 1, 2013, 1:38 pm

    I think we pretty much squeezed the last drop out of this one.
    The false insecurity kvetching of two hugely successful millionaire entertainers who never had it better in their lives reminds me of the opening (and very Jewish) joke in Annie Hall:
    Two women vacationing in the Catskills are talking:
    One: “Did you notice how terrible the food is here?”
    The other: “Yea… and the portions are small too”

  43. LanceThruster
    November 1, 2013, 2:57 pm

    “I do feel there are many people that disguise their negative feelings toward Jews, disguise it as anti-Israel criticism, political criticism, when in fact what they really mean is that they don’t like Jews,” he said.

    I would like to hear from them how those who don’t ‘hate Jews’ should honestly critique Israel.

  44. OlegR
    November 1, 2013, 5:05 pm

    I’ll just leave it here shall i .

    link to youtube.com

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  45. just
    November 2, 2013, 7:34 am

    Jean Reno and Natalie Portman were fantastic in “Leon: The Professional.” I credit Reno for his obvious & successful coaching and mentoring of the child Natalie. (Reno is a personal favorite of mine.)

    I am so sorry that she feels the threat of persecution and feels vulnerable in America — aside from her glitzy, adoring enclaves, that is.

    Poor Natalie. As for The Woody Allen– all Jewish nerdism and success aside, what rot! Perhaps he longs for a medal from the Empire or one presented by our President in order to feel suitably “appreciated”.

  46. Kathleen
    November 2, 2013, 9:31 pm

    link to huffingtonpost.com

    What happens when your father marries your adoptive sister?

    If you’re Woody Allen’s estranged son, Ronan Farrow, you use Twitter to remind everyone just how messed up your family is. The 24-year-old freelance journalist and human-rights activist opened some old family wounds on Father’s Day, tweeting:

    Ronan’s mother couldn’t help but chime in, and replied to her son’s tweet with a simple, yet effective statement:

    Allen infamously left his longtime partner and Ronan’s mother, actress Mia Farrow, in 1992, for adoptive daughter Soon-Yi Previn. And even though Allen left Mia in 1992, the relationship with Soon-Yi began in 1991, when she was 21 and he was 56.

    Woody and Mia began dating in 1980 and together they adopted two children. Mia gave birth to their only biological child, Ronan, in 1987. Mia and her ex-husband, musician André Previn, had adopted Soon-Yi at 8 years old from Korea in 1978. Though Allen never legally adopted Soon-Yi, he came into her life when she was 10 and was considered a father figure.

    Allen and Soon-Yi adopted a baby girl, whom they named Bechet in 1996, and adopted another baby girl, named Manzie Tio, in 1997. That same year, the two tied the knot in Venice, Italy, making Soon-Yi Allen’s third wife.

  47. yonah fredman
    November 3, 2013, 12:28 am

    To analyze, not to excuse:
    Natalie Portman nee Hershlag (We are reminded here, for information sake? or in an attempt to emulate Father Coughlin?) has recently given birth and married and is attempting to come to terms with her Jewish identity. (What identity will she give her kid? She comes to terms with that now, no need to before.)

    All her life (since child stardom) she has gone under a false name Portman. Of course Hollywood and show business has a long history of changed names. The moguls (some of whom changed their names to be more acceptable to the nonJewish public) quite often changed the names of the actors and actresses- Judy Garland, famously was Frances Gumm and Marilyn Monroe- Norma Jean Baker, so it was something that was not just for Jews, this forced name changing. But. Natalie on some level has been covering up the Hershlag with a Portman and who knows? maybe this might sometimes create some sort of dissonance between the true identity of Hershlag and the mask/new name of Portman. Plus maybe working on an Amos Oz memoir that deals in identity, maybe this stirs up some ideas, and so she is conscious, much of the time, of the covered up Hershlag and the mask of Portman and so she senses there is danger if the majority might learn that she is a Hershlag.

    Of course, here at MW, particularly in the comments section, but even above the fold, this is called paranoia and personifies Zionist paranoia. But in fact maybe people with scientific psychologically oriented minds, might learn something about human nature. But any attempt to understand the mind of any Jew struggling with identity, is a moment taken away from fighting for the Palestinians, so let’s not think. Let’s call her David Mamet and be done with her.

    • RoHa
      November 3, 2013, 12:51 am

      “But in fact maybe people with scientific psychologically oriented minds, might learn something about human nature. But any attempt to understand the mind of any Jew struggling with identity, is a moment taken away from fighting for the Palestinians, so let’s not think.”

      Two examples of the comma-after-subject-clause error in a row! Does this reveal something about human nature, or is it part of a Jewish struggle with identity?

    • seafoid
      November 3, 2013, 5:13 am

      She’s entitled to seek her identity but does it have to involve colonialism ?

    • Walid
      November 3, 2013, 5:44 am

      “… nee Hershlag (We are reminded here, for information sake? or in an attempt to emulate Father Coughlin?) ”

      You’re putting it in a completely different context. Yonah. The name change was raised here (by Shmuel, I think) in a discussion about her having proud Jewish roots and it was asked how that blended with her Hollywoodian name change. You and just about everyone else have anaylized her, cut her up into little bite-sized pieces, practically threw her to the dogs and compared her name change to those of to 2 Hollywood misfits. Yet, I’m the one that got torpedoed for having told the talented pretty face to shut up. There is no justice in this world.

  48. kalithea
    November 3, 2013, 3:25 pm

    If Portman is so attached to Israel; she should pack her bags and go live there permanently, and good riddance; don’t let the door hit ya!

    For someone enjoying so much privilege she sure is dense and completely insensitive. If someone asks her about the Nakba; she’ll probably reply “What Nakba – Nakba huh??? Is that a new designer line?”

    Their “insecurity” is so disingenuous; it’s laughable. Their responses reek of Zionist propaganda. Portman’s work leaves me indifferent. However, I never thought Allen, who’s expressed how at ease he feels filming in Europe, would stoop to feed the Zionist narrative. He doesn’t seem to feel rejection after churning out 8 films in Europe on location, enjoying the food and ambiance in Spain and Italy and the collaboration and financial backing he gets there with total creative freedom. Some gratitude! But this crock he spouted doesn’t surprise me. Zionism lowers the IQ.

    My respect for these two has reached nil.

    • piotr
      November 4, 2013, 7:28 am

      “If Portman is so attached to Israel; she should pack her bags and go live there permanently, and good riddance…”

      You make your argument weaker by using such a personally intolerant phrase. After deleting the first paragraph your comment is OK, but that paragraph is not only boorish but also “proves” Portman’s case, namely that as soon as she leaves NYC she meets Kalithea in Hoboken who shouts at her to leave USA.

      Of course living in privilege can blind you to what is going on outside your comfy environment. Portman’s bio positively reeks of it. She is a “nice liberal” primarily interested in animal rights.

      • Ecru
        November 4, 2013, 9:38 am

        @ Piotr

        I disagree with you on Portman’s point being proven. If Kalithea were to “prove” Portman’s point you would have to demonstrate that Kalithea’s comment was spurred on not by Portman’s own statements of feeling “better” in Israel or her being a Zionist but rather by her being Jewish. I can see no evidence to support that contention.

        I’d also say Kalithea’s comment to Portman is well deserved given some of the things the actress has come out with – most tellingly perhaps:-

        “I really love the states, but my heart’s in Jerusalem. That’s where I feel at home.”

        link to imdb.com
        And now this latest bit of xenophobia?

        I feel it in lots of places [that it’s dangerous to be a Jew]. Pretty much everywhere.

        One must really ask why on earth if she feels this way she chooses to live amongst us dangerous and apparently fundamentally (even genetically perhaps?) antisemitic goyim. If she is so desperate to live in a Jewish ghetto, and evidently has such low regard for non-Jews, then frankly she should sod off and good riddance to bad rubbish.

  49. yonah fredman
    November 4, 2013, 4:02 am

    Certainly compared to the raw anti semitism of Gilad Atzmon and the Hamas charter, this web site is faultless, but… When Miley Cyrus gratuitously includes the term Jewish to that 70 year old behind a desk making poor decisions about music, MW all but praises her for her contribution to the discourse: “Maybe this moment signals a more open and neutral conversation about the Jewish establishment? I hope so, but I could be wrong. I’m 58.”

    The impression is that Phil is happy when people point to people and say, “Look at the Jew who’s made it big.” Not only in connection with Zionism, but he wants to point out the rich Jews, so that… 1. people internalize the fact that the Jews are doing well here and therefore don’t need a refuge and 2. Phil seems interested in a redistribution of wealth and power out of the hands of Jews, irrelevant to the issue of Zionism. General redistribution of wealth and power then seems to be above Phil’s pay grade, but redistribution of wealth and power out of the hands of Jews, that is Phil’s hobby. Is that antisemitism? Borderline.

  50. Ludwig
    November 4, 2013, 11:58 am

    No more pervasive than on this website.

Leave a Reply