MJ Rosenberg owes Ali Abunimah an apology for false accusations of anti-Semitism

While tirelessly working to promote the rights of his people, Palestinian-American activist and Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah has kept a wary eye open for anti-Semitism, and repeatedly made it clear that there is no room in the Palestinian rights movement for any attacks on Jewish people.  For example, see his harsh criticism of Gilad Atzmon and Greta Berlin.   Of course, this stance has not insulated him from the usual charges of anti-Semitism from the cadre of smear artists poised to attack.  Their tactics range from willful distortions and misinterpretations of actual remarks to outright fabrication of quotes.

MJ Rosenberg

MJ Rosenberg

Ordinarily, such reflexive condemnations of “anti-Semitism” are not noteworthy.  But recently, a new and surprising source of the most vitriolic and vacuous charges of anti-Jewish bigotry has emerged.  MJ Rosenberg has come a long way since his early days as an AIPAC staffer, and while he still supports the existence of the Jewish State, has been a genuinely harsh critic of Israeli policies.  He has authored a number of posts on Mondoweiss that offered a good deal of insight or at least inspired thoughtful discussion.

In a series of recent blog posts, Rosenberg unleashes a shocking stream of invective directed against Abunimah, including: “I believe that Ali Abunimah would be ecstatic if Israel was destroyed, blown off the face of the earth, along with every one of its people because, after all, the Jews in Palestine are, by definition, Zionists, even the kids.”  “Ali Abunimah refers to Israelis as Zionists, [and] then he makes clear, over and over again, that Zionists are all bad people. Just go to his twitter feed and read the labels he uses for Zionists, like ‘invaders.’ So, by simple deduction, Abunimah hates all 6 or 7 million Jews of Israel, about half the Jews on the planet.”  This is Alan Dershowitz on steroids.

Ali Abunimah

Ali Abunimah

What has incensed Rosenberg to the point of meltdown?  He repeatedly cites Abunimah’s twitter feed, but does not quote any particular tweets and only gives details about two, where Ali suggests that it was anti-Semitic for Congressman Henry Waxman to consult specifically with Jewish House members on Syria, and that it is similarly anti-Semitic to subscribe to “Zionist dogma” that Jews must be physically separated from non-Jews.  Since Rosenberg singles out these tweets, he presumably found them to be among the most offensive.  However, even if one disagrees with these positions, are they really deserving of such an irate response?  Moreover, if Rosenberg is going to attack Abunimah as bent on genocide of millions, don’t his readers deserve to see exactly what Ali wrote?  In fact, Rosenberg makes it clear that his accusations are based not on what Ali wrote but on his “simple deduction” of Abunimah’s state of mind:  “Yeah, yeah, I know he is careful to scream about Israelis or Zionists and not Jews, but he doesn’t fool me”; “I know anti-Semitism when I see it.”

This outburst is all the more inexplicable since Rosenberg himself has been publicly smeared by the odious Dershowitz for the relatively innocuous “offense” of using the term “Israel firster” to describe those who put Israel first.  Dershowitz threatened to use his self-appointed bully pulpit to defeat Obama’s re-election if Media Matters did not fire Rosenberg, who actually resigned in response to the threat.  Dershowitz, no stranger to ridiculously overheated prose, said this about Rosenberg:  “He didn’t engage in careful, nuanced critiques of Israel, which is fine. He engaged in hyperbole, name-calling. He just hated, hated, hated, with a passion, almost an eroticized passion of anything associated with Israel. He was like a spurned lover — irrational.”  What was Rosenberg trying to prove by smearing Abunimah in similar or even worse terms?

Rosenberg is a quintessential Liberal Zionist, one who believes that the creation and continued existence of the Jewish State has been a worthy project but that strenuous efforts should be made to mitigate its negative effects on Palestinians.  Rosenberg seems sincerely critical of Israel’s movement in the opposite direction, being harsher than it has to be.  Abunimah may exhibit little patience with LZ prescriptions of a kinder and gentler system of inequality.  While I agree with Abunimah’s vision of one state with equal rights for all, I may be somewhat more tolerant of “Liberal Zionists” than he is, but after all, my family is full of them and his family was ethnically cleansed from their homeland by Zionists of all stripes.

But to infer that Abunimah is such a virulent anti-Semite that he would love to see millions of Israeli Jews exterminated is beyond preposterous.  Abunimah has written a book detailing his view of one state in which every resident of the land between the river and the sea would enjoy full and equal rights of citizenship.  Does Rosenberg truly believe that Abunimah devoted the time and energy to writing this book envisioning true peace and harmony between Jews and non-Jews only to camouflage his master plan for the Final Solution in the Middle East?  Rosenberg apparently has felt the personal sting of Abunimah’s intolerance of Zionism in any form, but if he is going to advocate in favor of his own “right” to emigrate half-way around the world and assume a superior position to people who have lived there for many centuries, he should be more tolerant of criticism, especially from the victims of that ideology.

This is more than an issue of personal pique between two individuals, and should be seen in a larger context.  Ultimately, all supporters of the concept of a Jewish State, including “Liberal Zionists,” are defending a system that inherently imposes ethno-religious privileges that would be impossible to tolerate in the United States or elsewhere.  The only way a Liberal Zionist could rationalize this compromise of the rights of others is for a “greater good” of preventing a far worse calamity.  True Liberal Zionists oppose the Occupation, but feel that Palestinian citizens of Israel are going to have to accept perpetual second-class citizenship because a Jewish State is necessary to protect not only Israeli Jews but also world Jewry.  So in order to justify a Jewish State rather than a color/ethnicity/religion-blind state, the dangers to Jews posed by the world at large, and Arabs and Palestinians in particular, must be magnified.  The Palestinian fight for freedom, justice and equality is thus often portrayed as a potential threat to the survival of the Jewish people, who live on the precipice of genocide.  A more realistic evaluation of the threat of anti-Semitism would not give it precedence over conforming to the otherwise inviolable  21st century norm of equality for all.

Is there any anti-Semitism in the Palestinian rights movement? Surely there is.  The movement is a reaction to many decades of appalling oppression perpetrated by a state that purports to be acting in the name of all Jews.  Surely there were expressions of hatred directed against white people in apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow south.  Such reactions do not delegitimize (a rare appropriate use of that word) the universal struggles for freedom, justice and equality, nor do they justify the perpetuation of their denial.  Kathleen Peratis may detect a “whiff” of anti-Semitism, but that is no reason to shun a movement dedicated to equal rights in any of these settings.

Ali Abunimah understands that expressions of anti-Semitism can be poisonous to his cause.  But false accusations of anti-Semitism can be just as toxic, all the more so when leveled by someone like MJ Rosenberg rather than one of the usual knee-jerk blowhards.  This is not merely a personal smear directed against someone wholly undeserving of it.  It’s a gift bestowed upon not-so-liberal Zionists who can now quote the Israeli critic MJ as “authority” that Ali Abunimah, not to mention all he represents, is a raging anti-Semitic genocidal maniac.  Rosenberg should take a step back and re-evaluate.  He owes Abunimah and his readership an apology.

About David Samel

David Samel is am attorney in New York City.
Posted in Activism, Israel/Palestine, One state/Two states, US Politics

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

  1. Ira Glunts says:

    Thanks David for this thoughtful post. I believe you covered what needs to be said. I would just like to add that there are many Jews including Israelis, who have published articles at the Electronic Intifada. I am Jewish and have written for EI. I have always found Abunimah and EI to be a hopeful example of effective Jewish and Palestinian cooperation.

    I am appalled by MJ Rosenberg’s completely groundless allegations against Abunimah, who is one of the most important voices for Palestinian rights on the Net.

    I join you in condemning Rosenberg’s attack. After reading his accusatory posts, I doubt that he is capable of making a credible apology at this time, but hope in the future he will realize the harm he has caused.

    • Citizen says:

      @ Ira Glunts

      Abunimah’s is indeed one of the most important voices for Palestinian rights on the Net. Further, unlike MJ Rosenberg, to my knowledge Abunimah is not in the habit of blocking access to his Twitter site, or blocking tweets responsive to it that are in no way personal attacks or irrational or simply vulgar–or merely boilerplate hasbara. MJ Rosenberg’s does all those things; this suggests MJR is not really as interested in the free exchange of ideas and facts as he is of catering to his own ego–god forbid anybody contradicts any nuance of what he says–if you do MJR won’t allow you to play in his ball park anymore.

  2. Mike_Konrad says:

    The fact is: What Abunimah advocates is the dissolution of the only Jewish nation on the planet.

    One can understand why Jews would see this as anti-Semitism.

    The reason this is so intractable is because one nation has to disappear. Either Israel as a Jewish nation has to disappear, or the Palestinians have to disappear.

    Let’s not mince words.

    Abunimah may not hate the Jewish people, but he advocates the dissolution of the only Jewish nation on the planet.

    This contest is not morally neutral.

    I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.

    • seafoid says:

      “The fact is: What Abunimah advocates is the dissolution of the only Jewish nation on the planet.”

      The only Jewish nation in the world is a racket. Jewish rapists are not acquitted because they are Jewish. When Zionism fails it won’t be propped up by Galut. Statehood is about responsibility and Israel lost that a long time ago.

      • piotr says:

        The only Soviet state on the planet was dissolved and the Soviet nation is no more, and was it “morally neutral”? Was advocating it a symptom of “ugly anti-Soviet prejudice”? Many people would say yes, many would say no, this is precisely the realm of conflicting political views where differences of opinion are unavoidable and do not require invectives (and where invectives proliferate like mice in a barn).

        In that spirit, I would rewrite condemnation of MJ:

        I am appalled by MJ Rosenberg’s completely groundless allegations against Abunimah, …???

        perhaps

        I am deeply saddened by MJ Rosenberg’s unworthy and subjective accusations against Abunimah, …

        Concerning the number of Jewish nations on the planet, this is a helluva bogus argument. Would a political assassination of the only redheaded President on the planet be more heinous than an assassination of a bald President (and there are scores of bald ones)? More to the points, nations really do not have rights. There is no right to “self-determination”. Do Beluchi people have a right to self-determination? No. Individuals have rights, and that includes their property rights, cultural rights etc. It would not be OK for Iran to say that “We are Shia Republic, Beluchis are a Sunni demographic threat, lets expel the Beluchis from the only Shia republic on the planet.” Or to confiscate Beluchi properties, evict Beluchi shepherds from traditional grazing grounds and so on.

    • amigo says:

      “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.”mk

      It is not A Jewish Nation. It is the Nation of the Israeli People.

      And if you want it to survive,then you had better call for an end to the occupation.Demand an end to idf thugs beating children.(See link to mondoweiss.net.)and all the rest of the crimes committed by your beloved zionist thugs and criminals.

    • edwin says:

      What the world needs is more ethnically pure states and theocracies. Hitler had the right idea (a state for the Ayrians), perhaps a little bit too extreme though. Too bad about South Africa and Rhodesia. Nothing wrong with Saudi Arabia. We need to bring back the Taliban as well. If only Europe had maintained itself as Christian. I don’t know what country you live in, but I can only hope it is Israel. It is a horrid imposition for you to live anywhere else. If you don’t have the decency to move, then hopefully the country in question will do the right thing and expel you.

      Don’t know where we took the wrong turn and started to embrace secular democracies. It is nice to know that you don’t support that.

      I am a bit confused though – who is and who is not Jewish? Do you know one when you see one? How do we prevent miscegenation? How many times a month must you attend synagogue in order to maintain yourself as a Jew in good standing? Is it ok for a Jew to eat their ham sandwich with cheese? How do we keep our state pure? What is pure enough?

      What do we do with all those dark skinned people in Israel? I am not unsympathetic to their plight, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.

      [/sarcasm]

    • Chu says:

      ‘I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.’

      Your wrong, the racket that has to end. Israel should have compromised on the 67 borders, but it just can’t stop the continued theft and apartheid conditions it has created. They had plenty of opportunity to reconcile, but it’s been squandered by every government after (and before) Rabin.

    • Memphis says:

      A nation is an imagined community, so who gives a shit if it disappears. It’s not like the people are actually disappearing.

      “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.”

      So Jewish rights trump Palestinian rights? OKAY!!! Racist much????

    • eljay says:

      >> … I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.

      Supremacist “Jewish State” has no right to exist.

      1SS or 2SS, supremacist “Jewish State” has to become – or become part of – a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally.

    • Shingo says:

      The reason this is so intractable is because one nation has to disappear. Either Israel as a Jewish nation has to disappear, or the Palestinians have to disappear.

      Let’s not mince words.

      Then let’s start by cutting the hysteria. The USSR disappeared but it did not require the removal of any Russians or communists.

      I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.

      But you are perfectly happy to see Palestinian ethnically cleansed and mass murdered and 500 villages destroyed to create it right?

      That’s not morally neutral either. It’s sadism.

    • Donald says:

      “What Abunimah advocates is the dissolution of the only Jewish nation on the planet.

      One can understand why Jews would see this as anti-Semitism.”

      Only if one assumes Jews are incapable of empathizing with Palestinians. Evidently Palestinians couldn’t possibly want to live in their homeland side-by side in peace with Israeli Jews–they can only be motivated by bloodlust and hatred. When you think about it, this almost sounds like anti-Palestinian racism, doesn’t it?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “The reason this is so intractable is because one nation has to disappear. Either Israel as a Jewish nation has to disappear, or the Palestinians have to disappear.”

      And unless one is a sociopath, disappearing a political structure must come before disappearing people. (This was kind of the entire point of the Second World War, by the way.)

      “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians,”

      Yes you are, if your next word is “but”

      “but”

      Q.E.D.

      “I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.”

      As that state IS the problem, that is the only humane solution, absent the mass abandonment of the racist doctrine of zionism.

    • ” The reason this is so intractable is because one nation has to disappear. Either Israel as a Jewish nation has to disappear, or the Palestinians have to disappear.”

      Either this is a clear support for ethnic cleansing (and maybe worse, genocide) and for which this Konrad must be heavily moderated or even thrown out of here or I have reading and comprehension problem. Either way he makes me feel like vomiting.

    • AlGhorear says:

      So Mike Konrad, do you advocate for everyone off the bus? The shiny people go here, the happy people there, the Jewish people here, the Christian people there. In other words, a State for every faith and ethnicity? And what about mixes. I wouldn’t want to live in a State that’s not diverse and I certainly don’t support a State that has to make another people disappear in order to exist. And that’s not the point. No one has to disappear. They just have to live together in equality.

    • Talkback says:

      Mike_Konrad: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I am not willing to see the only Jewish nation on the planet dissolved in order to fix the problem.”

      The Palestinian’s were not unsympathetic to the plight of the Jews, but were not willing to see the only Palestinian nation of the planet to be dissolved to to fix the problem.

      So what makes you prefer to keep humans expelled and denationalized, as long as they are Palestinians?

    • Ellen says:

      Why use the meaningless and backward term “Anti-semitic” to decsribe a Judephobe or Judeophobia? The expression is bizzare and it is even more bizzare that it is adopted and accepted by Jews, or anyone at all, to label Judeophobia.

      After all the term was coined by a Judeophobic writer the mid 19th century to describe Jews as Semites. Why do Jews adopt this expression pinned onto European Jews by an extreme 19th century bigot?

      As for MJ….hmmm, do not know what is going on there and would love to hear his side of the story. Meanwhile, can we stop using the ugly language, AntiSemite, to describe Judeophobia or Anti Jewish sentiment? That would be honest.

    • Inanna says:

      Lots of projecting going on there Mike. Jews actually cleanse the Palestinians from the land, wiping Palestine off the map and yet you turn around and accuse them of genocide. Your fears are justified though, you fear that the fate you (plural) visited upon Palestinians in 1947/8 will be visited on you. It’s only people who have committed such wrongs who fear retribution. Guilt is the shadow side of zionism. You created your own prison with the illusion of Jewish freedom and self-determination but the reality is a vicious dance of prison guard and prisoner where noone is really free. Why would anyone sane want to protect that.

      • bintbiba says:

        So well said, Inanna.

      • ziusudra says:

        Greetings Inanna,
        …. Guilt is the shadow side of zionism….
        Brava, well put my dear.
        Zionism was ideologized as a ploy to serve both collective Euro. Jewry
        & the power players of Europe in the late 19th C., it worked!
        Zionism has, to the dismay of the world, cloned into imperialism on a puny scale since then starting with the grand golem ben gurion & all right wing nazi governments from 48 till date!
        ziusudra
        PS We remember that the pilgrims were invited & helped by the Massachusetts Indians in 1621, by 1652, they (the Indians) were gone!
        The Pilgrims forgot to tell the newcomers of the good deeds of the Indians!
        Today one hears of liberal zionism, wha?! How can an ideology have an adjective?

  3. thank you for writing this david. i know i was not the only person who was completely stunned by the accusation. something needed to be said and it certainly didn’t need to be ali. but something needed to be said and i appreciate you saying it.

  4. Krauss says:

    The next Eric Alterman.

    So sad, but proves yet again that there is no tension between liberalism and Zionism.
    There is a fundamental chasm.

    The biggest racists fall first. But over time, the more ‘liberal’ racists get exposed too.
    MJ should read Blumenthal’s book. He is supporting a Jim Crow state within the 67-lines. I’m not going to summarize all the findings, but it’s really shocking even to someone like me. It’s because we focus on the occupation all the time that we forget what’s happening inside Israel.

    As one Palestinian who was subjected to ethnic cleansing, a very recent and systematic occurance inside 67-lines Israel, said in Max’s book:

    What’s happening in Gaza or in the West Bank gets seen all over the world. What’s happening inside Israel is invisible

    MJ doesn’t want to confront his support for this kind of racism.

    • Krauss says:

      By the way, the whole “YOU WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL/ALL JEWS” line is classic hard-right Zionism. And MJ calls himself a liberal?

      Did ending Apartheid in South Africa ‘destroy’ white South Africans? Did ending Jim Crow destroy white Southern racists? Most of those white populations supported the the respective systems they both lived in, just like most Israeli Jews support the system that is oppressing the minorities under the jackboot.

      MJ is basically saying, if you want to end Jim Crow inside Israel you want to end all Jews. That’s about as clever like saying that you want to end the lives of all white Southerners in the 40s, 50s and 60s by ending Jim Crow.

      MJ is not exposing anyone. He’s just exposing the veneer of liberalism that he has surrounded himself with.

      • jonrich111 says:

        Krauss,

        Why are your analogies both factually wrong and morally offensive? Let us count the ways:

        First, Israelis are not white. At least half of the Israeli Jewish population is Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, or a descendant of non-European groups.

        Second, there are literally billions of white people on the planet and countless nations with white majorities. Jews constitute less than 1% of the planet and have only one country.

        Third, Israel is home to a group of oppressed people who have been driven from every country on this planet (including all the Arab states). This is not the case for South Africans or white Southerners.

        Fourth, Zionism is a liberation movement. One reason that Diaspora Jews are safer today than 60 years ago is because of the existence of the state of Israel.

        Fifth, the Palestinians and Arabs have continually threatened to abolish the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. That is why they are credibly viewed as a threat to Jewish survival. Blacks in South Africa or under Jim Crow were not threatening to abolish white people’s self-determination.

        I could go on, but let us just say that your analogies are beyond the pale.

        • Shingo says:

          First, Israelis are not white. At least half of the Israeli Jewish population is Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, or a descendant of non-European groups.

          They think they are.

          Eli Yishai, the interior minister, said recently that he would use “all the tools to expel the foreigners,” claiming that “Israel belongs to the white man.”

          Yishai is Sephardic.

          Third, Israel is home to a group of oppressed people who have been driven from every country on this planet (including all the Arab states).

          Absolutely rubbish. Very few of Israel’s population can claim to have been driven out of any country.

          Fourth, Zionism is a liberation movement.

          No, it’s a colonial movement that claims to be a liberation movement.

          One reason that Diaspora Jews are safer today than 60 years ago is because of the existence of the state of Israel.

          False. In fact, Jews in the Diaspora are much safer than they are in Israel.

          Fifth, the Palestinians and Arabs have continually threatened to abolish the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

          No, they ave continually threatened to abolish Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinians and denial or Palestinian self-determination.

          You could go on an be wrong about those points too.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Pretty pathetic defense of Jewish Aparthied.

          1) irrelevant.
          2) wrong.
          3) false. There are oppressed people in “israel” — the Palestinians. The Jews are the oppressors. And as so many hasbarats note: most were born in “israel” so they are homegrown racists.
          4) No, zionism is Judeo-supremacism. It is organized racism. The KKK but Jews. Nothing else.
          5) LOL. Yeah, that’s why they offered the Arab Peace Initiative 10 years ago. Instead, the “israelis” countered with their “Peace Initiative” which involved a zio terrorist in uniform firing military ordnance at Palestinian schoolkids.

        • tree says:

          I could go on, but let us just say that your analogies are beyond the pale.

          Only to an ethnic supremacist who thinks that Jewish racism is somehow better than any other racism, and thinks that Jewish privilege trumps Palestinian rights. You don’t like Israelis being compared to white racists? Then they should stop acting like them.

        • RoHa says:

          “Second, there are literally billions of white people on the planet and countless nations with white majorities. Jews constitute less than 1% of the planet and have only one country.”

          How is this relevant to the analogy?

          “Fourth, Zionism is a liberation movement. ”

          In the sense of “liberation” employed by soldiers when they “liberate” wine, jewellery, etc., from the people they have conquered.

          “One reason that Diaspora Jews are safer today than 60 years ago is because of the existence of the state of Israel.”

          Israel works hard at making enemies all round it, and that makes other Jews safer? Any evidence for this?

          “Fifth, the Palestinians and Arabs have continually threatened to abolish the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Blacks in South Africa or under Jim Crow were not threatening to abolish white people’s self-determination.”

          The blacks were threatening the exclusive self-determination of the white people. They wanted equal right to take part in the political process so that it would not be a solely white affair. The Palestinians want the same rights.

          “That is why they are credibly viewed as a threat to Jewish survival.”

          No, they are mostly a threat to the supremacy of Israeli Jews. But that supremacy should be abolished in any case. Insofar as they are a threat to the survival of Jews, again it is mostly just Israeli Jews who are under that threat.

          And the best way to deal with people who are a threat to you is to make friends with them. Justice and respect are a good way to start friendship.

        • lyn117 says:

          First, Krauss didn’t claim that most Israelis are white. What does their racism have to do with whether Israelis are white? Do you really think only whites can be racist, and only against blacks?

          Second, there are far fewer wiccans than there are Jews, and they have no country. Historically, they were far more oppressed than Jews. Does that give wiccans the “right” to discriminate against the native people of the lands in which they reside? Does it give them the right to, say, move to, say, Wales (the place where the religion originated, or so they say), expel the current Christian population (while claiming that the Christians have dozens of states they can go to), confiscate the Christian’s land and property and establish a wiccan state there?

          The right to self-determination only belongs to the native people of a place. Most Jews are not the native people of Israel, they’re immigrants, and they have no right to self-determination unless they share it with the native people of their land, the Palestinians, all of them including the exiled ones. Israel was only able to be created by denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination.

        • jonrich111 says:

          Shingo,

          “Very few of Israel’s population can claim to have been driven out of any country.”

          Some Jews came to Israel for ideological convictions, but the vast majority were fleeing persecution — or are descendant from those that did. Jews in Europe, the Arab world, Ethiopia, Russia, etc. were all persecuted and forced out.

          “False. In fact, Jews in the Diaspora are much safer than they are in Israel.”

          American Jews might be safer, but not all Diaspora Jews. The difference, however, is that American Jews lack self-determination as a people the way Israelis do. They have largely assimilated away their identity, and the community is slowly fading out of existence. Most American Jews cannot speak Hebrew, are not educated in Jewish tradition, have lost touch with culture and ritual and see themselves primarily as “Americans first, Jews second.” This is one reason why Israel is necessary — it is the only society on earth with a “Jewish soul” or a national culture and language that is Jewish.

        • jonrich111 says:

          RoHa,

          “The blacks were threatening the exclusive self-determination of the white people. They wanted equal right to take part in the political process so that it would not be a solely white affair. The Palestinians want the same rights.”

          Again, the analogy does not hold because Israeli-Arabs have the equal right to take part in the political process. In fact, they have more democratic political rights in Israel than in most Arab states. The question is abolishing Israel’s Jewish character — its essence, its Jewish soul. A healthy balance between “Jewish and democratic” is a good thing. But abolishing the “Jewish” character of Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level.

        • jonrich111 says:

          lynn117,

          Comparing Jews to white South Africans and racist Jim Crow Southerners implies that Jews are white oppressors. The recognition that Jews themselves are a persecuted minority group paints a startling different picture. Israel does not exist in a vacuum. Harmful policies against the Palestinians must be understood in context of historical and ongoing oppression, delegitimization, terrorism, and anti-Semitism. None of these factors were present in South Africa or Alabama circa 1950.

          “Second, there are far fewer wiccans than there are Jews, and they have no country. Historically, they were far more oppressed than Jews.”

          There was never a Wiccan genocide, so you are 100% wrong about that. But this is not oppression Olympics, so regardless, I would say that ALL people have a right to self-determination. If Wiccans felt that the only way to secure their rights was to set up a sovereign society on their own land, then I would support that. Each group’s path to self-determination looks different based on their unique culture, history, circumstances.

          “The right to self-determination only belongs to the native people of a place.”

          False. But even still, Jews ARE the native people of the land. We never chose to leave – we were violently expelled by Roman imperial forces. Jews have been in the region, and the land of Israel, for far longer than Arabs or Muslims.

        • Shingo says:

          Comparing Jews to white South Africans and racist Jim Crow Southerners implies that Jews are white oppressors

          No it does not, because apartheid doesn’t require the oppressors to be white.

          The recognition that Jews themselves are a persecuted minority group paints a startling different picture

          They are not a persecuted minority anywhere in the world.

          Harmful policies against the Palestinians must be understood in context of historical and ongoing oppression, delegitimization, terrorism, and anti-Semitism

          No because delegitimization and terrorism have been the consequence of Israeli policies against the Palestinians , not the cause. Israel was founded on terrorism.

          False. But even still, Jews ARE the native people of the land. We never chose to leave – we were violently expelled by Roman imperial forces. Jews have been in the region, and the land of Israel, for far longer than Arabs or Muslims.

          It’s not false, it’s a fact that the right to self-determination only belongs to the native people of a place. Jews are not the native people of the land, which is why most had to immigrate and arrive by boat.

          we were violently expelled by Roman imperial forces.

          False. This has been exposed as a myth. The Romans did not expell entire populations and you certainly have no genetic lineage to Jews of that period anyway.

          Jews have been in the region, and the land of Israel, for far longer than Arabs or Muslims.

          False again. The place was already populated before the Hebrews arrived. Judaism and Islam are just religions adopted by the native populations.

          Hasbara fail!

        • Danaa says:

          jonrich111: “Jews ARE the native people of the land. We never chose to leave – we were violently expelled by Roman imperial forces. Jews have been in the region, and the land of Israel, for far longer than Arabs or Muslims.”

          Can you please bring supporting evidence, such as a deed of trust signed by eg, god (or a certified representative thereof, such as an official prophet, should god not be willing to be bothered)? also, if you could, please provide evidence that Jews were expelled en mass by the Romans. there are, you see, some disputes about that among notable historians.

          There is BTW, rather strong evidence that the jews of today have far less original jewish blood than the Palestinians, who, in large part, may be the true descendants of the Judeans who once lived in the land. May be you could kind of, assimilate into them to acquire the heritage you want?

          I recommend some good reading of the books of prof. Shlomo Sand, including “The Invention of the Jewish People”.

          PS alas, the old testament doesn’t qualify as historical documentation. So you’ll need to supply additional sources to support your claims. Also, if you could, a DNA analysis certifying your genetic relation to at least one jewish ancestor from antiquity would be nice (to be generous, you’ll just need to go back about 1700-1800 years to find said ancestor. That would be acceptable proof that you descend from people who populated palestine before Palestinians. It’s OK if the ancestor lived in good old babylon, as long as there is proof they were kind of jewish).

        • Shingo says:

          Again, the analogy does not hold because Israeli-Arabs have the equal right to take part in the political process.

          Yes it does hold because Israeli-Arabs DO NOT have the equal right to take part in the political process, much less have equal political rights.

          The question is abolishing Israel’s Jewish character — its essence, its Jewish soul.

          No, in essence, it’s ethnocentric supremacy.

          But abolishing the “Jewish” character of Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level.

          Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level. The “Jewish” character can’t change that.

        • Shingo says:

          Some Jews came to Israel for ideological convictions, but the vast majority were fleeing persecution — or are descendant from those that did.

          Not true. Most of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi and Sephardic, and very few of them were driven to head to Israel to escape persecution.

          Jews in Europe, the Arab world, Ethiopia, Russia, etc. were all persecuted and forced out.

          Some were. Ethiopian and Russian Jewish immigrants were not.

          The difference, however, is that American Jews lack self-determination as Israelis do.

          Rubbish. They have the same self-determination. You are conflating self-determination with privilege and ethnocentric supremacy .

          Most American Jews cannot speak Hebrew, are not educated in Jewish tradition, have lost touch with culture and ritual and see themselves primarily as “Americans first, Jews second.

          So what? Self-determination means being free to exercise free will and choice. In the US, they have the choice to learn to speak Hebrew, become educated in Jewish tradition etc. They don’t in Israel.

          Israel is certainly not necessary unless you are a fascist who believes Jews must be forced to do so.

        • RoHa says:

          “This is one reason why Israel is necessary — it is the only society on earth with a “Jewish soul” or a national culture and language that is Jewish.”

          But why is it necessary to have a society “with a “Jewish soul” or a national culture and language that is Jewish”?

          It has done so much harm to so many people that it seems that it is necessary not to have such a society.

        • RoHa says:

          “Again, the analogy does not hold because Israeli-Arabs have the equal right to take part in the political process. ”

          American Jews have the equal right to take part in the political process, so how can you say they lack self-determination?

          “But abolishing the “Jewish” character of Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level.”

          Why? Please explain this using standard moral principles.

        • RoHa says:

          “If Wiccans felt that the only way to secure their rights was to set up a sovereign society on their own land, then I would support that.”

          If they did not expel or subjugate any non-Wiccans, that would be more defensible than the European Jews migrating to someone else’s land and setting up a state there and expelling or subjugating the natives.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Comparing Jews to white South Africans and racist Jim Crow Southerners implies that Jews are white oppressors.”

          They are oppressors. Whether you want to call them white or not is a pointless exercise.

          “The recognition that Jews themselves are a persecuted minority group paints a startling different picture.”

          It’s also a lie. The Jews in the Land of Palestine are not persecuted, but are the persecutors.

          “Harmful policies against the Palestinians must be understood in context of historical and ongoing oppression, delegitimization, terrorism, and anti-Semitism.”

          And all you are doing here is excusing evil. There is no excuse or justification for it.

          “I would say that ALL people have a right to self-determination.’

          Then your failure to press for the isrealis to give justice and liberation to the Palestinians makes you a hypocrite.

          “If Wiccans felt that the only way to secure their rights was to set up a sovereign society on their own land…”

          And there’s the rub. When the zionists began their assault, they had no land. The land they coveted and stole belongs to another people, the Palestinians.

          “But even still, Jews ARE the native people of the land.”

          No, at best, Jews are descendants of the native people of the land. At the time of the start of the zionist invasion of Palestine, virtually no Jews were natives of that land.

          “We never chose to leave – we were violently expelled by Roman imperial forces.”

          Irrelevant. And not true. The notion that the Romans kicked all the Jews out of Palestine is a myth. Most stayed and their descendants just ceased being Jews.

          “Jews have been in the region, and the land of Israel, for far longer than Arabs or Muslims.”

          Nope. You can argue that there were Jewish people in the land of Palestine earlier than Arabs and Muslims. It would probably be false with regard to both, as Arabs and Jews arose roughly concurrently. But even so, so what? That fact does not mean that 20th or 21st C. Jews have any rights at all to that land. And given the scarcity of Jews over the last 2,000 years, and the expansion of population, more people who ever lived in that region were non-Jews than were Jews.

        • eljay says:

          >> If Wiccans felt that the only way to secure their rights was to set up a sovereign society on their own land, then I would support that.

          I would support a Wiccan state if it were established within the geographic region populated by Wiccans.
          - Supremacist “Jewish State” fails this test.

          I would support a Wiccan state if i) it had been created peacefully or ii) it had been created violently, but the state subsequently held itself and its criminals accountable for its / their (war) crimes and honoured its obligations under international law.
          - Supremacist “Jewish State” fails this test.

          I would support a Wiccan state if it were a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally.
          - Supremacist “Jewish State” fails this test.

          I would support a Wiccan state if it extended special immigration priviliges to people originally from the geographic region comprising the Wiccan state, and not, arbitrarily, to citizens of countries around the world just because they happen to share the same tribal / religious beliefs.
          - Supremacist “Jewish State” fails this test.

          >> … Jews ARE the native people of the land.

          Jews who WERE NOT and ARE NOT from Palestine ARE NOT the native people of Palestine – they are native citizens of the states in which they WERE living and ARE living.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Again, the analogy does not hold because Israeli-Arabs have the equal right to take part in the political process.”

          Your excuse fails because you limit yourself to the small token population of Palestinians which history has made you now treat marginally better; you purposefully ignore the vast majority which suffer under the zionist Apartheid system.

          “But abolishing the “Jewish” character of Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level.”

          Nonsense. If abolishing this alleged character was necessary to protect the human rights of the Palestinians, them that abolition is the only moral act and, indeed, preservation would be highly immoral in every respect.

        • Shingo says:

          But abolishing the “Jewish” character of Israel is deeply immoral and wrong on every level

          The Jewish character was achieved by abolishing the “Palestinian” character of Palestine. So how can undoing an immoral and wrong act be immoral and wrong?

        • RoHa says:

          “So how can undoing an immoral and wrong act be immoral and wrong?”

          I’m not expecting an answer to my questions, either.

        • seafoid says:

          Abolishing the white character of Alabama was immoral in 1961 but the whites didn’t have the numbers so they had to let African Americans get the vote. “Morality” and justice are often directly opposed in settler colonial situations.

        • RoHa says:

          “Abolishing the white character of Alabama was immoral in 1961 ”

          From the scare quotes you put around “Morality”, I presume you mean “the whites thought it was immoral”. It certainly wasn’t immoral, and justice is part of morality.

        • seafoid says:

          Super post, Shingo.

          Hasbara is so lame these days. [

        • seafoid says:

          I’m sure the whites in Alabama had all the same crap hasbara points . God drove them to enslave the African Americans and then to rule over them with Jim Crow and it was manifest destiny and their untermenschen had no morals etc.

          “Morality” can be used to justify anything. Female genital mutilation is
          deemed “moral” in Egypt.

        • ziusudra says:

          Greetings seafoid,
          …. Whites in Alabama…..
          A little Fairness here, please.
          There were a total of 4 mill slaves & 3 mill. whites.
          These 4 mill were owned by 800K People in the
          contiguous south. 2.2 mill were white dirt farmers
          having little connection during slavery.

          There were 2 mill euros in 1776, 28 mill in 1865.
          What %tage of americans had anything to do with
          the American Indian?
          After the civil war, we had 25K troops scouring
          the contiguous Mid,So & No. West!
          No, they ne’er found any!
          90% of living Americans had Grannies born in Euro.
          ziusudra
          PS We should try to perceive true statistics for a scale
          of observation.
          PPS Appreciate your postings, seafoid

        • RoHa says:

          “Deemed moral” is not the same as moral.

  5. stopaipac says:

    Thank you for the post. It is sad, but not surprising, that MJ would make this false accusation. He really does say outrageous things. He once tweeted:
    “Donald Trump calling 4 targeted assassination tonight. Me too. But only if the first three are Drudge, Trump & Mitch McDonnell.”

    I have no fondness for any of the above… but really, what is added to the cause by publicly calling for their murder? He seems to have no understanding how idiotic remarks like that hurt the broader movement for peace and justice. There is no rational explanation for his behavior at times.

    I guarantee you this. He will not apologize, as he surely should, to Ali Abunimah, unless there is an unexpected and radical change in his personality for the better.

  6. Shmuel says:

    Thanks, David. Very well said.

  7. Dan Crowther says:

    “Down goes Frazier, Down Goes Frazier!!”

    the oppressed hate their oppressors for what their oppressors do, not who they are. it’s pretty friggin’ simple.

    Samel For The Win.

  8. pabelmont says:

    Thanks David, I’ve long been puzzled my MJR’s intemperate attacks on Abunimah. the reason I was puzzled is that I had forgotten the “button theory” which I more or less learned in the 1980s when I participated, uncomfortably, in Jewish-Arab dialog (Boston area). I was uncomfortable because I was “Jewish” but my sympathies were “Palestinian” rather than “Israeli”.

    anyhow, “button theory” has it, and this seems correct, that people have “buttons” and when you press their button, they fly of the handle and become quite irrational. MJR acts like Abunimah has pressed one of his buttons, the antisemitism button. The result appears to be that MJR (whose writing I generally rejoice in) cannot read the entire corpus of Abunimah’s work, or anything approaching it, because the small (I imagine tiny) fraction of it which did the button-pressing trick caused a one-way change inj MJR’s mind: as to Abunimah, the die is now cast and cannot be un-cast, and no amount of evidence can straighten things out.

    How sad. Even being blasted by the towering pillar of correctness, The Dersh ™, hasn’t changed MJR’s mental processing — a button once pressed stays pressed.

    there are a number of people — MJR and Norman Finkelstein notably — who seem to me to be pillars of our justice-for-Palestine movement, but every once in a while they prove all too human, and usually I suppose when once of their “red lines” (“buttons”) is “crossed” (“pressed”). NF has declared against the noblest movement of them all, BDS, and MJR can’t abide Abunimah.

    Well, we must take people as we find them. We are none of us superhuman. We are none of us so wise as not to press anyone else’s buttons, and in this fraught I/P business, and especially in face of the horrible Israeli/AIPAC/USA-Jewish-Establishment hasbara onslaught, it is almost impossible NOT to press buttons.

    Peace.

    • MHughes976 says:

      No doubt true, but what button was pressed? What words of Abunimah, who writes with great care, would have had such a traumatic effect?

      • pabelmont says:

        Maybe not particular words, as such, but a perceived miasma, a fog of words. Most of the pro-Palestine crowd learned long ago not to make unsupported statements of fact, but the pro-Israel crowd never seemed to have a problem with that. Maybe MJR is sliding back and forth — but he does say he is a Zionist.

        • homingpigeon says:

          I note that I could call for an end to “Saudi” Arabia and no one would jump to call me an “Islamophobe.” I could object to Chinese behavior in Tibet or to Chinese commerce in ivory and rhino horn and no one accuses me of racist feeling towards Chinese people. I could denounce the anti Muslim pogroms in Burma without anyone accusing me of hating Burmese or Buddhists. But when we talk about Israel we examine every word, while walking on eggshells, to make sure that nothing we say could in any remote way, shape, or form, be construed as anti-Semitic. And yet even pointing this fact out could be construed as anti-Semitic.

        • Citizen says:

          @ homingpigeon
          Nothing comes close to the anti-semitic panic button unless, maybe, the pedophile button.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Yup. That’s why the word “anti-Semitic” is meaningless because it basically means anything that zionism, Inc., doesn’t like.

        • seafoid says:

          We can deplore the government of sri lanka without being accused of hatred of buddhism. Why is despair at the nihilism of zionism defined as antisemitism? And who defines it?

        • MHughes976 says:

          Those who wish may define anti-Semitism so that it includes anti-Zionism. The price of using that definition would be that the possibility of rational and justified forms of anti-Semitism would be open, since it may be that anti-Z is justified.

    • W.Jones says:

      I think you are not incorrect. Over and over we hear from progressives, correctly, that Zionism (a nationalist movement) is not the same as the Jewish people.

      However, perhaps for some people there is a button where if someone slanders Zionism in a way that is incorrect, some people assume that the slander is directed against the nationality. Also, if you take a writer who writes volumes on a topic as political as the IP conflict, it is not surprising that you may find perhaps somewhere an incorrect statement about that which he or she is criticising.

    • Citizen says:

      No doubt at all Abunimah somehow, somewhere, sometime pushed MJ Rosenberg’s button. Dershie has a bigger button I guess. The same one, but bigger.

      • AlGhorear says:

        MJ referred to Ali’s use of the word “invader” in one of his tweets. Maybe that was the button. MJ truly sees Israel as belonging to the Jews.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Who knows. You can explain to the end of time that not all of the modern day israeli Jews are invaders (though some are) and that most of the “original” zionist Jews were invaders (though some weren’t) but what’s the point? It’s too tiring smoothing the egg-shell fragile sensitivities of some people.

        • Eva Smagacz says:

          “AlGhorear, you said:
          MJ referred to Ali’s use of the word “invader” in one of his tweets. Maybe that was the button. MJ truly sees Israel as belonging to the Jews.”

          Surely two are not mutually exclusive, except for a Zionist. What was a takeover of Palestine by waves, and waves of immigrating Jews if not an invasion – in every sense of the word. (try imagining following scenario in central London:

          In 1974 there were 56,000 Muslims living among 715,000 English.
          In 1982 there were 83,000 Muslims living among 663,000 English.
          In 1996 there were 385,400Muslims living among 983,200 English.
          In 2000 there were 467,000 Muslims living among 1,050,000 English
          In 2006 there were 600,000 Muslim living among 1,300,000 English.

          Now imagine that those Muslims would have their own militia and terror campaign…….. would refuse to speak English, trade with English and accept English culture and traditions ……. I challenge any Zionist not to call those Muslims as invading London and turning it to Londonistan .

          So I guess MJ really does not accept the word “invader” when it comes to influx of Jews to Palestine. To accept the word “invader” is to let go of the idea of right of return for Jews ( which they passed to their heirs and descendants ). In my opinion MJ believes that Jews re-conquered Holy Land and returned it to it’s rightful owners.

          But the accusations of Anti-Semitism are so wild these days, and so irrational, it may be a waste of time to try to understand them. If your words and actions are called Anti-Semitism by a Zionist, you are probably on a safe ground. If your actions are called Anti-Semitism by a anti, or post-Zionist, of a Jew that is oblivious to Israel, then it is truly worth examining your conscience.

        • W.Jones says:

          If your words and actions are called Anti-Semitism by a Zionist, you are probably on a safe ground. If your actions are called Anti-Semitism by a anti, or post-Zionist, of a Jew that is oblivious to Israel, then it is truly worth examining your conscience.

          Perhaps one cannot really assume this. In his column Prof. Ellis portrayed a pro-Palestinian Christian group as anti-Semitic because they did not explicitly talk about Jews or Judaism. Wright was accused by some simply because she defended Berlin. Perhaps the road of mistaken prejudices and assumptions of others can be a two-way street, even if it is not located anywhere near Israel/Palestine.

          Peace.

  9. MHughes976 says:

    Wanting to get rid of a structure, embodied in a state or otherwise, that privileges some people unjustly, uniquely or otherwise, is not in any logic wanting those people not to exist but wanting them to exist in a fair relationship with others.
    By ‘anti-Semitism’ I would mean ‘prejudice or worse against at least some things Jewish’ , prejudice being a form of irrationality. What would Rosenberg mean?

    • pabelmont says:

      I truly believe that many of today’s Zionists thing wanting to get rid of Jewish privilege would amount to wanting to get rid og Israel.

      Dunno about MJR, but a lot of Zionists — maybe ANYONE who calls himself a Zionist today (because there were “cultural Zionists” in 1930s, 40s, Judah Magnes, Ahad Ha’am) — believe that Israel exists IN ORDER to privilege the Jews who live there above anyone else. For such people, NO JEWISH PRIVILEGE means NO ISRAEL. Sigh, yet another method of extinguishing Israel! (Alabama [exists after Jim Crow] and South Africa [exists after its version of apartheid] don’t matter. Extinguishing Jewish Privilege in Israel means throwing all the Jews of the world into the sea.)

      So let’s see. Zionism demands Jewish Privilege. Also a big Jewish majority (population) in Israel, whatever its territory. Also lots and lots of land. More and more and more. And any complaint about any of this is antisemitism, Hitler redux.

      And speaking of Hitler, as Zionists often do when shouting out against Iran, doesn’t Zionism these days sort of remind you? Big on territorial expansion (lebensraum). Big on racial superiority and racial cleansing. (OK, OK, no explicit death camps, though Gaza is getting there.) Big on hasbara and the Big Lie. Einstein’s 1948 letter in NYT spoke of the Herut party as embodying fascist techniques. He “got it” early. Big on state power over individual lives. Big on SECURITY above all things. Lots of broken glass in the Palestinian sections (especially when the bulldozers knock down whole houses). All that’s missing is the little moustache. Or so it often seems.

      Maybe the last paragraph was a bit hyper. Actually, references to The Holocaust ™ and Hitler ™ are often regarded as antisemitic by the keepers of The Language unless the speaker is a Zionist. Comparisons with The Holocaust are impermissible except that comparing a certain past Iranian president to Hitler was OK — if the speaker were a hyperventilating Zionist.

      So, MJR: what about Jewish privilege in Israel? Necessary to existence of Israel or not?

    • jonrich111 says:

      MHughes976,

      Zionism is not “privilege” – it is equality. It is a liberation movement that grants Jews the right to self-determination – a right every nation on earth (including all the Arab nations) denied us for thousands of years. Zionism gives Jews equality on the world stage by allowing us to control our own culture, history, and destiny. That is why people want to abolish Zionism – because they want to push Jews back into a subservient position.

      • eljay says:

        >> Zionism is not “privilege” – it is equality.

        Equality is equality. Zionism is equality exclusively for Jews – it is Jewish supremacism. And you like the sound of that.

        >> It is a liberation movement that grants Jews the right to self-determination …

        Zionism is not self-determination. It is Jewish supremacism. “Jewish State” is a supremacist state.

        >> … a right every nation on earth (including all the Arab nations) denied us for thousands of years.

        Since no-one has a right to a supremacist state, no right has been denied to Jews by anyone.

        >> That is why people want to abolish Zionism – because they want to push Jews back into a subservient position.

        People want to abolish Zionism because it is religion-based supremacism, and the world needs less – not more – supremacism in it.

        Zio-supremacists don’t want Zionism abolished because they love the smell of napalm in the morning.

      • Cliff says:

        Zionism is not equality. Zionism is discrimination.

        Zionism is Deir Yassin and the Nakba. Zionism is rape, murder, massacre and ethnic cleansing.

        Zionism is Jewish terrorism.

        Zionism is martial law for the Palestinians who weren’t driven out during the 48′ War.

        Zionism is UN report after report and ALL the mainstream NGOs documenting land theft and water theft and human rights abuses.

        The only people who side with you are the Christian fundamentalists and other Zionists.

        The region hates you (justifiably) and all people of conscience sees you for what your TRULY are and not the propaganda shoved down our throats by the Israel Lobby and Holocaust Industry.

      • Shingo says:

        Zionism is not “privilege” – it is equality.

        Rubbish. It’s about Jewish privilege above non Jews and then it also impose a caste system among Jews.

        Zionism is simply racism.

        It is a liberation movement that grants Jews the right to self-determination – a right every nation on earth (including all the Arab nations) denied us for thousands of years.

        It does not grant anything. It takes, steal, kills and colonizes. It achieves it’s political and social objectives at the expense of others. It subjugates and oppresses others and tried to argue that racism is a human right and necessary to it’s success.

        Zionism gives Jews equality on the world stage by allowing us to control our own culture, history, and destiny.

        Rubbish. The most powerful
        Jews in the world refuse to live there and clearly have no problem controlling their own destiny.

        The people want to abolish Zionism – because it’s a destructive , racist, violent, inhumane and racist ideology.

      • adele says:

        jonrich111,

        It is funny how in your definition and defense of Zionism you somehow leave out the millions of Palestinians who have been displaced/dispossessed/disenfranchised by it. How convenient.

  10. Greta says:

    I’ve pretty much stayed out of this debate and have not posted anything in this forum for over a year, but I’m appalled that Mondoweiss would continue the smear tactics against me, written by David Samuel. Last year, because of a post that I downloaded onto my front page on Facebook (it was meant for a much smaller group), self-styled critics like Ali and Mondoweiss came after me, to the point that Adam Horowitz pretty much told me via email (yes, I have it) that he could make the story go away if I let him spy on our small group.

    I was so appalled, that I simply stopped posting anything to any group. Now, my name has come up again in this smarmy attack on Ali (who was also in the completely wrong FB group when he wrote his ridiculous comments about me). I am NO fan of Ali and his tactics, but MJ is going after someone who, overall, does his best in spite of being a pompous ass sometimes.

    However, attacking me for a post mistakingly put in the wrong place (I defy anyone reading this to tell me you have never done the same thing), to have Adam Horowitz sound like some McCarthy defender by telling me he would make the story go away if he could ‘look around’ in our small group (which still exists) has been a wake up call for those of us advocating for the freedom of speech… including the right to read Gilad’s book, which Ali never read.

    What is wrong with you people? Who are you to be the arbiter of what we read and watch? Thank God for people like Lenni Brenner, who actually had the sense to contact me and ask me politely for my side of the story, unlike Ali, who never contacted me after he posted his silliness, and Mondoweiss, who essentially said you would quash the story if I let you spy on us.

    Frankly, I have no sympathy with any of you. link to thestruggle.org

    As far as Gilad is concerned, how DARE any of you tell us what to read. Or have you decided that you will pick on the only woman who endorsed Gilad’s book, rather than attack Ramzy Baroud, Professor Falk, and dozens of other endorsers.

    • Hi Greta,

      I’m not interested in reliving that entire saga again, but will say that what you refer to as “spying,” was me asking for access to the Facebook group in question to corroborate your version of events.

      Adam

    • David Samel says:

      Greta, as you can see, my post was about Ali and MJ. My sole reference to you and Atzmon was to show how inappropriate a target Ali was for such an accusation, because he is quite vigilant on the subject of anti-Semitism. You obviously consider him to be over-vigilant, but I did not intend to comment on the appropriateness of his criticism of you, just on the fact that he made it.

      • MHughes976 says:

        ‘Does his best in spite of being a pompous ass sometimes’ – my sort of person.

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          “D’you read MJ Rosenberg’s blog lately?”
          “Nah, d’you?”
          “Well, he says that Ali Abunimah’s an anti-Semite. D’you think Abunimah’s an anti-Semite?”
          “Hmm — maybe a pompous ass sometimes. But an anti-Semite? Nah.”

        • RoHa says:

          If occasional asinine pomposity were my basis for rejecting people and their ideas, I fear I would head my own list of rejectees.

      • W.Jones says:

        David,

        It is worthy of you to defend people when they are accused of intolerance, as you did in this article. As for your writing about Berlin being neutral, you earlier said:
        Of course, the dissing of Ann Wright for defending Berlin is ridiculous, but I have no problem with those like Abunimah who demand accountability from Berlin herself. She may be blameless but her faux pas was serious enough to put the burden on her to show it, and she hasn’t.
        link to mondoweiss.net
        Note however, that actually the burden is on the accuser to show a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the burden really isn’t on Berlin, and your statement “she may be blameless” suggests that one really can doubt this about her.

        • David Samel says:

          WJ, my writing about Berlin was neutral here, or at least intended to be, as I did not want to dredge up that controversy. You quote me from way back at the time when I suggested the burden was on her to show she was blameless. I think I was right then. This is not a criminal trial with a reasonable doubt burden. There was evidence that Berlin circulated something anti-Semitic, and her explanation, unsupported by documentary evidence in her possession that she wished to keep private, did not satisfy Abunimah. Sorry to sound so lawyer-like.

        • W.Jones says:

          David,

          Not to “put you on the stand”, but how much burden should there be before writing articles calling a human rights activist “anti-semitic”?

          Shouldn’t this be a high burden, David, considering: how charged and impacting the term is, how often it is thrown around, the fact that human rights activists are by nature anti-racist?

          Regards.

        • Danaa says:

          By way of a side comment and not to indicate any desire to relive last year’s wars: what we should all bear in mind is that Gaza is worse off today than it has been in a very long time. Now both Egypt and israel are collaborating in this extremely prejudicial effort to squeeze the locked up inmates of gaza as much as possible, until all hope has gone for them. Let us further remember that Abbas, the Vichy representative of the west bank is being squeezed too, as we speak, to let the people of gaza go and face their fate. And that fate, as envisioned and prepared by Israel (whether people perceive it or choose not to) is something far far worse than anything Ali could conceive of under his one state umbrella for those who consider themselves “Jewish” Israelis.

          Greta and the Free Gaza movement did much to bring attention to the inhumane conditions Israel has condemned the Palestinians to live under. With America’s tacit approval, even as much of the world continues to be deaf and blind to the continuing atrocity perpetrated by the “only “Jewish” state in the world”. That is all I need to know about Greta – the work she has done to bring that tiny tiny sliver of hope to one of the most oppressed people in the world. And no one, to my knowledge, has taken the place of that work, or brought much publicity to gaza’s plight, in quite a while.

          Seems to me that viewed from their angle, that of the people of Gaza, the grandiosquish battles, accusations and counter-accusations of “anti-semitism” – whatever that is – are kind of trite. There are in the great I/P saga only two sides, really – those on the side of human rights, and those who are not (even if they just be equivocators) – fine words and hair splittings aside. The rest, frankly, is just so much fluff.

          And yes, MJ just did some mighty fluffing. As is the wont of all who consider themselves zionists, be they “liberal” or not.

        • David Samel says:

          WJones, thanks for your thoughtful comment. You are absolutely right that the burden should be high, but wasn’t it met? As I recall, there was a tweet from Berlin about Zionists running the Holocaust with a link to an anti-Semitic video. Everybody, including Berlin, agreed on the anti-Semitic content of the tweet and video. Berlin claimed that the tweet was taken out of context, that is, that she did not mean to endorse or even sanction the message, but that it was just meant as an example of propaganda. Some people believed her, and some did not, but given the nature of the tweet, I think it was reasonable for people to demand some sort of evidence corroborating her defense of the tweet. But it’s not like the accusation of anti-Semitism was fabricated out of whole cloth. Speaking like a lawyer, the accusers met their high burden, which then shifted to Berlin to explain why she disseminated an undisputedly anti-Semitic tweet, even if she meant to share it only with a few rather than the public.

          Hypothetically, if Abe Foxman tweeted some gross anti-Arab bigotry, and then claimed that he only intended to share it with friends as an example of bigotry and did not share its sentiment, would you believe him without any corroboration?

        • German Lefty says:

          @ David Samel
          If Abe Foxman tweeted some gross anti-Arab bigotry, and then claimed that he only intended to share it with friends as an example of bigotry and did not share its sentiment, would you believe him without any corroboration?

          That’s not the same. Abe Foxman is a Zionist. That means he denies Palestinians equal rights in their own homeland. Also, he was against the Park51 Islamic community center near Ground Zero. And he is in favour of the surveillance of Muslim communities. Therefore, he already has an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim record. As far as I know, Greta Berlin did not have an anti-Semitic record when she made that tweet. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt her sincerity. ONE statement can be a misunderstanding, whereas MANY similar statements are a clear indication of animosity.

        • W.Jones says:

          David,

          I am glad we agree that the burden should be high before calling a human rights activist anti-Semitic. As to meeting that burden, at the time some pointed out that the mistaken slander was against “Zionists”:

          But how come such an accusation leveled toward Zionists is called ‘anti-Semitism’? ~ Klaus B.

          link to mondoweiss.net

          I question whether accusing Zionists — rightly or wrongly — is impugning Jews in general in the first place. To accept that is to accept the equation between Zionism and Judaism ~ C. Wright

          if the anti-Zionist movement spends a great deal of time and energy dissecting and articulating the difference between Judaism and Zionism, then how can we characterize commentary such as that ensconced in the Greta Berlin linked video (which is focused on the role of Zionism in the atrocities of WWII) as anti-Semitic? ~Exiled at Home

          link to mondoweiss.net

          Two other issues are whether making a rude claim about “Zionists” is the same as slandering all of them, and whether tweeting a movie is the same as endorsing it. A better analogy to her mistake might be if a feminist, secular activist noticed a rude movie about “Islamic theocracy” and tweeted it.

          It is hard to prove a negative (eg. that she is not a witch.) But as for corroboration of her explanation that she did not approve of anti-Semitism, J.Warner wrote: “As several have already pointed out in this thread, Berlin does not have a record of anti-Semitic statement.”
          link to mondoweiss.net

          How can her mistatement about an ideology meet what we agree is the high burden to show “anti-Semitism”?

          It is relevant because one could expect that someone else, in opposing Zionism would at some point make a rude claim about “Zionism”, and then be labeled anti-Semitic for it.

        • David Samel says:

          That’s an interesting question, WJ. I certainly would agree that the vast majority of statements about Zionists do not implicate Jews and could not be construed as anti-Semitic. But there are exceptions to that rule, and I think that saying that Zionists ran the concentration camps would be such an exception. Other hypothetical ones: Zionists plotted the worldwide financial crisis of 2008; Zionists are conspiring to exacerbate global warming. Or even the old standard: Zionists butcher non-Jewish babies to make matzoh. By the same token, I think the allegation that Hezbollah or Hamas rejoice when Israelis kill Lebanese or Palestinian children reeks of anti-Arab bigotry, even though many allegations against those groups, even if wrong, do not.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ David Samel

          I agree with everything W.Jones wrote.
          If someone made a false accusation against neo-Nazis, then I would not interpret this accusation as anti-German, regardless of how severe or far-fetched this accusation is.
          Question to you: How would you categorise the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job? It is anti-Republican or anti-American? I’d say that it’s anti-Republican, because the accusation is directed at the Republican government, not at the American people.
          I think that whether an accusation against Zionists can be interpreted as anti-Semitic does not depend on the severity or even the veracity of the accusation. What matters is whether the accuser understands that there’s a difference between Zionists and Jews. Of course, there’s no way for us to know this. Only the person who makes the accusation knows if he actually thinks of Jews when saying the word “Zionists”. Only a record of clearly anti-Semitic satements can give us some indication of what the accuser really means. However, Greta Berlin does not have such a record! Therefore, we need to give her the benefit of the doubt. As a Jew, it’s comparatively easy for you to shake off accusations of anti-Semitism. You probably have no idea what a burden this accusation is for a non-Jew.

          But there are exceptions to that rule, and I think that saying that Zionists ran the concentration camps would be such an exception.

          And why? You simply point out that there are exceptions without bothering to give a reason. Look, in many cases Zionists misuse the Holocaust in order to justify the founding of the Jewish state. Zionists have always carried out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under a pretext, e.g. national security or self-determination. They are deceptive people. Also, you have to consider that all Western countries support the Zionist regime. Therefore, I think that it is not all that surprising when some anti-Zionist people become suspicious of the entire Western narrative about the Holocaust and start questioning this historical event. These people could argue that by supporting the Zionist takeover of Palestine, the West lost all its credibility and nothing that the West says can be taken at face value anymore. Just like Ahmadinejad wondered if the Holocaust actually happened, others might come up with the idea that Zionists assisted in the Holocaust. Please, don’t get me wrong: This is not an endorsement of these conspiracy theories. I am just saying that I can understand why some people are tempted to make these claims about the Holocaust and Zionists. Do you get what I mean? I remember that Annie Robbins wrote something similar once.

          By the same token, I think the allegation that Hezbollah or Hamas rejoice when Israelis kill Lebanese or Palestinian children reeks of anti-Arab bigotry, even though many allegations against those groups, even if wrong, do not.

          Again, that’s not the same. The people who make this accusation are Zionists. It is clear that Zionists are hostile to Arabs. Otherwise, they would give Palestinians equal rights. In other words: The accusers have an anti-Arab record.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ David Samel
          By the same token, I think the allegation that Hezbollah or Hamas rejoice when Israelis kill Lebanese or Palestinian children reeks of anti-Arab bigotry, even though many allegations against those groups, even if wrong, do not.

          It just occured to me that the purpose of the accusation can be crucial, too.
          If someone makes a false accusation against Hezbollah or Hamas in order to justify the denial of equal rights for Palestinians, then this is clearly anti-Arab.
          If someone makes a false accusation against Zionists in order to justify the denial of equal rights for Jews, then this is clearly anti-Semitic.
          Did Greta Berlin do this? Nope!

        • W.Jones says:

          David,

          Could using a “smell” test for a single statement be too weak to decide that a person is racist? If a person walks by a neighbor’s house and it “reeks” of a drug, would it be correct to tell the neighbors that the neighbor is smoking it? Perhaps in fact the person is burning leaves? Perhaps a bag in the refrigerator smelling like sewage actually has overcooked gluten-free hamburger helper?

          Perhaps a problem with an “it reeks” test is that it is indirect and arbitrary? You certainly may have a good reason to investigate further what is burning or in the refrigerator, but putting your lawyer cap on, wouldn’t you say that it is not enough to meet a high burden that will wreck a career?

          None of this is to agree with burning putrid leaves, storing nasty food, or approve of rude mischaracterizations of political groups.

          Please let me give three real-life examples that are related to three that you gave. After the Iraq War began, we in the anti-war movement learned how it was for oil. Then, Walt’s book came out claiming the Lobby played a major motivation in the war. Without knowing much about the book and believing strongly that oil was the war’s basic cause, would it be OK to call it anti-Semitic, when in fact it only focused on a political group? (I can confess, David, that when an acquaintance told me about the book, I mistakenly thought my acquaintance might be motivated by anti-Semitism, by metaphorically “tweeting” it to me.)

          In one club working on peace in Israel/Palestine, some complained that the British cartoon showing Netanyahu with Palestinians’ blood was anti-Semitic and referred to the blood libel. The newspaper itself retracted it. What would you tell them? (It turned out that the cartoonist had depicted other leaders rudely too, showing Assad with his people’s blood.)

          Not long after the events of 2001, the US media showed footage of Palestinians in the streets celebrating the tragedy. Later reports by critics suggested that the footage was extremely selective, if not staged- adults standing next to those few people in striped shirts throwing candy at kids were not amused or involved. Yet if someone saw one of those TV clips and mistakenly re-tweeted it, would it mean she was racist or hated all Arabs?

          Might these examples, like your good article defending a human rights activist, point to the difficulty of using the “smell” test?
          Ali. A. made statements about Israelis that are simply factually false, as shown by his published Corrections afterwards. MJR, going on the smell test, says that Ali A.’s misstatements reek of “anti-Semitism”, another person’s nose may not detect it, and a third person may be unsure. The same features were the case with Greta B., when she issued a retraction and opinions were divided about her.

          Considering the high burden we agree is necessary before writing declarations against human rights activists, shouldn’t we wait until we know if they are just burning leaves or storing overcooked fat? And in the off chance they don’t want people cherry-picking through their refrigerators, should we respect that too?

          In any case, your article defending people was insightful and gave food for thought. Take care, David.

      • W.Jones says:

        Adam and David:

        Is there a parallel?

        1. Greta titled a clip with a mistaken slander against “Zionists” and was repeatedly considered anti-Semitic.

        2. Ali Abunimah mistakenly claims that separating Jews is a “Zionist dogma” and has been considered anti-Semitic for saying that.

        Is it any surprise that people like them who devote much space to criticising an ideology will make a mistaken or rude claim about it at some point? That is not to accept their mistakes, but how is that the same as attacking the ethnicity itself?

        Peace, guys.

    • German Lefty says:

      For example, see his harsh criticism of Gilad Atzmon and Greta Berlin.

      I’d like to point out that I don’t find Greta’s tweet anti-Semitic. I have not seen or heard an anti-Semitic statement by Gilad either. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but that doesn’t mean it’s anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is a very serious accusation that should not be made lightly.

      • piotr says:

        I guess that in any movement one has to draw some boundaries, “what is too radical for me”. One thing we have to be careful about are sweeping generalizations, particularly if based on ethnicity, culture but I would add ideology — with certain limits. However, among such generalizations and stereotyping, why “Jews are plotting to rule the world” is worse than “good Communist is a dead Communist” etc.

        I do not recall Greta’s affair, but I remember Gilad Atzmon relatively well, and he is a hard person to defend seriously. For example, he was labeled as “Holocaust denier” which is a smear, but he did write to the effect that repression against Jews in 1930s were understandable. He also poured vitriol on an Israeli Jewish non-Zionist Marxist in a manner that suggests that (a) Atzmon has no idea what Marxism is, (b) the mere fact that someone claims to be Jewish something activates intellectual aggression in Atzmon. Calling it anti-Semitism is quite close to mark, they way various right wingers and nationalists are called fascists — these are not exact terms. This is sad because he is talented, intelligent, and did some admirable things, but ultimately pretty flawed.

        One thing that would be good to get rid of is the notion that “anti-Semitism is a very serious accusation”. Why is this night different from all other nights? Perhaps it is not. Why it is OK for an editor of WSJ to mention “typical Arab savagery”, indulging his Persian sense of superiority, but it is not OK to denigrate Jews or Blacks in a similar manner? Is raping blond girls heinous, or raping any girl, or any human? Or more realistically, is it worth shunning if someone makes very tasteless jokes about blond women, or any misogynist tasteless jokes? (And a related Pandora box, which of these jokes are indeed tasteless.)

        • German Lefty says:

          One thing that would be good to get rid of is the notion that “anti-Semitism is a very serious accusation”. Why is this night different from all other nights?

          Piotr, don’t put words in my mouth! That’s not what I said at all. Anti-Semitism is a very serious accusation, just like any other form of racism. In general, it angers me that many people are unable or unwiling to properly distinguish between “racial” and “racist”. Of course, Jews are not a race, but I hope you understand what I mean. In many cases, just mentioning that someone is a Jew is interpreted as anti-Semitic. In Germany, it’s similar with ethnic Asians or blacks. Any acknowledgement of someone’s race is misinterpreted as racist, when actually it’s merely racial. That’s insane.

        • German Lefty says:

          One thing we have to be careful about are sweeping generalizations, particularly if based on ethnicity, culture but I would add ideology — with certain limits.

          I agree. However, I think that we also need to consider the context. We should look at why a sweeping generalisation was made. Was it intentional or accidental? Was it actually a result of racism or merely a result of sloppy language? Not everyone who makes a sweeping generalisation from time to time is a racist.
          Besides, one can have a negative opinion of a certain group of people and still want these people to have equal rights, as a matter of principle. For example, I dislike religious people. However, I would never think of denying them equal rights.

        • piotr says:

          My modest proposal is to agree that so-called “new anti-Semitism” is not serious. “Objectively anti-Semitic” is not serious. Etc. We know well that the statement “anti-Semitism is a very serious matter” is used (not by you but by many luminaries and decision makers in USA) as a way to spread the “seriousness” to so-called “whiffs of anti-Semitism”, smell tests etc. And a list of though crimes like “singling out Israel” and so on.

          However, Atzmon Gilad is on record with pretty “paleo-anti-Semitism”. He mades pretty compelling attacks on Jewish and Zionist mythologies but then he lurches forward to creepy generalizations etc.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ piotr
          In Germany, being accused of anti-Semitism can ruin your entire career. That’s what I mean by “serious accusation”. It has serious consequences. No matter if the accusation is actually true or completely false, you will be treated with suspicion for the rest of your life. That’s why only old people dare to publicly mention the Nakba.

          Gilad is on record with pretty “paleo-anti-Semitism”. He mades pretty compelling attacks on Jewish and Zionist mythologies but then he lurches forward to creepy generalizations etc.
          I just watched a video in which Gilad said: “Jewish culture is tribally orientated. We always tend to forget the clear fact that peace — in the sense of reconciliation, loving your neighbour — again is very foreign to Jewish culture and definitely Israeli culture.” Is that what you mean? Probably. I wonder what he means by “Jewish culture” and how he defines the term “Jewish”. Perhaps he is “only” anti-religious?

      • Donald says:

        “I have not seen or heard an anti-Semitic statement by Gilad either. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but that doesn’t mean it’s anti-Semitic. ”

        Based on his blog posts and his comments here, he struck me exactly as Islamophobes strike me–an obvious bigot.

        • Danaa says:

          Donald – with all the obvious bigots out there (the entire pro-Israel crowd, for example, and the majority of the Israeli population), people going digging tunnels and using microscopes to find this or that evidence of supposed “anti-semitism” is a mighty silly game. After the smears and hatchet jobs Gilad was subjected to, who wouldn’t be a little ill-inclined towards his accusers? who wouldn’t slip into untoward generalizations now and then? what’s interesting to me is that those who pick silly bones with something Gilad said or meant about one past persecution have so little to say about the ghastly attitudes expressed day in day out by the population of Israel (the part of the population that cares to say stuff. We know little of what the silent ones think but if you ever met a silent israeli, why do tell –). A population that for the most part wouldn’t mind it at all were the Palestinians done away with once and for all (though most Israelis would definitely like to keep it “humane”, I.m sure). Worse part is, your average zionist crowd in the US, including not a small number of “liberals” would find ways of going along just fine. My proof? do you hear any of the recanters, like Eric Alterman, express as much as a whiff of sorrow for what was done to 100′s of thousands of Iraqis? in a campaign of terror, through an atrocity he supported. So, were I to call him an Arab Holocaust supporter, would that be so far off the mark? and would that make me “anti-semitic”?

          So do think about this Donald, on the one hand gilad making careless artless statements, no doubt coming from a place of fury about his persecution by the well-spoken, correctly thinking crowd. On the other hand, countless jewish people (yes, jewish) who cheered on the devastation, murder and destruction of a people – some in the name of their “liberalism” (hey we got rid of Saddam, so what if we committed worse atrocities than saddam ever dreamt of in the process?). yet here we are, discussing this non-existent phenomenon sometimes referred to as “anti-semitism”.

          What’s lacking here is a sense of proportion.

          Something that’s also all too evident in MJR’s ill-tempered outbursts.

        • Donald says:

          I don’t see any great difficulty in condemning Alterman, Atzmon, and Rosenberg for their various stupid and/or contemptible remarks. It’s not like expressing my disgust with Alterman (Phan did a superb job on that blowhard) or with Rosenberg leaves me so exhausted I can’t recall what I’ve read of Atzmon and think “what a jackass”. And it doesn’t require a microscope to find Atzmon’s bigotry. One just has to read him in small amounts. The hell with all three of them.

  11. Chu says:

    Good points. This accusation seemed churlish and baffoon-like,
    and MJ ultimately wears the egg with or without an apology.

  12. joemowrey says:

    Guys like Rosenberg and Alterman are clearly lunatics who have become so fanatically obsessed with Israel they should no longer be considered a rational part of the discussion. It’s not about Rosenberg “apologizing.” He should be shunned and his views on this subject should be disregarded. How many articles do we need to see analyzing and refuting this kind of craziness? We have more important issues to explore.

  13. MJ tweeting:

    MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 19m
    Mondoweiss Demands I Apologize To Ali Abunimah For Calling Him An Anti-Semite link to wp.me

    I reply:

    Philip Munger ‏@PhilipMunger 5m
    @MJayRosenberg They aren’t demanding, MJ. A contributor is observing he feels you owe Ali Abuminah an apology. Perhaps you do.

  14. Taxi says:

    Another cracked actor.

    We can observe here how zionism eventually turns its followers either into a basket case, or into a bastard. Or both: as is the case here with MJ Rosenberg.

    • kalithea says:

      Taking the two-state solution away from “Liberal” Zionists who still cling to the illusion of a “noble and just” Zionism, is like taking candy away from a baby. Hence the temper tantrum.

      The two-state solution was “a pie in the sky” band-aid to try and heal the gouging open wound called the Nakba, brush off decades of oppression, screw the refugees and ignore the festering, spreading settlement infection. Fate is calling the shots on where this is going and deservedly so.

      MJ is being drowned out in a cesspool of radical Zionism and he’s blaming Ali for his own frustration and increasing irrelevance for being unable to face reality and suck up the truth which represents pure oxygen for someone with this level of self-inflicted despair.

      Yes, you nailed it — it’s both.

  15. Interesting brouhaha.

  16. W.Jones says:

    Alot of times analogies can give a more level headed way of looking at things. What if a progressive said America is a actually a European colonial movement, based on where America as a system came from?

    What if then the leftist was extremely critical of European colonialism? Would he be talking that way about “every American?”

    Maybe actually there are two different ways the same term is used?

    A person might say that red is an “angry” color, and then elsewhere
    mention that he knows some people with red hair. Perhaps he does not actually think this way about them?

  17. pabelmont says:

    MJR responds (and he’s not very polite about us commenters either). No wonder he allows no comments on his own blog. See his remarks here.

    He sticks to his guns. He sees a lotta antisemites out there, folks.

    • German Lefty says:

      MJR responds
      Here wrote: “I have no intention of going through Abunimah’s endless torrent of tweets to pull out the anti-Semitic ones.”
      That’s sooo typical of people who make false accusations. They refuse to provide any evidence. Not even one single quote.

      he’s not very polite about us commenters either
      Clearly, his accusation against us commenters is as baseless as his accusation against Abunimah. Calling racists racists is not racist, even when these racists happen to be Jewish.

    • seafoid says:

      “I have told him for years that many of the people who respond to articles at MW really, really hate Jews. He shouldn’t publish them. I think that eventually he will hire an editor and ban the haters.”

    • Citizen says:

      I don’t know if he still does, but in the past he allowed comment replies to his Twitter account comment–until one responded with a tweet about his tweet comment that was less than in total accord, in which case one was banned from commenting in reply to his tweet–forever more.

    • Dutch says:

      Well, that happened before in the margin of one of his own pieces on MW. He was asked to explain, but that didn’t happen. Clearly MJ sees things most of us don’t see.

    • Danaa says:

      Pablemont, let’s face it, MJ, may be a fine liberally-minded individual, but deep at heart, like many, probably way too many jewish people, he considers nearly all non-Jews to be fundamentally anti-semites (with exceptions granted to Budhists, shintos, Hindus and Druids). That’s just the way it is, and he just dropped the mask for a moment. Not to worry – he’ll put it back on, real soon. I’m sure he will be able to identify at least one palestinian who is not “anti-semite”. Or an Arab, for that matter. Or, actually anyone whod dares to pipe up about israel or Jews, or zionist history while not being Jewish.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Danaa
        That is precisely my take on MJ too.

        BTW, look at the pics above of MJR & Abunimah. Which one looks like a used car salesman? Just happenstance expression? Doesn’t one look more forced than the other? Or is that just me? Body language and all that…

  18. Taxi says:

    Thanks for the link, pa.

    From your link, MJ says: “Smearing whole ethnic groups should be banned.” And here lies the fundamental problem. Judaism is not an ethnicity; it’s a religion. I’ll repeat: Judaism is not an ethnicity; it’s a religion. But the tribal factor what dominates all zionists, be they liberal or biblical, somehow prohibits this primal fact from being absorbed by the zio brain. So thorough is the brainwashing of zionists – all of them – into tribalism.

    MJ’s behaving just like the thug Lobby. Going out there to intentionally destroy a good man’s reputation using the antisemite tag – acknowledging in the above link that he’s doing exactly this AND feeling no remorse nor shame about it.

    MJ’s sitting in the corner now with arms folded and pouting and saying: ‘No no no I’m not budging!’. Another entitled, neurotic, narcissistic zionist on full display.

    • MHughes976 says:

      If every member of an ethnic group supports some form of wrongdoing (not that I can think of any example of this) then they all deserve to be denounced. How does morality work otherwise? Wrong cannot become right because of the racial identity of those who support it. How could that thought be entertained for a moment?

    • Citizen says:

      Gee, I was taught by a (reformed rabbi) that Judaism was “a portable culture.” And it’s commonplace that Judaism is not merely a religion in the same sense that, say Christianity or Islam are religions.

  19. Cliff says:

    MJR said:

    I won’t really read the comments at MW. I stopped reading them years ago.

    I think that means he DOES read MW comments.

  20. jimby says:

    Before Phil Weiss created Mondoweiss there were Norman Finkelstein and and M J Rosenberg. They were a breath of fresh air. As Jews they dared to criticize Israel in public. I have been critical of Israel especially since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. This was a huge step and we all owe them our gratitude for making Zionism a public issue. Today the conversation has moved on but let’s not forget their efforts and stay aware of the difficulties they faced. It was an extremely lonely position. I salute them both.

    • Cliff says:

      Agreed.

      I think it also goes to show how amazing MW is too. No other forum like it on-line, which explains why Zionists come HERE and we’re not on their blogs.

    • Bandolero says:

      jimby

      So true.

      Though I don’t agree with all details of what Norman Finkelstein and MJ Rosenberg think, I salute them for the courage of taking a moral stance and speaking out.

      For both, Norman Finkelstein and MJ Rosenberg, I feel deep respect therefore, moral examples I wished more people would follow in their courage to speak out.

      But still, that doesn’t mean that I find advocating a one state solution stupid or that I agree that Ali Abunimah is an anti-semite.

    • Danaa says:

      jimby, I think you’ve hit on something. It must have been very lonely for Norman and MJR, and they probably paid a high emotional price for being out-front.

      But both carry scars, which seem to be deepening. It could be that we are seeing the first shock waves from the realization – now all but self-evident – that the 2SS is a goner. That was a great crutch for many, including those who dared to speak out when no one else did, and that crutch is disintegrating in front of our eyes.

      We may just be noticing the wounds now. And they go deep. I can only wish merciful healing for the both of them, in time.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Danaa
        Again, agreed.

      • seafoid says:

        I have a lot of time for Finkelstein. I think he’s a real legend for what he did. Liberating Judaism from Zionism is a multi generational project and it won’t be the work of any individual.

        Similarly Rosenberg ploughed a lonely furrow for a long time. They both took a lot of personal abuse. Zionism is such a vicious creed.
        (BTW I think Max Blumenthal is going to get the full treatment shortly.)

        I don’t think anyone should be judged on one utterance. Greta Berlin should be brought in from the cold as well.
        They all believe in justice.

    • kalithea says:

      Ugh. Don’t make excuses for them, please. There is no excuse for continuing with the delusion of “Liberal” Zionism. Liberal Zionists will end up hurting Palestinians more than the radical sort – MARK MY WORDS.

  21. I am more interested in Her Show Biz( Deshowotz) . He will not stop. He will speak to the million of Jewish person again. Right now he will speak to some thousands . He will not stop until Obama dissociates from Media Matter or M M dissociates from Rosenberg.
    Is this a threat ? Sounds likes threat for cing someone to behave in certain way under threat . And all for using the word Israeli Firster? Was those great congressmen and senators who were saying 1. No reduction in money supply to Israel when all other going to gets massive haircut including US citizen— does it put Israrl second in line behind US
    2. When GOP presidential hopeful says he will ask Israel first before deciding about what to do on ME- is he or not he putting Israel ahead of US interest
    3 when Clinton has to go out and hear complaint about I-P and he has to support all unpopular decision against the wishes of the world- is he an Israrli Firster or is she an American Firster
    4 when Obama has to veto UN resolution on PA statehood and UN resolution trying to hold Israrl to same standard as UN does to other -is he acting or not like an Israeli Firster
    5 when Petraeus and Biden have to complain of the insecurity American troops find them in for Israeli intransigence but are forced to back down from voicing even – ar the Israeli Firster or not ( by force , Imposed on them )
    There are plenty of examples to go around.

    On another level can some muslim or Arab holding a position in Harvard or MIT can come swinging against people who use the word Islamo Fasism or show Palestinian resistance as expression of murderous thugs or show Iran with dagger and mushroom cloud or show Syrian leader as Hitler — and there are plenty from Liberman to Wosley to Perle to Kruthammer – and demand that GOP or WaPo dissociate from these creatures or ask Sam Harris to be banned from any media. with connection to any government official or offices from any angle — will that man or woman still will have the job?

    When Saban says he is one issue guy , he has no second or third position. It Is all about Israel and he is not only Firster but second,third all to they way to infinity– and he is shaping the policy through media and donation Same is true for Sheldon and so many other donors who threatened that they would not donate to Obama for articulating traditional US policy on settlement and on Jerusalem
    Are they not Israeli Firster who are shaping US policy and forcing it along the way?

    • Citizen says:

      @traintosiberia

      Yes they are Israel Firsters. And kudos to MJR for daring to call them for what they have proven they are. Brag about it, even…

  22. MHughes976 says:

    We should salute everyone for the truths they speak. But I would like to say in reply to Rosenberg that MW is a citadel and shining light in the cause of genuine anti-racism and the equal humanity of all human beings, no one excluded.

  23. talknic says:

    @ MJ Rosenberg
    “I look forward* to reading the “commenters” at Mondoweiss who will respond to the piece about me.”
    Then
    ” *I won’t really read the comments at MW. I stopped reading them years ago”
    Then
    “many of the people who respond to articles at MW really, really hate Jews. “
    Seems someone has lost the plot
    ” I have no intention of going through Abunimah’s endless torrent of tweets to pull out the anti-Semitic ones. “
    LOL. How many times do you hear the same lame excuse from Israel’s apologits (sic)

  24. W.Jones says:

    Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah has kept a wary eye open for anti-Semitism, and repeatedly made it clear that there is no room in the Palestinian rights movement for any attacks on Jewish people. For example, see his harsh criticism of Gilad Atzmon and Greta Berlin…

    This outburst [by Rosenberg against Ali Abunimah] is all the more inexplicable since Rosenberg himself has been publicly smeared by the odious Dershowitz for the relatively innocuous “offense” of using the term “Israel firster” to describe those who put Israel first.

    Confusing.

  25. Keep MW as a big tent Have him(MJR) inside rather than outisde

  26. Keith says:

    On April 8, 2013, on a Mondoweiss post titled “Hiroshima Epiphany,” well known “anti-Semitism” accuser M.J.Rosenberg commented: “I could, if I wanted to, find hundreds if not thousands of anti-Semitic statements here. My beloved friend, Phil, should either shut down all comments or preferably screen them for anti-Semitism, Islamohatred and other forms of bigotry.” It was part of one of three irrational comments he made. Check it out.
    link to mondoweiss.net

    He never provided any quotes or evidence of his typically reckless accusation. For some curious reason, this former AIPAC official is treated much too respectfully by many Mondoweissers. His smears and slanders bespeak of power (at least in his own mind) and arrogance. In my view, he is a caricature of an empire Jew ruthlessly charging anti-Semitism against those who get in his way. Foxman on steroids.

    Silver lining? Yes, there is a certain rough justice to Ali Abunimah being on the receiving end of this type character assassination in view of his role in tarring both Gilad Atzmon and Greta Berlin with this same BS. Were these same people involved in excommunicating Norman Finkelstein too? What is the end result of all of this? Jewish tribal anti-Zionists jockeying for control and power. Jeez.

    Rosenberg apologize? Who cares?

    • miriam6 says:

      Keith@;

      Actually Keith – several months ago I noticed a commenter in MW had posted a comment which carried two links to sites – both of which clearly involved Holocaust denial. I complained about it – given that it breached MW’s OWN rules about appropriate discourse on M .W.
      The comment and the links in it which violated M .W’s OWN guidelines was removed.
      So don’t try claiming that anti- Semitism has never happened in MW.
      It is not true.
      Also – take a look at MW’s comment’s policy.
      Take note of how by their own admission MW had to change it’s policy in part because so many people were posting comments which were far more concerned with bashing Jews and their culture than supporting Palestinians.

      Anyone with half a brain looking at Gilad Atzmon’s website can see he is an anti Semite. Not so long ago he posted a really vile little video mocking Jews not for being Zionists but for simply being Jews.
      The main effect of which was to show that Atzmon’s self loathing of his Jewish origins drives his so called activism on behalf of Palestinians.

      You are forgetting that the people at the centre of all this are the Palestinians- not people like yourself.
      Obviously you care not about the potential damage the charge of anti Semitism might cause the Palestinian cause.
      Ali Abunimah evidently does.
      Given that he is a Palestinian he has far more right than you to have a say in such matters.

      What is the end result of all of this? Non – Jewish tribal anti-Zionists jockeying for control and power. Jeez.

      That is YOUR game Keith..

      • Keith says:

        MIRIAM6- “So don’t try claiming that anti- Semitism has never happened in MW.
        It is not true.”

        Should I take it as a backhanded compliment that you felt the need to respond to my comment while simultaneously creating a straw man to avoid dealing with what I actually said?

        The Mondoweiss comment section is a valuable forum where important issues can be freely and openly discussed. As such, a certain latitude is necessary, too much attention to political correctness counterproductive. And the Stalinist censorship which Rosenberg advises would totally destroy Mondoweiss. And what the hell is an anti-Semitic comment anyway? Who is going to judge? You and MJ Roseberg and other Jewish gatekeepers? You would like that wouldn’t you? I’m sure Rosenberg would. Jews deciding what is acceptable for Gentiles and other Jews to publicly say about Jews.

        Miriam says: “…several months ago I noticed a commenter in MW had posted a comment which carried two links to sites – both of which clearly involved Holocaust denial. I complained about it….”

        Ah, the never ending search for whiffs of anti-Semitism. Since you didn’t provide a link, am I supposed to take your word that it was clearly anti-Semitic? Who elected you gatekeeper? And what is an anti-Semitic comment? Anti-Semitic is supposed to refer to someone who HATES Jews simply because they ARE Jews. How do you deduce this from a comment? As for websites, some (most?) of the so-called anti-Semitic sites are run by Mossad as black propaganda to demonstrated anti-Semitism to impressionable Jews in need of a victim-hood fix. Suppose I agree that there are some bona fide anti-Semites commenting on Mondoweiss. So what? I don’t see anti-Semitism as a significant problem like Zionism is. So let the discussion continue, and you and MJ can go to you know where.

        Miriam say: “Anyone with half a brain looking at Gilad Atzmon’s website can see he is an anti Semite.”

        Really? I grant you that Gilad tends to intentionally use needlessly provocative language apparently as a technique for self-promotion, however, much of what he says about Jewishness is similar to things which Israel Shahak has said using scholarly language. Also, he seems to be reacting to the pillorying he constantly receives from the tribal anti-Zionists. I like some of what he says, others not so much, but anti-Semitic? You throw a pretty wide net, Miriam. As for Greta Berlin, I continue to believe that she was treated shabbily by Ali Abunimah and Mondoweiss. At this stage of the game, it would be only natural for her to resent the Jewish tribalists who stiffed her. And, yes, it is all about power. Who leads and who follows and who determines who is acceptable to lead.

        Miriam says: “You are forgetting that the people at the centre of all this are the Palestinians- not people like yourself.”

        That’s rich. All of you liberal Zionists shedding crocodile tears over the fate of the Palestinians! You want us to believe that you scour Mondoweiss looking for hints of anti-Semitism in support of Palestinian rights? Your problem, Miriam, is that you are just too good. So why don’t you lay your heavy burden down and let Phil and Adam (with lots of help from Annie) run Mondoweiss without having to deal with your holier than thou complaints?

        • Keith says:

          Jeez, hasn’t my comment of Oct 23 @ 4:00 pm been in solitary confinement long enough?

        • sorry we weren’t fast enough for you keith. sometimes comments just get stuck in the back pages. and jeez, you could ask nicer.

          and from my own perspective and your And, yes, it is all about power. Who leads and who follows and who determines who is acceptable to lead. re greta, i don’t agree with you. greta sat in a hole of her own making because her initial response was to blow it off and then challenge those who found her ‘explanation’ lacking. then her ‘excuse’ didn’t hold water. it went on like that for over a week for people asking her to just cop to what happened. while some people might have immediately jumped into accusatory mode MW didn’t do that. it was over a week when it became apparent she wasn’t budging we said it was just not ok with us, and it wasn’t. as a refresher, the text under the video said (paraphrasing) zionists ran the gas chambers. and saying she was just downloading it because her and colleagues were studying these sorts of videos is akin to a school principle saying he/she downloaded pedophilia because his group of friends were studying it, but whoops, there’s was no record of that study to be seen.

          it wasn’t acceptable to me. i am not in a position of power. i’m just a person. and i didn’t follow anyone else’s lead. i wrote phil after a few days and said, ‘you know, it’s not going away, therefore we’re going to have to make some kind of statement about our position on this at some point or we’ll get dragged in by association’. that would not have been the case had she just stepped down or admitted she had some kind of fixation on this level of holocaust ‘study’ that included outlandish unsupportable accusations. it’s not ok with me if the movement gets associated with that level of discourse. if people who want to be part of the free palestine movement AND study the holocaust, they should do it responsibly. she didn’t. that’s my opinion and it has nothing to do w/wanting power. not for me.

          she put the movement on trial by not stepping down. it put every one of her associates in a position of having to either align or denounce her actions. after a week, it became apparent we had to say something. it was very uncomfortable because we had worked together and she was very good friends with close friends of mine. the whole thing was really hard personally, it ripped a big hole in the local community.

        • German Lefty says:

          Gilad tends to intentionally use needlessly provocative language apparently as a technique for self-promotion [...] I like some of what he says, others not so much, but anti-Semitic?

          I totally agree!

        • miriam6 says:

          Keith@;

          Miriam says: “…several months ago I noticed a commenter in MW had posted a comment which carried two links to sites – both of which clearly involved Holocaust denial. I complained about it….”

          You want proof ? As far as I can give it – I am submitting in this comment the e-mail reply I received from Adam Horowitz in which Horowitz says the unacceptable comment was deleted after I drew attention to the Holocaust denial material in the comment in question. The e-mail also contains my original e-mail complaint about the Holocaust denying links in the comment in question.

          I would imagine that – given that Adam Horowitz himself agreed that the content of the comment contravened MW’s own guidelines to be proof enough that the links content in the comment were held to be completely unacceptable by the staff of Mondoweiss as represented by Adam Horowitz.

        • Keith says:

          MIRIAM6- “You want proof ?”

          Proof of what? That you complained and that the comment was pulled? I never doubted that. The rest of my comment stands. Why don’t you and Adam and M.J. do lunch sometime?

        • miriam6 says:

          Keith@;

          The rest of my comment stands.

          No it does not.
          Answer me a straight question Keith – to WHOM does the Palestinian struggle actually belong ?
          Does it belong to outsiders like you or does it belong to the Palestinians?
          Evidently you believe the former and Abunimah believes that the conflict belongs to Palestinians like himself!
          How presumptuous of Abunimah! And you openly revel in MJ Rosenberg’s attack on Abunimah.

          I suspect the real reason for your Schadenfreude is really because Abunimah’s determination to keep the Palestinian liberation project under Palestinian control is something you rail against.
          The thing that has always impressed me about the Palestinians is their determination to keep their liberation movement free from the taint of anti Semitism.
          In your attitude towards Abunimah you show much the same patronising paternalistic attitude that many Westerners have displayed over conflicts in the Balkans/ Rwanda etc. – an attitude which states that Westerners know best – rather than the people to whom the conflict actually belongs. The fact is that the Palestinian cause only really became popular with washed up liberal types looking for a new cause to shore them up was apparent after the confirmed defeat of the Palestinian national liberation project about 25 years ago. Suddenly the Palestinians became too weak to defend themselves against not only the Israelis but also against the parasitical attentions of their Western ‘supporters’.

          On the subject of anti Semitism Ali Abunimah is right and you and the other parasitical ‘supporters ‘ of the Palestinians would do well not to lecture the Palestinians / Palestinian leadership – that they should ignore the damaging effects that any association with anti Semitism might have on the Palestinian cause.
          Abunimah is right and you are WRONG. Yours and others attempts to rehabilitate an anti Semitic human grotesque like Gilad Atzmon must fail. Atzmon’s ‘support’ for the Palestinian cause has already been firmly rejected by Palestinian leaders like Abumimah and Omar Bargouti .

          THAT is what must stand.

    • kalithea says:

      (I sent this updated version before.)

      “Silver lining? Yes, there is a certain rough justice to Ali Abunimah being on the receiving end of this type character assassination in view of his role in tarring both Gilad Atzmon and Greta Berlin with this same BS.”

      Pronouncing judgment on others should always be checked by some karma. A little karmic blowback never hurt anyone–it makes one more genuine and behave more cautiously considerate in future.

      AA should stop walking on eggshells. His cause for justice speaks for itself! I know he wants Jews in his corner but he doesn’t need to tear down two anti-Zionists (as opposed to two anti-Semites) to prove to Jews he can be trusted. What he really accomplished with that misjudgment was to indulge Zionists, and Zionists definitely don’t need more indulgence (i.e. having their as..es kissed).

      AA should focus on the cause and ignore this (“Anti-Semite”) faux drama — the time for pulling punches is long gone. Jews who know better and have a conscience will understand that this is a fight for justice and should gravitate towards this goal; and either they support Zionism and injustice or they don’t! The middle ground went out with the defunct two-state solution and left so-called Liberal Zionists high and dry! As it was meant to be. I believe fate is playing its hand.

      MJ is frustrated that his “moral” middle ground has been pulled out from under him. He’s been deprived of all moral foundation for his “outrage” by his radical Zionist comrades and is taking his anger out on poor AA, because he, MJ, can no longer defend that shaky middle “territory” with any integrity without sounding empty and UNCONVINCING.

      This rage of his is not really directed at AA; he’s angry because he can’t handle the wakeup call he’s getting. First comes denial as in “Zionism can be rescued”, then rage when reality starts to sink in and, hopefully, acceptance of the truth/reality is next (as in Zionism was fruit of the poisonous tree to begin with). “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a poisonous tree good fruit.”

  27. tokyobk says:

    MJs problem is ego and impatience. That’s why he refuses to dialogue with people who disagree with him, no comment section and bans people left and right on twitter. And, his charge about Abuminah which is not supportable. My guess is it was a bad day for him and he blew up in a way that (he will never admit but that) he regrets.

    As for the comment section here, there are people who have a problem with the Jewish collective and are unsympathetic to Jews and very slow to condemn in, for example, Atzmon what would produce a hair trigger response if he were writing about Islam and Muslims. But its hard to say if someone is an anti-Semite or other kind of racist in their private actions and attitudes. Much better to confront each instance and focus on the statement.

    I think out of the hundreds of commenters on MW this is less than ten people though.

    The term “Israel Firster,” MJs own, bother’s me more than most of what Abuminah says. I suppose like “Anti-semite” it can describe some people, but it is used as a blanket.

    • Donald says:

      Good comment, tokyobk. I agree with almost all of it, including the second and third paragraph, but I think you’re too charitable to MJ. That’s more than just ego, though it certainly includes that. I think pabelmont’s “button” theory up above is probably correct. MJ has some supersensitive “anti-semitism” detector that picks up traces where none exists, and with his ego he can’t imagine he could be wrong, and so he self-righteously goes off on a crusade. Probably many of us who comment online know what the urge to go on a self-righteous crusade feels like. But MJ doesn’t seem to have any self-control when the mood hits him.

  28. Talkback says:

    Rosenberg advocates to keep humans expelled and denationalized, if they are Palestinians. With his accusations of antisemitism and hatred he only wants to divert from his racism and his post 1945 wet dreams of a volkish state of not all its citizens. In times where more and more people are putting their own individuality and humanity as a whole above their heritage and faith, he seems to regress and try to crawl back into his tribal primordial soup.

  29. I assume that all the photos available of MJ Rosenberg show him smiling in a superficial obnoxious manner and all photos of Abunima show him serious and thoughtful. Every little bit of propaganda helps.

    • Citizen says:

      @ yonah fredman
      Here’s other easily available images of MJR, including the obnoxious smile, but also what is apparently MJR’s personal favorite–the one with the film noir cigaret dangling from his lips he has chosen for his avatar on his twitter site: link to google.com

      And here’s a bunch of images of Ali Abunimah. Note how they all carry the same serious expression. Who’s the poser?

    • Cliff says:

      Sure. Fair point.

  30. Nevada Ned says:

    For some time, I have admired both MJR and Ali Abunimah. Quite sad to see one of them pissing on the other.

  31. just says:

    Thank you David.

    Sorry to see MJ lose his mind and his civility. Too bad, so sad.

  32. W.Jones says:

    “Abunimah… certainly hates all Israelis, a nationality he cannot even mention without ugly adjectives attached.” – MJR
    link to mjayrosenberg.com
    (Scroll to bottom for all.)

    “many other Israelis, and Palestinian citizens of Israel expressed their deep revulsion at the racism [against Palestinian civilian casualties]” – Ali. A.
    link to electronicintifada.net

    “police forcibly prevented a group of Israelis from peacefully and silently commemorating the Nakba” – Ali A.
    link to electronicintifada.net

  33. Peter in SF says:

    This thread and the Eric Alterman one remind me:

    What do you call someone who has an animus toward Jews? An anti-Semite.

    What do you call someone who has an animus toward Palestinians? A moderate.

    • German Lefty says:

      What do you call someone who has an animus toward Jews? An anti-Semite.
      What do you call someone who has an animus toward Palestinians? A moderate.

      Sadly, that’s true. I hate double standards.

  34. Cuda says:

    Hilarious. Que karma! Abunimah getting a taste of his own medicine, albeit not in the polite drawing-room political correctness style that he purveys. I’m a One Stater myself and do appreciate his book, but his absurd slanders of Atzmon and Berlin for being “anti-semites” just came back to haunt him.

    http://onestate.info

  35. I’d never trusted Rosenberg.
    He seems like a confused man and with obvious ties to his old aipac days.

  36. I have for the most part for many years appreciated Ali Abunimah’s articles, but I would have to say that I did not appreciate his attack on Gilad Atzmon (or Greta Berlin) wherein he collected various signatures to oppose his alleged “racism” and “anti-semitism.” Strangely enough, Abunimah has also been accused of “anti-semitism” in the past, and how he is being accused of it once again. Who exactly is to be the judge of who is “anti-semitic” and who is not. As we are all well aware, any condemnation on Israel is perceived as “anti-semitism.” If one wishes to distance themselves from someone else in the movement because they are in disagreeance, that”s one thing, but to join the bandwagon of name-calling is entirely something else, especially anyone using a term that has become completely devoid of any meaning since it is tossed around at every opportunity.

    One thing for certain about Gilad Atzmon….at least he should be give some recognition by Ali Abunima, as well as anyone else who engaged in this such as the signatores to the Disavowal Statement, that Atzmon left the racist society that he belonged to and that he no longer serves in its army of oppression carrying out brutalities and devastation upon the Palestinians. I think a huge THANK YOU would suffice rather than the name-calling, and an apology would also be appropriate.

    • Yani says:

      Marlene, Ali’s comments about Gilad’s book and his subsequent rants are all made without reading the book. That says it all. Ali’s opinions in his critique of others are based on sheer lazy efforts and worthless to anyone bar Ali and his ego.

      Ali should stick to writing informed, researched, intellectually honest, opinion and not go on mad witch hunts informed by Zionist plebs.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Yani
        Yes. Ali even stated in his attack on Gilad’s book that he had not read it. Many harsh critics of the book stated they had not read it. Pretty amazing–but then again, didn’t that also happen to M & W’s The Israel Lobby book when it was published?

  37. German Lefty says:

    The only way a Liberal Zionist could rationalize this compromise of the rights of others is for a “greater good” of preventing a far worse calamity.

    I disagree. It’s impossible to rationalise or justify “preventive oppression” of an ethnic group.

  38. kalithea says:

    So what’s really happening with MJ? His true Zionist colors are manifesting, that’s all. The 11th hour is here, the Emperor has no clothes; Zionism is looking uglier every day; the two-state is d.o.a. thanks to Zionists killing that option with their insatiable lust for Palestinian land. “Liberal” Zionists are starting to sound more foolish by the minute running around in a panic scrambling disingenuous words together to rescue their precious Zionism pretending to commiserate with Palestinians when IN FACT and in deed they’re unable to let go of the racist structure that holds Zionism together, unable to empathize honestly with the Nakba, a grave injustice that made the Jewish majority possible in the first place; unable to embrace reparation — the right of return which will restore the majority to their rightful place and help right the wrong, and they’re even unable to embrace BDS which will restore RIGHTS, dignity and humanity to a trampled, oppressed people; THE PALESTINIANS. Because if you look around Jewish people are doing just fine everywhere – thank you very much and better than fine! So don’t pull that victim card on us – it’s really getting annoying and our eyes do not deceive us, MJ. The only victims here are the obvious victims of a brutal occupation that started with THE NAKBA; and injustice that will not be denied, ever, no matter how you delay it! And hollering about anti-Semitism in this instance is but another desperate measure to slow down the wheels of justice.

    The time to pay the piper is at hand and dramatics will be recognized as manipulative, futile, theater of the absurd that Zionism is proving to be.

    I’ve said it before and I can’t stress it enough: Don’t trust so-called Liberal Zionists – they’re not what they appear to be. Zionism will always come before justice and the rights of others with ANY Zionist.

  39. eGuard says:

    mj rosenberg is giving thinking a bad name. This is what he wrote days ago:
    I won’t really read the comments at MW. I stopped reading them years ago.

    But this is what he did since these years ago: link to mondoweiss.net That is 9 (nine) comments in 2013, 20 (twenty) in 2012.

    MJ’s comments, his self-proven lying:
    Thanks for all the great comments. (Feb 28, 2012)
    You write such good stuff here. I’m a fan! (Feb 28, 2012)
    Thanks, Phil. (March 2, 2012)
    Thanks to Connie, Jerry and, of course, Phil. [...] Thank you guys for all your support. (March 6, 2012)
    But I disagree with the criticism of Beinart. (April 2, 2012; out of line here, but it shows he is just a liberal Zionist – so a Zionist; and so he’ll call me an anti-semite for pointing this out)
    [re] Dan Crowther, (June 20, 2012)
    Your response drips with vitriol. (April 8, 2013)
    And here it is:
    I read all the comments. Thanks. (April 28, 2012)

  40. I really have not read enough of Ali Abunimah to form an opinion regarding whether he is or is not an antisemite. But I agree with MJ on one thing: Abunimah’s tweet: “I reject antisemitic Zionist dogma that Jews must be segregated and walled away from non-Jews. Offensive to the core.” This is a comment filled with chutzpah and I agree with MJ: “it’s bullshit sophistry which fools no one.”

    • German Lefty says:

      @ yonah fredman

      I really have not read enough of Ali Abunimah to form an opinion regarding whether he is or is not an antisemite.

      Interesting statement. Tell me, does the following statement sound fair to you?
      “I really have not read enough of Yonah Fredman to form an opinion regarding whether he is or is not a misogynist.”
      Seriously, Yonah, have you never heard of the presumption of innocence?

    • eGuard says:

      yonah fredman But I agree with MJ on one thing: (on one tweet by Ali)
      So you accept that anti-semitic Zionist dogme.

      fyi, MJ Rosenberg creates a false and misleading analogy. He replaces Ali’s “I reject antisemitic Zionist dogma” with “I reject the anti-Palestinian dogma”. But that only mirrors “Zoinist”, the “antisemitic” part is not mirrored by MJ.

      link to mjayrosenberg.com

    • eljay says:

      >> But I agree with MJ on one thing: Abunimah’s tweet: “I reject antisemitic Zionist dogma that Jews must be segregated and walled away from non-Jews. Offensive to the core.” This is a comment filled with chutzpah and I agree with MJ: “it’s bullshit sophistry which fools no one.”

      It sounds as though Abunimah’s comment hits a little too close to home for the comfort of Zio-supremacists, who incessantly insist that a “Jewish State” is necessary because only in a “Jewish State” can Jews truly be (“self-determine” as) Jews and be safe (from non-Jews).

  41. Greta says:

    The idea that Daniel Semel would talk about me in the third person and presume to know anything regarding what happened last year is a classic case of misogynist behavior. My name is Greta, not Berlin. I did NOT have to prove anything regarding the ridiculous video by Mullens except to say that I did not see it before dropping it on to the front page of my FB account to watch later, thinking I was dropping it into a small private group that I belong to. I apologized for that, which should have been enough. But Ali decided, for whatever reason (I have never met him) that he was going to come after me by prowling around in the wrong group on Facebook, then accusing me of supporting anti-semitic comments from that group that was not mine. I deserve an apology from him and from Mondoweiss for the scurrilous accusations both made, especially the lies written by Bekah Wolf. I stayed out of the fray for a year, because, honestly, you all appear to be obsessed with a ballsy woman who speaks her mind and puts her feet where her mouth goes instead of being interested in ‘the truth.’

    When someone of the stature of Lenni Brenner decided to write about the affair, he asked me for an example of the kinds of conversations our small group of 30 people had. I asked the group, and we provided a detailed one on homophobia as just one example. Adam Horowitz, on the other hand, said he could make the story go away if I would let him ‘look around’ in a group that was private. I was then and am still appalled at the behavior of the so-called gatekeepers.

    To me, this is the epitome of McCarthyism. I would be happy to publish Adam’s snide email to me for anyone who is interested in determining whether he was just trying to verify that we had a group (something he could easily have done by simply asking for an example as Lenni Brenner did) or was spying. To us, he was disrespectful and a throwback to the 50s.

    And it might behoove all of you to watch the ridiculous video of Mullens. I never commented on it, said I liked it or wrote about it, In fact, the hysteria focusing on the title to the video (something I didn’t write) was a good indication of the paucity of the accusations.

    I apologized on the front page of Free Gaza’s website. That should have been more than sufficient. Instead, the thought police in the guise of Ali and Mondoweiss decided that they would demonize me, someone who has worked for 45 years for justice in Palestine. One wonders just exactly what your motives were, since you certainly were not interested in the truth.

    • Taxi says:

      Greta,

      I, for one, thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the tireless work and dedication you’ve bestowed on the Palestinians. I believe 100% that what you do for Palestine is motivated by justice-seeking and humanitarianism, and not by the warped and false accusations of antisemitism. Thank you again.

    • German Lefty says:

      @ Greta Berlin
      The idea that Daniel Semel would talk about me in the third person and presume to know anything regarding what happened last year is a classic case of misogynist behavior. My name is Greta, not Berlin.

      As I have already stated several times, I think that the accusations of anti-Semitism against you are false. However, accusing David Samel of misogyny is equally false and ridiculous. You didn’t even get his name right, neither his first name nor his last name. Would it be fair to accuse you of misandry now? Of course, not. Besides, it is common in writing to refer to people by their last name. For example, Barack Obama is called “Obama” and Angela Merkel is called “Merkel”. That’s equal treatment, not misogyny. Get used to it.

    • I apologized for that, which should have been enough. But Ali decided, for whatever reason (I have never met him) that he was going to come after me by prowling around in the wrong group on Facebook

      there’s a little more to the story greta, as i recall. the tweet was being heavily critiqued all over social media. especially by our adversaries, the people who first called attention to it. it wasn’t going away. once you made the claim of the context in which you alleged to have posted on the private site, which made sense, it behooved you to expose that conversation (the context). your refusal to do that, then required to others to take this explanation at face value. it’s perfectly reasonable for all your friends to believe and support you. but what about others who do not know you? it’s asking a lot for the movement to support you when you are not willing to provide the context in which highly inflammatory charges were made.

      and you continue to not see that and to keep that context private. so for me, what it tells me is that your privacy is more valuable than the prospect of the movement being publicly ripped to shreds. the fight was already in full bloom. the impulse to ask you for evidence could have, and should have, been perceived as part of a process to make it all go away. and it may have had you been willing to just provide this context unfiltered. the implication of your unwillingness to do that was that reasonable people might not believe this context existed. and for that, you blame others and not yourself. you want to be redeemed, but not at the expense of your privacy and the privacy of your colleagues. you do not see that you put the movement at risk or that your actions compelled others to then make public statements to either align or distance themselves from your explanation.

      like i said, i am sorry it happened but i do feel it was unavoidable under the circumstances. and if it makes any difference to you, i do not think you are an anti semite, but i do think the material was holocaust denial, and as such anti semitic material. it was sloppy and careless of you, in your position, not to treat it like a dangerous virus (quarantined).

      that said, it’s just normal in the world when people make massive mistakes in judgement, to step down if they are in leadership positions. that’s normal. by not doing that, it implicated the FGM. that’s just how life works in societies and cultures all over the world. stepping down from the board would have been the responsible thing to do. you could have still continued to do all the good work you do for FGM, and it would not have required anyone distancing themselves from supporting FGM (like jvp for example). it would have gone away, because there’s really no need to make a statement about someone who has already stepped down.

  42. yrn says:

    Birds of a feather flock together………..

  43. Greta says:

    EXACTLY MY POINT LEFTY.. and that’s why I said it and wrote it. You apparently have no feel for irony

    • German Lefty says:

      that’s why I said it and wrote it. You apparently have no feel for irony

      Greta, how am I supposed to know? With written texts, that’s really hard to find out. Besides, there actually are a lot of paranoid “feminists” who attribute every negative experience with a man to sexism.

  44. Greta says:

    As usual, Annie Robbins rushes to the defense of Adam Horowitz and Phil Weiss without once asking me for the emails that they sent to me. I didn’t brush anything off once I found out what happened, but I was on the road traveling by bus, train, plain and car for a book tour. Within two days, my apology was on the front page of Free Gaza, and the message of support from our current board was there as well.

    Annie seems to be joining the witch hunt, once again without a shred of evidence. I don’t think I needed to do more than a simple apology. Phil and Adam blew the situation WAY 0ut of proportion, and their accusations were not worth answering, once Adam said he’d like to spy on us. Then they printed that disgusting article by Bekah Wolf, where she lied about our conversation and conveniently left much of her dialogue with me out. I sent that to Phil. His comment was that even though she might not have told the whole story, he stood by the article. WHAT?

    Or, does Annie think that’s OK as well. My explanation was clear from the very beginning. It is you gatekeepers who kept wanting more the the simple explanation that I posted a video (which I have EVERY right to watch) in the wrong place. To suggest that is the same as a principal “saying he downloaded to pedophilia because his group of friends were studying it,” is akin to defamation. Shame on you.

    As far as what was in the video, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot watch, Annie. Since you are not the arbiter of what any of us can watch or read, and since you apparently have NO clue that Zionists did, indeed, collaborate with the Nazis, I’d suggest you sit down and read “51 Documents,” “Zionism in the Age of Dictators,” “The Transfer Agreement.” then come back and post something of substance.

    • German Lefty says:

      Probably, some anti-Zionists think that accusing other anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism will increase their own credibility and thereby reduce their own risk of being accused of anti-Semitism. However, this doesn’t work, as we can see with Ali Abunimah.
      If anti-Zionists keep tearing each other apart, then this only benefits the Zionists. Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop.

      • Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop.

        so tell me german lefty, do you believe zionists ran the gas chambers? or do you just mean all false accusations need to stop in public.

        • German Lefty says:

          so tell me german lefty, do you believe zionists ran the gas chambers?

          Annie, that’s an incredibly offensive question. Of course, I don’t believe that the Zionists ran the gas chambers. And I don’t know any German who believes this. Besides, I already stated my position in a previous comment:
          link to mondoweiss.net
          “This is not an endorsement of these conspiracy theories. I am just saying that I can understand why some people are tempted to make these claims about the Holocaust and Zionists.”

        • tree says:

          GL: Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop.

          Annie: so tell me german lefty, do you believe zionists ran the gas chambers?

          But annie, Greta Berlin has repeatedly said that she doesn’t believe that, and your question implies that she does. I for one have looked at Holocaust revision sites and on the other hand I’ve look at some extreme right wing Zionist sites and other sites that I don’t agree with, and some of which say some pretty vile things. Does that mean that I agree with everything that I read? It sounds like I will be cast by you as a Holocaust denier on the one hand, or a genocidal anti-Arab racist on the other, simply because I have read those sites, or if I share those sites with my friends. Because that is what was alleged by Abinimah and MW in Greta’s case.

          On another related note, but not meant to be tied in to the case of Greta, because she is NOT anti-semitic, I question the obvious tilting/skewing of the “big tent” concept in play.

          I have no problem with including liberal Zionists or other Jews who have prejudices against Palestinians in particular or non-Jews in general, in the struggle to secure equal rights in I/P, as long as debate and discussion is not limited and it is acknowledged that they still have a way to go to free themselves of their prejudices. People don’t usually drop their prejudices overnight. Its a gradual opening process, so welcome to those who are just starting down the path, even if they mistakenly think they have already arrived at their destination. But the tilting of the tent comes when those who might harbor anti-Jewish prejudices are totally and swiftly banished from the tent, as if anti-Jewish prejudice of any sort is totally beyond the pale and un-redeemable, while prejudice against Palestinians is criticized but not considered a sufficient offense to merit shunning. Why is that? Why are liberal Zionists to be applauded in their moves towards accepting equality between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis despite the obviousness of their continued prejudices, but someone with equally obvious prejudices about Jews not likewise applauded for advocating equality in I/P? Can’t they be likewise nudged out of their prejudices?

          The same goes for the fear that Palestinians will not act kindly towards Jews if they are a demographic majority, when the only ethnic/religious identity in power in Israel all this time has been Jewish, and they, so far, have shown no ability to act kindly towards the non-Jewish minority. Again, Jewish fears, thus far unproven, are accepted and dealt with sympathetically; Palestinian fears, although proven correct over time, have been treated as anti-semitic.

          I think its always wise to confront double standards when they are noticed.

        • German Lefty says:

          I for one have looked at Holocaust revision sites and on the other hand I’ve look at some extreme right wing Zionist sites and other sites that I don’t agree with, and some of which say some pretty vile things. Does that mean that I agree with everything that I read?

          I agree, tree. Recently, I watched one of the Nazi propaganda films. I only did this because I was curious about what Nazi propaganda actually looked like. That doesn’t mean I approve of Nazism. Also, I checked out some Zionist websites in order to see what Zionist propaganda looks like. That doesn’t mean I approve of Zionism.

        • German Lefty says:

          Why are liberal Zionists to be applauded in their moves towards accepting equality between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis despite the obviousness of their continued prejudices, but someone with equally obvious prejudices about Jews not likewise applauded for advocating equality in I/P?

          I asked Annie this question, too. However, she didn’t bother to answer. Hopefully, she will reply this time. I’d really like to know how she excuses this double standard.

        • German Lefty says:

          I asked Annie this question, too.
          By the way, here’s the comment: link to mondoweiss.net

        • tree, that was not my point. my point was the reason i got into this discussion today to begin with, responding to keith’s allegations upthread. gl’s allegation,( about ‘ accusing other anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism will increase their own credibility’ which i do not wholly disagree with, it happens) but where it leads Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop. where do you stop the chain? because behind the allegation towards greta, was another allegation, so my question too that would be, are you, would you, hold the same standard towards that information. and if not, why not?

          there was an allegation, one that could personally hurt people too. not myself, because i didn’t have any relatives that died in the holocaust, but it offended a lot of people and it’s very much an accusation (and a lie, because i do not believe zionists ‘ran’ the gas chambers) therefore it falls into the category of “all the false accusations”.

          I’ve look at some extreme right wing Zionist sites and other sites that I don’t agree with, and some of which say some pretty vile things. Does that mean that I agree with everything that I read?

          not to demean your contributions at all tree but you’re an anonymous person on the internet. you’re not the leader of a large movement. when a person is in the public eye representing a movement, there actions take on a different meaning. and there is a difference between cruising the internet and posting and spreading information. for example, there is a difference between you reading extreme right wing Zionist sites that say some pretty vile things, and you linking to them here in a comment. and further, it would be different if you did (inadvertently or not) link to one in a comment, or if phil did. the difference being, it would impact the reputation of the site much more if phil did it. so ultimately it impacts how much we can influence people.

          so, in that regard, my question to gl was related to the implied accusation towards a whole slew of people (many whom i do not like, and are my adversaries), the accusation zionist ran the gas chambers. so i was just wondering if her opinion about accusations extended that far. that was my point and i apologize if it wasn’t clear which i see now it wasn’t. (sorry gl)

          and, my point about all that is that’s not something you can really control, and to get back to how i got into this conversation re keiths allegation about how it was , it is all about power. Who leads and who follows and who determines who is acceptable to lead.

          i don’t think it is always about power.

          It sounds like I will be cast by you as a Holocaust denier on the one hand, or a genocidal anti-Arab racist on the other, simply because I have read those sites, or if I share those sites with my friends.

          well, thus far i have not accused anyone of being a holocaust denier. i think my point all along, which i have stated repeatedly, is when one is in a position of leadership whether it is ford motor company of the free gaza movement or the senator of a state or the supervisor of a school or whatever, what you say and do doesn’t just reflect on you, it reflects on who you represent. therefore, the community you are in becomes impacted. especially if what you’re doing is in the international community. so it’s not at all the same as you cruising a website. and it’s not as easy as just saying ‘all accusations must stop’. because out here in the real world people do not uniformly react. they don’t all fall in line behind their leaders.

          and regardless of greta’s fantasy everything fell apart over mondoweiss or we started it or ali started it or whatever, i was on twitter for that week following all of this and did not say a word there. not one tweet about it. not one. i would have LOVED for this to have gone away. but the accusations were flying and it was a virtual storm. and, obviously, which is very very clear from this thread, people were not in agreement. as i mentioned in my first comment, i had very good friends who didn’t agree. the whole movement was divided, it wasn’t uniform at all.

          iow, accusations will not stop because people have different standards, they just do. not everyone makes accusations because they think to increase their own credibility or to gain power.

          anyway, i’m taking off for the weekend so won’t be around for the rest of this. sorry gl. my point on that last comment to you was obviously lost in my framing.

        • W.Jones says:

          Dear Annie,

          You asked Tree a good question:

          my point was the reason i got into this discussion today to begin with, responding to keith’s allegations upthread. gl’s allegation,( about ‘ accusing other anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism will increase their own credibility’ which i do not wholly disagree with, it happens) but where it leads Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop. where do you stop the chain?

          …so… it’s not as easy as just saying ‘all accusations must stop’.

          I sympathize with your situation- as you pointed out, you were worried that accusations against Greta were building up and you were worried that MW could be painted with guilt by association unless you came out in condemnation of her.

          On the other hand, it is important to have compassion for people and give them second chances. Since we are in a movement for civil rights together, and human rights activists are devoted to equality, the presumption should be that the person is not racist or anti-semitic. For me, the entire idea of so-called “leftist antisemitism” as some kind of phenomenon is an oxymoron. This is not to say that it can never happen, but it is very rare in reality since racism is part of nationalism and right wing ideology instead of left wing ideology.

          Anyway, in Greta’s case she is married to a Jewish person and hardly has tons of direct, racist statements in her record. The presumption should be in her favor, saying that she made a mistake in tweeting a video. Further, as German Lefty and I discussed earlier, the rude claim in her tweet was actually only against the nationalists, so one can avoid labeling her as racist.

          I sympathize with your words about your fear. However, MW is not the same as the FGM, so a statement is not required by MW. Silence would neither indict or “acquit” MW, so if there is a serious doubt about Greta, which there at least was, why submit to fear if you don’t have to? Unfortunately as the case with MJR and Ali Abunimah shows, charging others with racism does not make one immune from having other colleagues mistakenly accuse you. This is actually a good reason for what Tree said about avoiding accusations- to avoid a culture of swirling accusations.

          That is not to say one cannot voice disagreement with rude claims about nationalism, but these semi-official accusatory declarations signed by lots of people otherwise involved in human rights work are strange. Why not devote all that energy and networking to, say, helping a village?

        • W.Jones says:

          Therefore, all the false accusations need to stop. ~GL

          so tell me german lefty, do you believe zionists ran the gas chambers? ~AR

          Annie,

          I think he meant that it was a false accusation that this rude claim was against a whole ethnicity, as opposed to being directed against a political ideology.

          In other words, while those like Ali A and Greta B made mistaken or rude claims about Zionism (eg. Ali talking about “Zionist dogma” physically separating Jews), those claims are not directed against a whole ethnicity. Plus, they could have other reasons than racism for making those claims. Ali A. could be reacting to the country’s big Separation Wall.

        • German Lefty says:

          @ W.Jones
          I agree with everything you wrote. Also, I am a woman.

    • the simple explanation that I posted a video (which I have EVERY right to watch) in the wrong place.

      i’m not saying you do not have a right to watch it greta. you can watch whatever you want. excuse me if my recollection is unclear, but didn’t you say there was some website where a group of people were examining these videos and discussing them?

      so, under those circumstances wouldn’t it be a natural thing to simply provide evidence of that? otherwise, don’t use it as part of your explanation. just say, i wanted to watch it and share it with people, but not in a public place.

      and i wasn’t aware “51 Documents,” “Zionism in the Age of Dictators,” “The Transfer Agreement.” said zionists were running the gas chambers.

      and i didn’t rush. i simply responded no different than you responding in a timely manner.

      here’s the thing greta, it’s uncomfortable when the movement is split like this. everyone who wants to free palestine is not unified around the idea dragging the holocaust, or that aspect of israel founding into the discussion (some find it valuable, some find it highly distracting, others find it crude, rude and unpleasant).

      one thing i find interesting is the amount of flack we get for not hosting that discussion, one might think people who advocate for this discussion would flock to other public sites hosting it, albeit i don’t see that happening. so i think it’s safe to assume there are other private forums this stuff is being discussed in, privately. iow, it’s hypocritical for people to blame us for not hosting it and not blame oneself or atzmon or whoever.

      anyway, you opened a door when you made a claim you wouldn’t support (showing this ‘discussion’). either do not make the claim, or do not use it in defense and then get all pushed out of shape when people ask to see it. as if the whole world is supposed to just believe it because of who you are. (which was the point of my school principle analogy).

      i am very sorry it happened, i am sorry the whole thing came down. it’s not something i would choose to argue over. but we’re in the public eye, we can’t afford to be silent over the idea zionists ran the gas chambers. the only forum where that discussion would make sense, would be a forum you wouldn’t be ashamed to fully expose. and any normal person might ask, why you were posting the video. whether you had “EVERY right to watch” is not the issue.

      it was a controversy. and the way for controversies to die down is just taking yourself out of the public eye as far as being the leader of a movement, even if it’s one you built from the ground up. leaders reflect the whole movement. so when you didn’t do that, it required everyone in your movement to weigh in about it. and, they, we , did. so we had a big public fight about it. that public fight was going on for a week before this site weighed in.

      as for the future, i am not sure we are that interested in hosting it again. that’s not up to me. i went ahead and cleared keith’s comment because of his implied accusation it was somehow in cold storage when i had not seen it before. but like all holocaust discussions they go on forever and require someone read and moderate them. it’s very time consuming.

      so in the future i hope everyone understands why their comment on this topic might not get posted. and i fully support anyone (including greta) opening their own PUBLIC website to discuss it, and not expect us to do it again.

      rushes to the defense of Adam Horowitz and Phil Weiss without once asking me for the emails that they sent to me. I

      if they had wanted me to read them they would have cc’d me. and you can always just start a blog and post them for the world to see greta. and another thing, i was not defending adam and phil, nor myself. i was sharing my views, which i have no need to defend.