Goldberg’s ‘willingness to accuse everyone of anti-semitism makes it impossible to respect [him]’

Israel/Palestine
on 54 Comments
Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg

One of the minor distractions of the Iran deal came when Zbigniew Brzezinski tweeted:

“Obama/Kerry = best policy team since Bush I/Jim Baker. Congress is finally becoming embarrassed by Netanyahu’s efforts to dictate US policy.”

And Jeffrey Goldberg responded on twitter:

“Jews run America, suggests ex-national security adviser.”

Logan Bayroff of J Street wisely tweeted:

“[Brzezinski] doesn’t say or even imply that. Willingness to accuse everyone of anti-semitism makes it impossible to respect you.”

Goldberg promptly excommunicated him:

I continuously defend @jstreetdotorg‘s place inside the Jewish tent. But the behavior of its employees makes such defenses difficult.

Bayroff is national communications chair for J Street U. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street stood up for his employee:

Can’t agree with your read of tweet. Doesn’t say “Jews run America.” You’re putting words in his mouth.

No question Bibi has tried/is trying to influence US policy by pushing Congress when he disagrees with White House.

Corey Robin did an excellent post on the excommunication issue. “Can I come back into the tent now, Rabbi Goldberg?”

That’s what nationalism—especially nationalism hitched to a state—does to people. It makes the Goldbergs of this world think they can give Jews a passport or take it away. Well, guess what, Rabbi Goldberg: you can’t. I don’t need you defending my right to be in the Jewish tent because that’s not within your, or any other Jew’s, power to decide.

Bayroff’s point is very important. The belief that anti-Semitism is a persistent condition in the west is a core premise of Zionism. Goldberg’s career arc reflects the fact that his view of anti-Semitism is closer to his parents’ generation than his own; he has said that he once saw a “red river” of anti-Semitism running under American culture, even in Long Island, and that’s why he moved to Israel.

He saw the same red river when Walt and Mearsheimer published their criticism of the Israel lobby, he saw the same red river when Brzezinski disparaged Netanyahu’s influence in our Congress.

Myself, I think the Red River runs between North Dakota and Minnesota. But then Jeffrey Goldberg has said that I’m not a Jew because of my universalist beliefs.

Despite young Bayroff’s intervention, Goldberg is representative of the Jewish consensus. In fact, Jeremy Ben-Ami soon sought to mend his bridges with Goldberg. He does so because Goldberg (who once served in the Israeli army in a prison for Palestinians) is a powerful figure who really does hold the tent-flaps.

And Goldberg also got a handsqueeze from the New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem, Jodi Rudoren (who once called me “upper-class”; and I don’t think she meant that as a compliment). Rudoren tweeted a Goldberg piece saying he was “still very smart.” And the two then canoodled: “Still? Was I ever?” cracked Goldberg. And Rudoren responded, “Yes, more and more so it seems,” and Goldberg asked Who are your sources for this claim, and Rudoren wrote, “It’s my own expert ‘analysis,’ so expect it to be publicly flayed by both sides.”

Which it was– publicly flayed. Still she went on, praising Goldberg.

As I say, Goldberg is powerful. And very pro-Israel. That remains the Establishment consensus; in fact the Iran deal shows the reshuffling of the Israel lobby, to make J Street central, but to keep Goldberg on the elevator too. No room for you and me.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. American
    November 25, 2013, 1:12 pm

    ”As I say, Goldberg is powerful. And very pro-Israel. That remains the Establishment consensus;”

    I’d say Goldberg is only powerful (useful) within the Zionist establishment.
    He’s their main ‘fear disseminator’.
    How many Jews does he influence?…..I see no paniced US Jewish masses fleeing to Israel on his dire warnings.

    • marc b.
      November 25, 2013, 1:56 pm

      he’s the ventriloquist’s dummy, American. powerful isn’t the right word for Goldberg. he’s got a well paid gig, not that he couldn’t be replaced by another bloated ex-IDF ignoramus. and it’s his overuse of the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear that makes it hard to respect him? not his racism, or his warmongering, or his dishonesty.

      • American
        November 25, 2013, 2:30 pm

        @ marc b

        Yep.
        And I think his biggest role is as an ‘intimidator’……
        ….someone says “Israel’ is illegally confiscating Palestine land”…..and the standard reply to that statement *on Israel* is always …..Jews! Holocaust! Anti Semites! Self Hating Jews!
        I think it’s been worn out by over use though.

      • marc b.
        November 25, 2013, 4:00 pm

        I think it’s been worn out by over use though.

        apparently it still plays well to the choir, judging by the sight of rudoren and golberg’s mugs stacked on one another in a burst of tweeted sycophancy. Goldberg’s self deprecation shtick and Rudoren’s gushing; not for the weak of stomach.

      • Keith
        November 25, 2013, 6:57 pm

        AMERICAN- “I think it’s been worn out by over use though.”

        Try telling that to Greta Berlin.

  2. pabelmont
    November 25, 2013, 2:06 pm

    Phil, If you are not a Jew (or not in Jewish Tent), it is because [1] you are willing to challenge Israel and AIPAC and the Israel Firsters and [2] the precious few (or few precious) Jews who say things like “you are not in the Jewish tent” give themselves permission to say that about anybody who (from their precious viewpoint) breaks ranks.

    Don’t Hillel groups nationwide cast certain topics “out of the tent” (even if they allow that the Jews who propose those topics are “still in the tent, sorta, kinda)?

    Follow the money! This is politics! There are people who don’t think that they “have respect” unless they can (use their money to) prevent democratic discussion on topics they don’t like.

    But consider yourself lucky — he says you are outside the Jewish tent and thereby (ho ho ho) protects you from those antisemites who only attack people who live in tents.

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 5:48 pm

      @ pabelmount
      The average American has no idea at all what you are talking about. The key at the moment is whether or not the mainstream media and most Congress whores can keep up their spun conflation with US and Israel interests, in the direct face of the contradiction posted by the Iran deal. The US main media is hell bent to diss Obama-Kerry on this. Should be interesting?

  3. LeaNder
    November 25, 2013, 2:15 pm

    I loved how you juxtaposed his twitter response to Brezinski’s. Soooo obviously misguided. So obviously prejudiced.

    he saw the same red river when Brzezinski disparaged Netanyahu’s influence in our Congress.

    Concerning list, Goldberg’s is close to endless and thus meaningless. Reading it into Zbig’s comment is as crazy as his mad ravings against antisemite Caryl Curchill, or her antisemic Seven Jewish Children was plain crazy.

    I have no idea about his parents, maybe they are not even guilty and finding antisemites is part of his job.

    One thing the guy surely isn’t: smart. But that may tell us something about Rudoren. Does she flatter him since she realizes or knows he is well connected. I guess some would call that powerful. Or does she actually mean it?

    • Citizen
      November 25, 2013, 5:52 pm

      LeaNder
      Dunno, but I see Zbig’s dim-witted daughter on MSNBC this morning basically disparaged her own father’s take on the Iran-US deal.

      • LeaNder
        November 25, 2013, 8:06 pm

        Citizen, I don’t know his daughter. All I stored are odd comments that suggest she is not that interesting.

        But it is a highly interesting scenario nevertheless. For more than a decade now we have to listen to the constant Iran threat scenario, from neocons to special AIPAC multimedia threat scenario presentations. When was that, quite a few years ago. During the last years it has been prominently and highly visibly presented by: Netanyahu and American spokesman. It’s his core subject, we learn, since 1997 as an election theme. The President has to inform him about talks with Iran, Kerry has to jet over to see and brief him, and he screams at the top of his head, stamping his feet, no there cannot be a deal. What is needed are further sanctions and/or war. And if there is no war, but a deal, even not a final one yet, only a preliminary détente, and Zbig celebrates it, like many others he must of course be an antisemite. How comes?

        Now, please note carefully. At a point when everybody sees, they actually DO NOT RUN AMERICA and that is exactly what Zbig celebrates. Isn’t that highly ironic. Obviously Goldberg does not read Uri Avnery.

        So, he uses the “‘Jews’ run America” canard, exactly when everyone that has eyes or ears can see and hear exactly the opposite. So is he trying to say, when a specific American-Israeli, Netanyahu, does not get his way, and someone celebrates it, than he is an antisemite and you can choose whatever bits and pieces you like. In that case the power myth? I haven’t seen a theory for that yet. That doesn’t even count as secondary antisemitism, as far as I am concerned.

        Zbigniew Brzezinski ✔ @zbig
        Obama/Kerry = best policy team since Bush I/Jim Baker. Congress is finally becoming embarrassed by Netanyahu’s efforts to dictate US policy.

        Jeffrey Goldberg ✔ @JeffreyGoldberg
        Jews run America, suggests ex-national security adviser: https://twitter.com/zbig/status/402826354778832898

        No, goldbug (in German that is a term of endearment, like darling), this time “they” actually didn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be mad, but celebrate. So how comes you use it now. Since it is your standard insult, actually? Doesn’t matter if it fits or not? Interesting, goldie. ;)

      • bilal a
        November 26, 2013, 12:07 am

        Zbig waving the red cape of Bush-Baker made the Goldberg bull rage:

        Just as damaging was the elder Bush’s knack for seeming as out of touch with Jewish voters as he did with everyone else. Once, during a 1991 White House press conference, Bush Sr. complained about the strength of the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill—the implication being that “Jews work insidiously behind the scenes,” as David J. Forman wrote in the Jerusalem Post. On another occasion, Bush reminded his critics that the United States gives “Israel the equivalent of $1,000 for every Israeli citizen,” a remark that detractors took as an allusion to the stereotype of Jews as money-obsessed and greedy.

        And then there was Secretary of State James Baker’s infamous “fuck the Jews” remark. In a private conversation with a colleague about Israel, Baker reportedly uttered the vulgarity, noting that Jews “didn’t vote for us anyway.” This was more or less true—Bush got 27 percent of the Jewish vote, compared with 73 percent for Dukakis, in 1988. And thanks in part to Baker, it was even truer in 1992, when Bill Clinton got 78 percent of the Jewish vote and Bush got only 15 percent—the poorest showing by a Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/04/the_bushes_and_the_jews.html

      • MRW
        November 26, 2013, 2:48 am

        Interesting to read that 2002 Slate article to see how times have changed. What was “damaging” is not; the $1,000 for every Israeli citizen is now contested on US billboards; and Baker’s “Fuck the Jews” is countered by Avigdor Lieberman’s “Fuck the Arabs” and same sprayed on Palestinian walls.

  4. Krauss
    November 25, 2013, 2:31 pm

    Should we forget that Goldberg praised Kahane in his memoirs? He did some waffled condemnation of racism, but ended up essentially endorsing Kahane’s view of the Jewish condition. That’s like a white Gentile saying David Duke may be wrong in his methods but has the fundamental analysis correct. Read his memoirs, it’s all there.

    But that also points to the length at which there is an inherent “need” for a Goldberg. If there’s a demand, there will be supply, and forgiveness will be almost total.

    Goldberg is useful primarily because his main task is to police the upper echelons of American media and society. He’s not the advocate type, he doesn’t write soaring essays about the need for a “New Zionism” or something. He’s the informer(which I don’t mean as someone who enlightens) and the corporal of the debate.

    He reads tweets by so many journalists. Remember his tussle some time ago when the Times’ Cairo correspondant wrote that the Israeli view of the Arab spring was “ugly”? Goldberg rushed to the defence of Israel and essentially harped until Fitzpatrick walked back his (relevant) criticism. Why? Fear. He knows that if Goldberg wants to, he can marshal a lot of journalists to his cause.

    To draw another analogy, this is the role Ben Smith, now at Buzzfeed, played during the smearing of CAP in 2011 which made quite a few very decent people lose their jobs. He was on a listserv for neocons, Josh Block had his dossier and then Ben Smith did his innocuous “reporting” while at all times keeping the central claims of Block the AIPAC goon at the center of the story, asking very leading questions about insufficient devotion, slavishness really, to Zionism.

    I think an overlooked reason why the elite media is still very white is that a significant part of those whites are Jewish liberal Zionists who are recruiting other Jewish liberal Zionists partly because of cultural recognition, but also becuase of an inherent wish to keep the Zionist concensus in the American media. And then you sprinkle people like E.J. Dionne who will do and say whatever the current concensus is.

    Goldberg himself admitted in the Charlie Rose segment that if it weren’t for American Jews, Israel’s standing in the world would deterioate significantly. AIPAC plays a role, sure, but it’s also about using the significant Jewish presence in the MSM.

    The difficult part, of course, is if some Jews disagree with this agenda. Goldberg isn’t just about banding together Jews against a Gentile, he is also about excommunicating Jews who he deems insufficiently loyal to the cause of defending an Apartheid state.

    He is doing this job better than almost anyone, and not just on I/P but on most political topics. People simply fear him, not because he himself has a lot of power, but because he is the nexus of the effort to keep a Zionist concensus in the American media at a time when its becomming ever harder to do so. This is also why he is so valuable at this stage. The downside is that he is increasingly coming across as a liberal version of Bibi. Always in opposition, fightning a losing battle, just reading his Twitter feed over the past year or so, you can detect an increased bitterness and even despair. He’s simply slowly losing it. And when he is calm, he will admit he and people like him are losing the battle, as he has done on numerous occasions.

    • MRW
      November 25, 2013, 4:06 pm

      Great comment, Krauss, full of nuances that you’ve put together intelligently.

      • Citizen
        November 25, 2013, 5:59 pm

        @ MRW
        Yes, I agree. Krauss is no fool.

    • Danaa
      November 25, 2013, 5:15 pm

      Shorter Krauss:

      Zionism can make you stupid (and does).

      My add – the relationship seems strangely proportional: more zionism, more stupid. I wonder if it’s a straight line or a quad curve. Need more points!

      otherwise, another good comment Krauss (you must be on a roll…).

    • pabelmont
      November 26, 2013, 8:22 am

      Krauss: “He reads tweets by so many journalists. Remember his tussle some time ago when the Times’ Cairo correspondant wrote that the Israeli view of the Arab spring was “ugly”? Goldberg rushed to the defence of Israel and essentially harped until Fitzpatrick walked back his (relevant) criticism. Why? Fear. He knows that if Goldberg wants to, he can marshal a lot of journalists to his cause.”

      It sounds as if there is a great colony of very scared (or scarable) people out there who are not personally committed to Zionism but fear, fear, and fear to be criticised for breaking with the crowd-mob. And who are ready at the drop of a hat to
      “be marshaled” into criticising others. I suppose the same of Congress (and the man I thought was the most committed Zionist of them all, NY Sen. Schumer, has been said to have no feeling whatever for Israel but a lot of feeling for money).

      It may be as simple as wanting to eat your salad with the right fork at a fancy dinner: people want to be “with the crowd”. So there’s your social enforcement.

      Too bad no-one with prominence will point to it and declare that it’s stupid — and that it’s time for it to be over. It’s nice to hear that people like Goldberg are losing the battle, but couldn’t we somehow speed it up?

  5. yonah fredman
    November 25, 2013, 2:51 pm

    Goldberg is a journalist blogger rather than a professor, but he seems to see his role as successor to professor dershowitz, and it is clear that dershowitz sees his role as defense attorney for Israel.

    Btw, where’s the link to Goldberg denying Phil’s Jewishness because of his universalist beliefs?

    Also, why waste so much time on Goldberg’s clumsiness. I would much prefer an analysis of Wieseltier’s review of Shavit from yesterday’s Times Book Reviews.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 25, 2013, 3:41 pm

      “Also, why waste so much time on Goldberg’s clumsiness. I would much prefer an analysis of Wieseltier’s review of Shavit from yesterday’s Times Book Reviews.”

      More bank for the buck in discussing Goldberg than discussing an essay in the local newspaper. (And Wieseltier’s piece is such crap — calling the Apartheid state, “…one of the great accomplishments of liberalism’s… histories” [a statement self-evidently false so long as one is not defining “liberalism” to mean “fascism”.] and discussing israel by discussing only its Jews and ignoring its Paletinians — that it is better to just ignore it. )

      • pabelmont
        November 25, 2013, 8:33 pm

        WT: You think NYT should let Wieseltier (one of the ancient stalwarts of Zionism in America) review GOLIATH? What a hatchet job that’d be! If not, then, I hear you asking, why did NYT let him loose on ANY Israel-related topic, on Shavit’s book? Answer: He’s a stalwart, aged MOSS on the WALL of American Zionism.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 26, 2013, 7:15 am

        Given that the NYT is the zionist fanclub newsletter in the USA, it’s because the NYT believes that it will benefit israel somehow by doing so. That appear to be the NYT’s motivation for all of its coverage of the Apartheid State.

  6. piotr
    November 25, 2013, 3:07 pm

    Brzezinski clearly expresses wishes rather than fact (it is actually a customary figure of speech): Congress is still far from being embarrassed by Netanyahu’s efforts. The other day senator Kirk was citing Israeli estimates (how many days Iran will loose in her quest for the bomb, 24) and was appalled that the Administration does not believe them.

    And how many Senators and Congresscreatures cited AIPAC by name as the font of wisdom during debates?

    After such necessary translation of what Brzezinski said (the at long last Congress is becoming ashamed) to what he meant (perhaps the day is near that the Congress will be ashamed) one can make a similar translation of JJ Goldberg, namely it is a treachery to subvert the Jews who run the foreign policy, as it should be done.

  7. yrn
    November 25, 2013, 3:15 pm

    “Btw, where’s the link to Goldberg denying Phil’s Jewishness because of his universalist beliefs?”

    Phil loves to point out the insults he gets from Goldberg, but deletes all the insults he gets from Gilad Atzmon.
    Wonder why ?

    • seafoid
      November 25, 2013, 3:38 pm

      Phil was a camp guard at Sobibor? I don’t know. Ask me a sports question.

      • Krauss
        November 25, 2013, 3:48 pm

        Ha!

  8. Rusty Pipes
    November 25, 2013, 4:40 pm

    How Israel Loses Young American Jews #101: Goldberg’s response to Bayroff. As the national communications chair for JStreet U, Bayroff is voicing the concerns of a significant percentage of college-aged American Jews. Reserve Corporal Goldberg may bark at them to shut up and fall in line for Israel all he wants, but they are not signing up.

    • MRW
      November 26, 2013, 3:02 am

      Especially when he signs up for some other country’s army.

  9. Philip Munger
    November 25, 2013, 4:43 pm

    J. Rudoren to J. Goldberg:

    You are multifacted & multitalend.

    I think she meant to type “multi-talented,” but was thinking “multi-taloned.” Never have come across “multifacted” before, either….

    • piotr
      November 25, 2013, 5:24 pm

      It may be related to being multifaced and having multistandards.

    • German Lefty
      November 25, 2013, 5:54 pm

      Never have come across “multifacted” before
      Perhaps she meant “multifaceted”.

      • Philip Munger
        November 25, 2013, 8:07 pm

        could be.

        my MacOS10.9 spell thingie kept respelling multifacted as multifaceted until I overrode it. Maybe she needs one of these things….

      • pabelmont
        November 25, 2013, 8:37 pm

        Multifaceted is even WORSE than two-faced: it is Multi-faced. I love the idea that un-spell-checked “finger-O”s can lead us to the joys of multiFACED and multiTALONed. too true in this case. poor RUDOREN. I hope she reads all our (ever so cleaver) trashing.

      • piotr
        November 26, 2013, 2:48 am

        Rudoren is a good girl, but her investigative experience is crime scene in Brooklyn etc. NYT felt that it had to find an impartial reporter, and finding an impartial knowledgable reporter was a tall order indeed. At least she cannot be accused of being a pretty airhead. No windowsills whisper back to her.

      • LeaNder
        November 25, 2013, 8:10 pm

        GF, that’s how I read it. I didn’t even notice the typo. Maybe since facettenreich is used pretty frequently in German?

  10. HRK
    November 25, 2013, 4:44 pm

    I’m drawn to pay attention to Goldberg because (for some reason) I’ve come to identify him as representing the middle class/upper middle class type of Jew next door. Essentially, he’s our Jewish neighbor (if we happen to live in a nice-to-swanky neighborhood–okay, given the location of my digs he wouldn’t be my neighbor!!).

    He stands for what (we imagine) a lot of that “type”–Jews who are doctors, dentists, university professors, lawyers, stock brokers, accountants, etc.–believes. He’s represents the educated rank-and-file backbone. He’s sort of the meat-and-potatoes type Jew, or, perhaps (given today’s eating trends), the organic/free range chicken breast and quinoa type Jew.

    But I once identified one of my professors (happened to be a gentile) as the classic liberal type. Naturally, being somewhat conservative, I just had to start an argument with him. That’s when I realized it’s never a wise idea to make an individual into a representation for an entire community.

  11. Talkback
    November 25, 2013, 6:12 pm

    Goldberg irrational accusations of antisemitism are nothing else than an expression of hatred. He hates everybody, whose arguments he can’t refute.

  12. RepresentativePress
    November 25, 2013, 7:13 pm

    Goldberg is a dishonest person, his deviousness is on display in this video: “Sit Down!” The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11 Part 2
    It is bad enough that the U.S. has a policy of supporting Israel, but it is a violation of our dignity to have people like Goldberg feed us lies about why we were attacked on 9/11 so he can protect that policy.

  13. dbroncos
    November 25, 2013, 8:37 pm

    “publicly flayed…”

    Oooh this is getting good, Phil. Does Rudoren hope to get in on the flaying action with a strap of her own? Keep us posted.

  14. pabelmont
    November 25, 2013, 8:40 pm

    There used to be a joke, ‘ “Shut up”, he explained.’

    Zionists have taken it to heart. You a chicken? You don’t want to be accused of antisemitism? Ohhhh! “Shut up, then”.

    It’s a perfect explanation. After all, as to Zionism, there really is nothing (positive) to be said.

  15. JewEgg
    November 25, 2013, 9:20 pm

    “The belief that anti-Semitism is a persistent condition in the west is a core premise of Zionism”

    Based on the 2012 FBI hate crime incident reports, per capita there are more anti semitic hate crimes than there are hate crimes targeting african americans, muslims, and most other groups.

    • eljay
      November 25, 2013, 10:12 pm

      >> Based on the 2012 FBI hate crime incident reports, per capita there are more anti semitic hate crimes than there are hate crimes targeting african americans, muslims, and most other groups.

      Could you please point out precisely where in the 2012 Hate Crime Statistics report it says that? Thanks.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 25, 2013, 10:46 pm

      Based on the 2012 FBI hate crime incident reports, per capita there are more anti semitic hate crimes than there are hate crimes targeting african americans, muslims, and most other groups.

      That’s a function of definition and reporting of hate crimes, not their incidence.

    • Ecru
      November 26, 2013, 12:56 am

      Really? Can’t seem to remember the last time a Jewish girl got shot in the face for knocking on a door and asking for help. Maybe you can?

      Problem with those FBI statistics is it’s REPORTED hate crimes and as we’ve all seen in the film “Defamation” and a thousand other places, ANYTHING can invoke the tired old “anti-semitic!” charge no matter how ridiculous the accusation.

    • MRW
      November 26, 2013, 3:46 am

      Prove it. List official reports. Cite them.

      Based on the 2012 FBI hate crime incident reports, per capita there are more anti semitic hate crimes than there are hate crimes targeting african americans, muslims, and most other groups.

      • jayn0t
        November 26, 2013, 10:28 am

        The claim that there are more anti-semitic hate crimes than crimes against Muslims is ridiculous and exposes the FBI’s methodology. It’s always been a politicized police. It responds to pressure from anti-hate organizations like the SPLC and the Lobby as well as from conservatives.

    • Talkback
      November 26, 2013, 8:16 am

      JewEgg: Based on the 2012 FBI hate crime incident reports, per capita there are more anti semitic hate crimes than there are hate crimes targeting african americans, muslims, and most other groups.

      They didn’t include AIPAC, ADL or Netanyahu’s hatespeech in general and attack threats or anything other that supports a violation of international and humanitarian law in particular.

    • American
      November 26, 2013, 9:59 am

      Dear Jewegg

      Can you do math?

      What this ….. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final …… shows:

      Of 5796 hate crime offenses reported 657 were directed at Jews and 1,850 directed at blacks.
      The rest spread out among Muslims, gays, Catholics, etc., etc..

      We have published the hate crimes stats on here several times, look thru the achieves.
      The 2012 report actually shows *a decline* in both Jewish and Black attacks from the 2010 hate crimes report.

      Thank you for your false claim —as always it gives us an opportunity to put the *correct* information in front of the many lurker readers at MW.

      • Bumblebye
        November 26, 2013, 11:32 am

        It’s all about getting that Homeland Security money now. What was it, 96% goes to Jewish orgs?

      • JewEgg
        November 26, 2013, 2:17 pm

        I clearly said per capita in my original comment.

      • eljay
        November 27, 2013, 11:59 am

        >> I clearly said per capita in my original comment.

        Wonderful. So could you please point out how the 2012 Hate Crime Statistics report supports your claim?

        According to this page, I see a large number of categories, but only one of them (“Religious bias”) mentions Jews.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 27, 2013, 12:41 pm

        “I clearly said per capita in my original comment.”

        Yes, but you didn’t mention that these were “reported” hate crimes. That’s where the issue is.

  16. just
    November 25, 2013, 9:22 pm

    Any American who chooses to serve in a foreign army is suspect in my book. Look what happened to John Walker Lindh. Is the IOF grounded in terrorism? I would argue that yes, indeed they are.

    He’s a person who spends his life defending the indefensible Zionist and Zionism, while making money hand over fist right here in the US, and currying support from many people, including Rudoren, who has now exposed herself as a sycophant.

    Exposure… may it continue.

    One more thing– I find it hilarious that my favorite comment was from Zbig…

  17. Hostage
    November 26, 2013, 7:37 pm

    Goldberg’s ‘willingness to accuse everyone of anti-semitism makes it impossible to respect

    To tell the truth, his willingness to serve as a guard in an IDF concentration camp for Palestinians illegally deported or transferred out of the occupied territories makes him a war criminal who doesn’t deserve any respect in the first place.

Leave a Reply