Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
Author Max Blumenthal.

Author Max Blumenthal.

Before journalist and author Max Blumenthal turned his eye towards Israel/Palestine, he was a dogged investigator of the seedy world of neo-Nazism and white supremacism in the U.S. But now, liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz has joined right-leaning Israel advocates in trying to turn the tables on him by linking the journalist to Frazier Glenn Miller (also known as Frazier Glenn Cross), the suspect in Sunday’s deadly shooting at two Jewish centers in Kansas City.

Various personalities are waging a concerted smear campaign against Blumenthal, whose book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel kicked up a storm of controversy over its indictment of Israel’s human rights abuses. The canary in the coal mine for them was that Miller, who posted on the far-right forum Vanguard News Network as “Rounder,” once posted about an interview Blumenthal did on Russia Today.

“Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment,” Miller, who has been a violent white supremacist activist long before Blumenthal began reporting, wrote.

Earlier this week, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed the suspect “admits he was inspired by [people like Blumenthal], and that’s why he took action against the three Jewish people in Kansas City.” Limbaugh cited an article by neoconservative writer Ron Radosh, who wrote that the posting showed “who inspire[d] him to have taken his dreadful murder today.”  Radosh also claimed that Miller’s rant was “similar to the arguments of Walt and Mearsheimer, John B. Judis and other realists and leftists.”

FrontPageMagazine claimed that Blumenthal was “very proud” at “finally having achieved his great dream” through Cross’s actions. Daniel Pipes in the National Review wrote that Frazier Glenn Miller “gives every appearance of being a true believer inspired in part by Blumenthal’s ravings.”

White supremacists’ linking to discussions about the Israel lobby is not new. The website of David Duke has approvingly cited this site and such authors as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; analyses about the Israel lobby have been used by Duke to attempt to show malign Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy, though Walt, Mearsheimer and others are simply not anti-Semites and make clear that Zionism and Judaism are not the same. It brings to mind what Tony Judt, paraphrasing Arthur Koestler, said during a debate on Walt and Mearsheimer’s work: “You cannot help it if idiots and bigots share your views for their reasons.”

Haaretz joins the fray

Earlier this morning, the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz joined the right-wing campaign.

In a news article entitled “Kansas Murderer Admires Prominent Israeli Critic,” Haaretz revealed that accused shooter “Frazier Glenn Cross repeatedly praised controversial journalist Max Blumenthal.”

MB-screenshot1

The single source for Haaretz’s claim was an article in the right wing news outlet Washington Free Beacon—a source so unreliable that it recently consulted an “expert” to determine that a pineapple in a Facebook photograph was the symbolic representation of the Jewish people.

The Free Beacon’s current report was inspired by similar accusations being made by other pro-Israel outlets to smear Blumenthal for his outspoken criticism of Israel.

Let’s look at how accurate this claim is. Haaretz writes:

According to the [Free Beacon] report, a search of the VNN Forum – a prominent white supremacist website run by [accused Kansas shooter] Cross – finds over 300 references praising Blumenthal’s criticism of the State of Israel and American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.

Every single element of this sentence is false. Let’s break it down:

…the VNN Forum – a prominent white supremacist website run by Cross…

Wrong. The forum of the Vanguard News Network (VNN) is not “run by Cross” but instead is run by its founder, Alex Linder, who is also listed on the VNN Forum as the administrator.

MB-linder

Alex Linder, the founder and administrator of the VNN Forum

…finds over 300 references…

Wrong. The number 300 is based on a Google search for all instances of the phrase “Max Blumenthal” appearing under the domain name “vnnforum.com.” At the time of this writing, the Google search link provided by Free Beacon displays what the search engine initially claims to be “about 375 results.”

Yet a closer look reveals that Google suspects the majority of the results to be duplicates, and that—after weeding out those duplicates—Google finds only “about 71” references to “Max Blumenthal.”

Even within those 71 references, I found several more duplicates, narrowing the count to 46.

…over 300 references praising Blumenthal’s criticism of the State of Israel and American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.

Wrong. Among the VNN Forum’s approximately 46 references to “Max Blumenthal,” many of them would not be considered “praise”—nor do they reference “criticism of the State of Israel” or “American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.”

For instance, the VNN Forum has a weird way of showing “praise” when its participants refer to Blumenthal as:

Jew Max Blumenthal

Kike Max Blumenthal

Jewish propagandists including … Max Blumenthal

an avowed queer like Max Blumenthal

Max Blumenthal … a flamboyant, exhibitionistic anti-racist

that douche bag sodomite Max Blumenthal

One page on the forum even links to an article that sarcastically refers to Blumenthal as “Country Music Expert Max Blumenthal.”

A different VNN page refers to “obvious biases and outright misinterpretations contained in Max Blumenthal’s article,” while another one accuses Blumenthal of “vicious character assassinations.”

One forum participant excerpted an article on white supremacism by Blumenthal in order to mock it, summarizing Blumenthal’s reporting thusly:

Jew Max Blumenthal speaks for us, we’re all happy because Obama is going to win.

As with that reference, many of the references to Blumenthal on the VNN Forum have nothing to do with “criticism of the State of Israel” or “American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.”

One reference appears under the subject heading “The Jew Media Drools over faggot prostitute.” Quite a few references appear in the context of a feud with right-wing radio host Hal Turner. Another reference is about Mike Huckabee, and yet another is about Sarah Palin.

It should also be noted that some of these VNN Forum references to Blumenthal are simply reprints of articles from mainstream sources like Huffington Post and Daily Beast.

As irrelevant as all these references are, they serve to puff up the feeble contention of a Blumenthal–Kansas shooting nexus.

The idea is to tie Blumenthal to the Kansas shootings, by way of the alleged perpetrator Frazier Glenn Cross. Yet for all their attempts to create a connection, the single tie is this:

Cross is believed to have been a frequent contributor to the VNN Forum. Out of 12,683 forum posts attributed to Cross, one single post was found to have mentioned “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal.” That single post contains a broken link to a page that once linked to a YouTube clip of a brief interview with Blumenthal. In that interview, Blumenthal explained how neoconservative supporters of Netanyahu in DC were hoping to sway the 2012 presidential election in their favor.

That is it. On the basis of that single strand of serendipity, Haaretz declared, “Kansas murderer admires prominent Israeli critic” and “Frazier Glenn Cross repeatedly praised controversial journalist Max Blumenthal.” Instant news. (For point of comparison there are 255 references on the forum to actor Kevin Bacon.)

Immediately after the Haaretz article went online, several commentators criticized Haaretz on Twitter. Blumenthal himself challenged Haaretz Managing Editor Simon Spungin to justify the piece. Initially Spungin made a slight alteration to the article but otherwise kept it intact and placed the onus on Blumenthal to prove the article wrong.

 

Eventually—and while we were preparing this report—Spungin removed the article from the Haaretz website, with no notice of correction or public apology. (A cached version can be found here.)

Questions remain, however: Who authored the article? And why did Haaretz find the article credible and newsworthy?

Haaretz did not explicitly blame Blumenthal for the Kansas shootings, but the timing, the accusations, and the pretense of relevance implied such. After all, would Haaretz have published an article headlined “Kansas Murderer Really Liked Chocolate”? The very act of publishing such an article at such a time would only be to connect the killer’s alleged influences to his motives for killing.

Applying Haaretz and Free Beacon’s arbitrary methodology, Rania Khalek noted that there were 11,500 mentions of Haaretz in the VNN Forum, and that Miller himself had cited Haaretz in roughly seventy forum postings, thus making Haaretz even more culpable in the Kansas shootings. In addition, Miller has linked to numerous writers and news outlets–including Thomas Friedman and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  In addition, he once wrote that David Horowitz, the conservative activist and publisher, is “one of those jewish neocon ‘new friends’ of the White man who actually throws Whitey journalistic bones from time to time, such as his book ‘Hatin Whitey.'”  Horowitz is an ally of Blumenthal critic Ron Radosh, and Radosh refused to speak with Alex Kane for this article about Miller’s affinity for his friend saying over e-mail he knows his “enemies” and that, since he’s in Germany, he wouldn’t waste money calling him.

What’s clear is that the current right-wing campaign is a continuation of attacks against Blumenthal over his book Goliath.  Protective of Israel’s image and worried that Blumenthal’s book could contribute to the changing debate over the country in the U.S., they’re throwing the kitchen sink at unflinching critics of Zionism.

About Alex Kane and Phan Nguyen

Alex Kane is an assistant editor for Mondoweiss and the World editor for AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane. Phan Nguyen is a Palestine solidarity activist based in New York. Follow him on Twitter: @Phan_N

Other posts by .


Posted In:

185 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    April 16, 2014, 10:20 am

    i didn’t know max was a country music expert.

    • Kathleen
      April 16, 2014, 11:48 am

      Thanks for the chuckle

      • John Douglas
        April 17, 2014, 7:28 am

        Alex, This is an amazing piece of reporting and writing. Thank you. These kinds of charges have a way of becoming urban legends and so have to be taken seriously. That’s what you did.

    • CloakAndDagger
      April 16, 2014, 12:29 pm

      Yellow journalism at its worst! The VNN forum itself is beneath me to even go and check out – but wasn’t for Haaretz (if indeed they checked it out)!

      • Ellen
        April 16, 2014, 3:01 pm

        Lots of attention to the insane VNN forum, and twisting to discredit Blumental, but nothing by Haaretz or their fellow traveller Limbaugh on Howard Stern inviting (yes inviting!) Frazier Cross (or whatever his real name is) into his radio show.

      • Pixel
        April 18, 2014, 2:07 am

        Fear at its worst.

    • thetruthhurts
      April 16, 2014, 10:18 pm

      it’s too bad, upon mentioning the name of daniel pipes,that infamous jewish neocon instumental into pushing the mindless “useful idiot W” into invading iraq, that you didn’t explain who, or what, he really was.

      • thetruthhurts
        April 16, 2014, 10:33 pm

        pipes was the leader of team B, that infamous neocon putsh into the upper echelons of the US government after successfully relentlessly presurring(what’s new?) W’s daddy CIA director george, into allowing the neocons team b to be allowed to debate and challenge in a closed door pentagon setting the CIA’s team A regarding their allegations that the soviet union was infinitely more nuclear armed and ready to attack us than the CIA was leading america to believe.
        the CIA staff members, mostly wet behind the ears recent college grads, were totally unprepared for the classic neocon viciousness in their full attack mode. pipes oversaw all this.
        the neos won out and have really been in control ever since. this issue should not have gone unmentioned. it is all part, and a very big part, of the neocon/israeli contamination of america.

      • Henry Norr
        April 17, 2014, 12:17 pm

        Hey, thetruthhurts, the leader of Team B was Richard Pipes. The Pipes cited in this piece is Daniel, who is Richard’s son. Both vicious right-wingers, but while the elder Pipes’s focus was on the Soviet Union, Daniel concentrates on attacking Arabs, Muslims, and other critics of Israel via his McCarthyite Campus Watch project and similar efforts.

  2. seanmcbride
    April 16, 2014, 10:21 am

    Oh, this is just perfect:

    Applying Haaretz and Free Beacon’s arbitrary methodology, Rania Khalek noted that there were 11,500 mentions of Haaretz in the VNN Forum, and that Miller himself had cited Haaretz in roughly seventy forum postings, thus making Haaretz even more culpable in the Kansas shootings.

    So Haaretz was a more important “influence” on Miller than Blumenthal.

    What does Simon Spungin have to say for himself and his liberal Zionist newspaper, which is apparently in bed with the Likud Zionist Washington Free Beacon in the promotion of this smear?

    These incredibly dirty tactics damage the attacker much more than the target of the attacks.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 16, 2014, 10:35 am

      What does Simon Spungin have to say for himself and his liberal Zionist newspaper

      he says he’d like to get on with doing his job now: link to twitter.com

      • seanmcbride
        April 16, 2014, 10:43 am

        Simon Spungin’s job right now is to try to redeem the reputation of Haaretz and to offer a full explanation for why Haaretz circulated this disgusting smear. Is he going to do his job or not?

    • Krauss
      April 16, 2014, 10:38 am

      I cancelled my subscription to Haaretz two months ago after a steady right-wing deterioation. With hindsight, Im glad I did.

      This just proves what we have all been saying: given sufficient pressure, all Zionists turn into Likudniks. The peacenik persona is just a hollow mask.

      They are still trying to destroy Max for telling the truth about Israel. They will fail.

      • seafoid
        April 16, 2014, 10:53 am

        I kept mine, Krauss

        It’s a sans pareil view of the Israel psyche. Will be unmissable in the breakdown.

      • Taxi
        April 16, 2014, 11:13 am

        I haven’t opened haaretz for at least a month. Got utterly fed up with their commercial pop-up windows – no other news site on the freaking planet does that on my computer (Mac). Plus, I finally realized that they’re no better than FOXNEWS – spent the last few months not being able to get past the tedious headlines – and their comment section sucks eggs. Meh, I don’t care what the left or the right or the so-called center in israel think anyway – not one bit and not for one second..

        I too am glad I dropped haaretz from my daily research routine.

        Max is a tough guy, he can handle the zionist media: the pack of toothless dogs frothing and bearing their gums will not stop Mr. Blumethal’s commitment to exposing zionism and zionists who betray America and judaism.

      • puppies
        April 16, 2014, 1:03 pm

        @Krauss – Just one curiosity: are you more interested in an intra-Zionist “left” or “right”contrast, whatever that may mean to you, or in defeating Zionism?

      • Susan A
        April 16, 2014, 1:50 pm

        Yes Krauss: Ilan Pappe said recently that there isn’t (any longer?) such a thing as a ‘liberal Zionist’. All praise to Max, the consistently excellent analytical skills of Phan, and to Alex.

      • Daniel Rich
        April 16, 2014, 8:00 pm

        @ Krauss,

        Q: I cancelled my subscription to Haaretz…

        R: I hear you. To be honest, I find it increasingly difficult to keep reading their drivel myself [or the Jerusalem Post or others for that matter], but occasionally decide to keep my fingers on the pulse of whatever its is that keeps them ticking these days.

  3. W.Jones
    April 16, 2014, 10:35 am

    Records suggest that F. Glenn Miller Jr. was once in witness protection program
    By Dave Helling, Judy Thomas
    April 15, The Kansas City Star

    The federal government appears to have shielded murder suspect F. Glenn Miller Jr. in the early 1990s as part of its witness protection program, potentially providing money for his family — and causing lingering confusion over his name.
    The 1987 sentencing memorandum recommended witness protection for Miller…
    But records show Frazier Glenn Cross Jr. received a Social Security number in 1990. That was the year Miller was released from prison — and 35 years after Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. obtained his Social Security number. Public records connect both names and Social Security numbers to Miller’s address in Aurora, Mo.

    He testified in a 1988 sedition trial in Fort Smith, Ark., where 14 white supremacists were accused of conspiring to kill a federal judge and FBI agent, and plotting to overthrow the federal government. All were acquitted.
    link to kansascity.com

    • bilal a
      April 16, 2014, 11:06 am

      prescient:

      “Just days before the shootings, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) warned that while anti-Semitic crimes are near an all-time low in the US, the Passover holiday could stoke racial tension. ”

      link to rt.com

    • W.Jones
      April 16, 2014, 11:08 am

      [After his release] Miller slowly worked his way back into the supremacist movement. At some point he began using the Miller name publicly, in his political campaigns, newsletters and Internet posts… But Miller apparently retained the Cross name as well. He is charged under that name.

      link to kansascity.com

      Why is someone in the witness protection program slowly rejoining a supremacist movement?

      • Krauss
        April 16, 2014, 12:05 pm

        In large part because the whole movement is seen as a powerless little group who by and large make a lot of noise and little else.

        This was a tragic exception, but it is telling how stupid most of these people are that he went to a Jewish community center and all he shot was a bunch of Christians. He probably didn’t even plan it but went on a whim.

        And frankly even if he didn’t rejoin the organizations, I don’t think that’d stop him, since it was a solo mission.

        It’s a tough situation. Do you ban all the groups? Well the constitution forbids you to. So you end up monitoring them really closely, but these lone gun attacks are the most difficult to prevent. It is a nightmare for the authorities.

        *I just came close to endorsing the NSA’s surveillance tactics. Almost. But soon came to much better conclusions.

      • LeaNder
        April 17, 2014, 8:50 am

        Interesting W. Jones, but not really surprising.

        He testified in a 1988 sedition trial in Fort Smith, Ark., where 14 white supremacists were accused of conspiring to kill a federal judge and FBI agent, and plotting to overthrow the federal government.

        All were acquitted.

        Hmm? How does one prove plotting?

        You necessarily will have problems with informers from that camp, it feels always, except for rare cases that have some doubt about the cause already. No matter if you exploit his greed or others personal advantage like here. He is the best example in this context.

        But more back to the point you are wondering about. Informing about some colleagues had an advantage for him, but obviously it didn’t automatically change his mindset or his core believe set.

        This book is dedicated to my daddy, the honorable Frazier Glenn Miller, Sr. From the rebel state of South Carolina the man I most wanted to be like when I was a child, and wish I had been now that I’m an old man Strong, decent, intelligent, honest, and brave, the man I admire above all others. And he taught me what I know. …

        Shouldn’t the fact that they were all acquitted somewhat minimize the danger to him? Look guys, I carefully choose ones that I knew couldn’t be acquitted for what they wanted to prove, for instance? Or I created a rather tall tale you know cannot be proved anyway? Of course that is something he could not write about in his book … you can take a closer look into this chapter, if you are interested in how he sells that part of his story.

  4. seafoid
    April 16, 2014, 10:56 am

    I think the Zionists overestimate the leverage power of anti-Semitism to protect their ideology of hatred.

  5. pabelmont
    April 16, 2014, 11:03 am

    Well, Max B, rest (and be active) in peace.

    On the KKK front, it strikes me that you can count the present-day instances of KKK-type violence (call it terrorism if you must, but definitely call it hate crimes) in USA on the phalanges (phalanxes) of one finger of one hand, but you cannot count the number of KKK-like attacks by Israeli settlers (and police and border guards and IDF) on Palestinians on all the phalanges of all the fingers of all the hands in the Israeli Knesset (when in session, of course).

    Go figure. And are these KKK-like events reported in Ha’Aretz? in NYT? More likely in the former, but still . . . And are they characterized as KKK-like (or any recognizable equivalent)?

    And isn’t “phalange” a happy echo, in this context?

    • seanmcbride
      April 16, 2014, 11:27 am

      pabelmont,

      On the KKK front, it strikes me that you can count the present-day instances of KKK-type violence (call it terrorism if you must, but definitely call it hate crimes) in USA on the phalanges (phalanxes) of one finger of one hand, but you cannot count the number of KKK-like attacks by Israeli settlers (and police and border guards and IDF) on Palestinians on all the phalanges of all the fingers of all the hands in the Israeli Knesset (when in session, of course).

      Another way to frame this: compare the number of victims of white nationalism for the past half century to the number of victims of Jewish nationalism (Zionism).

      The victims of Jewish nationalism would include all those Palestinians who have been killed, driven from their homes, tortured, abused, etc.

      To the extent that the Iraq sanctions and the Iraq War were driven by neoconservatives with deep ties to Likud Zionism, the victims of those operations could also be added to the tally.

      (Recall that liberal Zionist Madeleine Albright, in a CBS interview, described the deaths of a half million Iraqi children as the result of the Iraq sanctions as “worth it.”)

      Another approach to this topic: what role did Judaism and Zionism play in motivating the terrorism of Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir? Both Goldstein and Amir explicitly used Judaism and Zionism to justify their acts.

      Frazier Glenn Miller, like Anders Breivik (the Norwegian mass murderer), used Jewish nationalism as a justification for white nationalism.

      • pabelmont
        April 16, 2014, 7:51 pm

        McBride: You amplify part of my point.

        I guess what I was after, more than facts, was meta-facts.

        What is reported and what is ignored? If reported, how is news characterized? And how do various publications stand up as reporters of ALL the important (to me) news as opposed to being reporters of what suits their owners’ prejudices or propaganda programs.

        All this hoo-ha about the murder of three people even though on a racial/religious basis sits ill (with me) considering the general ignoring of years of Israel-done terrorism/horror. (It is, of course, par for the imperialist-apologist course, as NYT probably did not make much of Iraqi and Afghani and Yemeni and Pakistani deaths and dismemberments as a result of USA’s free use of terrorism (thinly disguised within the USA as a war-on-terror)

      • LeaNder
        April 17, 2014, 9:33 am

        pabelmont, during my studies (TV, film, theatre in that case) one of my profs concentrated on tendencies in TV news reporting. I probably would have never thought about that, the obvious and striking feature was the uniformity of reporting, the selection of news items. At that point I got interested what guides their choices too, some of course are obvious, and looked into news value theories. But that obviously wasn’t our attention, but the general uniformity of images in that context. Handshakes, descending or getting on a plane, and so forth.

        Concerning owners prejudices, there was an interesting draft law during the Weimar Republic over here, that would have given journalists freedom of expression. Of course the Nazis did the opposite and installed one person personally responsible to carefully obey Goebbel’s rules. Easy to recognize by the color the news where printed on: Has to be written exactly as it is on the sheet, and diverse layers of slightly more freedom. But obviously the law was never considered again. Obviously it would create troubles, not only with advertisers, but also with an audience that has come to expect a certain point of view.

        All this hoo-ha about the murder of three people even though on a racial/religious basis sits ill (with me) considering the general ignoring of years of Israel-done terrorism/horror.

        I don’t agree. It is obviously newsworthy.

        Much more interesting is to ask the question. Why do the usual suspects, if I may, try so hard to connect the news with Max Blumenthal, with the obvious intention to establish a mental shortcut on people’s minds? Max Blumenthal – Miller.

        The basic association is firmly established: The extreme right uses the texts of Jewish authors to prove their points (usually out of context). That’s standard knowledge. You can also be sure, you will find evidence.

        But there is a different theme that was introduced into the post 911 world: The real antisemites are on the left nowadays.

        People like Horowitz–so he is in Germany leading another high profile travel company of sponsors, anyway?– better divert attention from the fact to what extend they have moved towards the right themselves.

        So the act is both, politically convenient and tries to distract people from this fact. Look, if there weren’t the Max Blumenthal’s of this world, these guys wouldn’t do what they do, or think what they think. Which obviously is absolute bullshit. But as we can see here, it could easily backfire.

        The most interesting actor surely in this context is Haaretz, and the fact that the article is anonymous. But I would put David Horowitz pretty high up on that list too.

      • ritzl
        April 17, 2014, 1:25 pm

        Interesting, LeaNder. Great comment.

        When did you study this? I only ask because maybe I’m old enough that 40 years ago there at least seemed to be a search for differentiating and consequential stories.

        Now I suppose there are still “breaking” stories, but they’re about missing white girls or some such. Stuff the pack will glom/zebra around as validation and/or cover for the “breaker.” Safe as opposed to fielding the risk of getting out in front, and staying in front.

        Breaking a story now seems like a mechanics-oriented event, as opposed to content-oriented.

        This is also a Greenwald theme.

      • LeaNder
        April 18, 2014, 12:27 am

        Ritzl, if I look at your profile, we may be about the same age. But that weren’t my first studies. It was a field I had to give up, when my mother begged me to leave Berlin for Freiburg University in the 70s, since my sister was in a boarding school there and wanted to move into her own flat during the last two years up to her exam. My mother didn’t want her to live alone. ;) She was always slightly anxious about my younger sisters.

        I guess that resulted for me in something I had to give up, something unfinished. So I decided to flee a job I didn’t like much, PR, more an accident than a deliberate choice with a language and literature background, and returned to “school” in the mid to late 80s.

  6. Donald
    April 16, 2014, 11:10 am

    This kind of smear is so stupid it’s hard to take seriously. . Anyone who falls for it is either a moron, ignorant, or wants to believe it. Or two or three of the above.

    • jenin
      April 16, 2014, 11:51 am

      I know– I too can’t believe anyone will stoop to this level, let alone a supposedly respected newspaper like haaretz. The first thing I thought when I saw these smears on max was Fred Phelps used to be a civil rights attorney and cited mlk. Does that mean mlk is responsible for his horrific behavior? Anyone who can’t see the illogic of these arguments simply isn’t worth engaging with

  7. seafoid
    April 16, 2014, 11:16 am

    Haaretz have now implicated Jesus in the murder, citing the killer’s familiarity with the new testament. Gutenberg has also been vilified.

    • Taxi
      April 16, 2014, 11:22 am

      And Death Metal music has been implicated in all teenage suicide across the globe.

    • pabelmont
      April 16, 2014, 11:46 am

      seafoid, If you are right, and Guttenberg has been vilified (but talk is cheap, does vilification make a villain of a person?) then are all people who read anything in print villains? And if so, does the act of reading the hagada at Passover make one a villain?

      Just checking.

  8. Dan Walsh
    April 16, 2014, 11:32 am

    If Max is in the wrong…John Peter Zenger was in the wrong.
    If Max is in the wrong…William Lloyd Garrison was in the wrong.
    If Max is in the wrong…I.F. Stone was in the wrong.
    Max is not in the wrong.
    Max is in the right.
    I stand with Max.
    No daylight.
    Justice and truth will prevail.

  9. American
    April 16, 2014, 11:33 am

    Ridiculous.
    Just more of the —must find some self hating Jewish critic or any kind of critic of US Zionsm or Israel to blame for one lone psycho killer’s actions.
    Attempt to censor and intimidate critics is all this smear job is.
    The message being that if you criticize Israel and its minons you will be responsible for enabling killers.

  10. Walker
    April 16, 2014, 11:47 am

    What a great article. Kane wastes no time on vituperation. He simply lays out the facts.

  11. Kathleen
    April 16, 2014, 11:58 am

    “Haaretz did not explicitly blame Blumenthal for the Kansas shootings, but the timing, the accusations, and the pretense of relevance implied such. After all, would Haaretz have published an article headlined “Kansas Murderer Really Liked Chocolate”? The very act of publishing such an article at such a time would only be to connect the killer’s alleged influences to his motives for killing.”

    Haaretz should be shamed and apologize for the “timing, the accusations and the pretense of relevance.” The whole thing is so redongdiculous. Everything Max seems to be about is stopping racist killings, abuse and any kind of violence. The total opposite of what the madman Miller was about. Insane projections of connections.

    “What’s clear is that the current right-wing campaign is a continuation of attacks against Blumenthal over his book Goliath. Protective of Israel’s image and worried that Blumenthal’s book could contribute to the changing debate over the country in the U.S., they’re throwing the kitchen sink at unflinching critics of Zionism.”

    Blumenthal’s fact based book has all ready contributed “to the changing debate.” Book club in Denver reading his book together. A Palestinian man in his early 80’s (would have to ask if I can put his name up here) who was ousted from his home during the Nakba picked up Max’s book and with tears in his eyes said “I lived what Max has written about. Everything in here is true, I lived it. I thank Max for writing about it.” Go Max. You know you are getting under their skin with the facts. We are right behind you brother.

    • CloakAndDagger
      April 16, 2014, 12:42 pm

      Protective of Israel’s image and worried that Blumenthal’s book could contribute to the changing debate over the country in the U.S., they’re throwing the kitchen sink at unflinching critics of Zionism.

      If that is indeed why they are doing it, then this will backfire in a huge way. All this attention will cause more people to look into Max’s work. I predict that there will be an exponential increase in his book sales after this.

    • Susan A
      April 16, 2014, 2:31 pm

      Definitely right behind Max. Daniel Pipes claimed that Miller was influenced by Max’s “ravings”, but from my reading of the book Max merely quotes the ravings of others. He simply tells it as it is. And it appears that those out to smear Max are all raving hysterically themselves, if not using ugly, triumphalist-type discourse that is. They won’t win; they can’t win because truth will win;truth will out as always.

      • Kathleen
        April 16, 2014, 2:51 pm

        Max quotes the ravings of racist and clearly explains how Israel’s government is institutionally racist. An apartheid government. As others have been pointing out for decades. Max provides even more facts and figures.

      • pabelmont
        April 16, 2014, 8:05 pm

        If Pipes, no slouch at it himself, claims that Max was raving, he should give examples of the raving. Perhaps he means to say (I do not for a moment seek to defend Pipes) that Max told only the seamy 1% side of rosy clean-as-a-whistle (Oh how I love ya!) Israel. That is not how I read Max’s book.

        To me, accepting Max’s assertions as facts (and helped to this view by Alterman’s saying the book is “mostly technically accurate”), I saw it as a general denunciation of the Israeli society as a whole, not a selective peek at dirt (however black) under small corners of a large, clean rug.

        So, Pipes, where are the ravings? Or is the mere act of criticizing Israel res ipsa loquitur “raving”?

  12. Sycamores
    April 16, 2014, 12:27 pm

    the smearing of Max Blumenthal is disgusting but not surprising. Goliath has sent shockwaves through the liberal zionist camp and it scares them. they can’t argue with the facts so they are resorting to smearing.

    i believe there is evidence building up linking to an anti-Max campaign, this latest irrational smearing from numerous declare zionists is very telling.

    twitter is buzzing with anti-Max Slurs.

    don’t forget

    The Simon Wiesenthal Center, “Top Ten Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Slurs” for 2013

    which has as number 9

    9. The Power of the poison pen: Alice Walker/Max Blumenthal

    and Alterman debacle over Max’s book.

    smear campaigns are use to tarnish one’s reputation and they can put the target in a defensive position. however you can’t move forward if you are kept in defense.

    • Philip Munger
      April 16, 2014, 2:22 pm

      MJ Rosenberg piled on on Twitter Tuesday, implying that Max (in his Mondoweiss article earlier in the week) had blamed Israel for the shootings. I replied to MJ that his take of what Max wrote was not what I got from the article. At all.

      • Sycamores
        April 16, 2014, 3:19 pm

        he’s not just piling it on Max Blumenthal but others too. maybe he’s calling out for a debate with those he tried to scold or maybe he’s just talking the talk. i wonder if he was called out would he bite?

        tweet from the man
        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg‏@MJayRosenberg·59 mins
        The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!

      • seanmcbride
        April 16, 2014, 3:37 pm

        tweet from the man

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg?@MJayRosenberg·59 mins

        The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!

        I applaud and respect M.J. Rosenberg for revising his views about Israel and for expressing strong criticism of the Israel lobby for several years now — that took a great deal of courage — but have others noticed that lately he seems to be sounding more and more like Pamela Geller? “Israel haters”? The level of vituperation in his writings and posts has become increasingly disturbing.

        Is Mike capable of settling into a rational and civil discussion and debate with Mondoweiss commenters on Israeli issues and acquitting himself with dignity and intellectual force? His latest volleys of cheap and abusive potshots at Mondoweiss have not been helpful for his reputation.

        By the way, Mike: the term “liberal Zionist” (or “liberal Jewish nationalist”) is as oxymoronic as the term “liberal white nationalist.” Think about it. Modern liberalism as most of us understand it is not compatible with ethnic and religious nationalism — particularly of the highly militarized and oppressive kind.

      • adele
        April 16, 2014, 4:25 pm

        MJ and so may other liberal-but-committed-Zionists (+ add in 2-staters) are going through emotional turmoil, literally. They never in their wildest dreams imagined that Israel would lose it’s shiny veneer, or that BDS would grow in strength. Let’s not forget that for quite a number of decades now they lived in a cushy PEP cocoon and nobody disturbed their equilibrium. So they never had to confront the inherent contradictions of Liberal Zionism, and this is traumatic for them.

        Expect to see a lot more writhing and angst and collective moaning. anger and baseless accusations and drama born of their trauma. Never in a thousand years did they expect Israel to be so questioned, challenged and threatened by the progressive community here in the states.

        Our task is to ensure that they don’t shut down nor dominate the conversation. We just have to keep repeating: “Ok, understood, but what about the Palestinians, what about their rights? What about equality? Apartheid needs to end…..” Over and Over and Over again.

      • Pixel
        April 18, 2014, 2:20 am

        MJ is afraid.

        Abject fear moves one beyond rationality.

      • Shingo
        April 18, 2014, 9:56 am

        Abject fear moves one beyond rationality.

        As does brainwashed tribalism.

      • eljay
        April 16, 2014, 3:51 pm

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg‏@MJayRosenberg·59 mins
        The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!

        So…it’s everyone else’s fault but his own that he’s unable to embrace justice, equality and accountability over Jewish supremacism in a supremacist “Jewish State”. Interesting.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 16, 2014, 4:01 pm

        During slavery days, people like Rosenberg would have affirmed the “right” of the whites to enslave the blacks, bought their cotton and helped to make the slavers rich, but merely pressed for a few less whippings, lighter chains and a two-minute “saying good bye forever” period when a parent or spouse is sold away, all the while flattering themselves for their approach and having the gall to insult William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass for insisting that the whole sticking ideology and institution had to be destroyed.

      • Donald
        April 16, 2014, 4:12 pm

        “Is Mike capable of settling into a rational and civil discussion ”

        No. After he called Ali Abunimah an anti-semite based on nothing but his gut I lost interest in anything he has to say.

      • Philip Munger
        April 16, 2014, 4:16 pm

        I’ll be hosting Ali Abunimah at firedoglake’s Book Salon on May 18th. Reading his book right now. Very well researched. Oodles of footnotes.

        link to fdlbooksalon.com

      • Sycamores
        April 16, 2014, 6:50 pm

        i’m embedding the tweet for reference.

        The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!— MJ (Mike) Rosenberg (@MJayRosenberg) April 16, 2014

        to me this looks like goading and i would treat it as such.

      • American
        April 16, 2014, 5:14 pm

        Rosenberg has now even labeled annie a anti semite for a comment she made. I’ve taken him out of my ‘just screwed up’ liberal zionist column and put him into the pro Israel we hate everyone column. 3 of every 5 tweets he makes is about ‘who he hates’…which is everyone and anyone who doesnt ‘actively’ support Israel no matter what their reason is for not supporting it.
        Even people who are netural on 2s or 1s are hate worthy because *he knows* that their ‘real goal’ in not demanding 2 states is to destroy the Jews home .
        link to twitter.com

      • Kay24
        April 16, 2014, 10:24 pm

        Looks like AIPAC reminded Rosenberg he made “aliyah” to Israel, and should now show loyalty, and whipped him into submission.

      • puppies
        April 17, 2014, 12:10 am

        I don’t know what you guys smoke at night but it isn’t good. Seeing that a guy is a Zionist one day (and we are talking high officer at AIPAC for chrissakes) and waking up the next day to the revelation that he is a Zionist! Woe is me.
        Zionists are Zionists. They are at the minimum fake-nationalists and racists/racial supremacists who intend to occupy Palestinian land forever. Why isn’t that clear?

      • Philip Munger
        April 17, 2014, 12:37 am

        My exchange with MJ today:

        Philip Munger
        @PhilipMunger

        @MJayRosenberg Is there a place in your heart for non-Zionists, MJ? – 16 Apr

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg
        @MJayRosenberg

        @PhilipMunger yes. Anti Zionists no.

        10:30 PM – 16 Apr 14

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 17, 2014, 10:37 am

        @ American

        MJ seems to have come off completely unhinged. Those tweets of his hint of someone who is no longer rational (if he ever was). That pot shot at Alex and annie does him no service at all. Sad to see someone go off the deep end like that.

  13. unverified__5ilf90kd
    April 16, 2014, 12:38 pm

    Max is one of the few (or the only one) to publish a true account of the horrific nature of current Israel in a substantial book by a fairly mainstream publisher. Therefore, many Zionists want to destroy his personal credibility because the book is true and accurate and they cannot fault it, except in vague ad hominem terms. It is a stunning book that can be compared to the monumental book by Walt and Mearsheimer about the Israeli lobby. Like the latter book, Max’s opus can not successfully suppressed and will eventually take its well-deserved place of honor in the canon of the Israeli/Zionist excesses against the Palestinians.

  14. Sumud
    April 16, 2014, 1:14 pm

    I’m surprised (not really) that Daniel Pipes doesn’t have the good sense to shut up.

    Miller and his cohorts cite Max as an information source but then insult him with “kike” and “queer” and my personal favourite “that douche bag sodomite” (it has a nice rhythm to it.)

    Whereas, Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik cited Daniel Pipes in his manifesto as an inspiration, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Pamela Geller, and finally her BFF Robert Spencer, who is mentioned no less than 64 times, and quoted extensively.

    Limbaugh seems to have been silent on Breivik at the time.

    • AlGhorear
      April 16, 2014, 9:53 pm

      Sumud, Limbaugh wasn’t silent on Breivik. On his radio show he said “Maybe we ought to listen to him.” Link

      Limbaugh is possibly the creepiest guy on the planet.

      • puppies
        April 17, 2014, 12:14 am

        Now that Sharon finally kicked the bucket it’s a three-way toss between Netanyahu and the 2 Liebermänner.

  15. brenda
    April 16, 2014, 1:45 pm

    It is good that Ha’aretz took the article down after pressure was applied. A victory for our side I would say, although had to have been hard for Max at some level. It is a tough business, political activism, especially when that activism is directed towards Israel. Lots of wounding.

    Ha’aretz has been my regular reading for many years. It is superb in that it showcases the very best of Israeli liberalism and dissent, but from time to time there will be an article or opinion that shocks, that seems to be going in the opposite direction. I think it’s best to keep in mind that this is a foreign country and at bottom every Israeli, liberal or no, is a nationalist. Even my fave, Akiva Eldar at al-Monitor recently put up a piece criticizing the US for the failure of the peace talks, and I unfortunately had to take him down — at bottom I am a nationalist too.

    In 2009 Israeli politician/government minister, scion of Israeli political elite going back to the founding of the nation, Avraham Burg published a stunning memoir, “The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From the Ashes” Reviewed thus by Tony Judt; “The shadow of the Shoah and its abusive application to the contemporary Middle East have been a catastrophe for Jews, Israelis and Arabs alike. In Burg’s view Israel must move beyond Hitler’s poisoned legacy. If they cannot or will not do this, the Middle East will never see peace and Israel has no future.” Burg didn’t hold back, he confirmed everything that Israel’s most virulent critics have to say; the country is on the same slippery slope as pre-Nazi Germany. And yet in a follow-up interview on Democracy Now!, when asked if he supported BDS he replied absolutely not! “The boycott is barbaric,” he said. My thought was, more barbaric than Nazi Germany? He felt strongly enough about the threat to Israeli civil society to write a book which estranged him from the polity, but could not bring himself to follow through on any activity which could hurt Israel, even something that could apply enough pressure to avert the fatal drift.

    • Ellen
      April 16, 2014, 2:23 pm

      Brenda, great post.

      In a somewhat defense of Berg: I think for many the trouble with supporting BDS is that boycotts most often become collective punishment of a society. (Think Iran, Cuba, Irak in the 90s, etc.) Yet, those examples are government enforced boycotts, not grass roots, of the people, such as BDS. Not akin to the beginnings of the successful South African boycott, or the boycotts related to the civil rights movement in the US.

      To accept BDS is a slow development, at least it was for me. I have since embraced it.

      • Ellen
        April 16, 2014, 2:55 pm

        Apologies…in defense of Avraham Burg.

      • brenda
        April 16, 2014, 3:16 pm

        I really liked Burg. I gave his book 5 stars in an Amazon review. He is a brave man (and an excellent writer btw) — the fact that the great Israeli liberals are unable to take that final step which would deliver the country finally to peace is, I think, a consequence of the country being on perpetual military alert from the beginning. Perpetual war, a perpetually “dangerous neighborhood” from the time you were a child…. that has to have an effect on the most liberal grown-up psyche.

      • brenda
        April 16, 2014, 3:10 pm

        Ellen, I readily admit, it took me awhile to embrace the boycott also. I was disappointed that Phil seemed to lose his original orientation, the fight against AIPAC. The US was what needed cleaning up, attacking Israel seemed counter-productive — as well as personally dangerous for Phil. Well, I was wrong, he was right. It will take everything, including the boycott, to bring Israel to heel and deliver the US to some semblance of an independent foreign policy.

      • David Nelson
        April 16, 2014, 3:26 pm

        Ellen,
        The difference in various sanctions regimes then is in the amount of social, media, and political power any one group has towards their government? Where would the Iran sanctions be without the concerted efforts of the friends of Israel in the US media to demonize Iran? Where would those sanctions be if those same friends did not wield the undue influence they have in the US congress and State Department?

        If American supporters of BDS could influence the US government towards its own direction, would they do so? How harsh should those sanctions be if it could do so (gain official US support), and who in charge of BDS would temper the sanctions if a few punishing sanctions were passed against Israel? Should sanctions against only some Israeli imports/exports be enough, or would BDS supporters go full throttle with all sanctions conceivable until Israel capitulated? Which medicines should be sanctioned? Which banks should be sanctioned? Whose bank accounts frozen, what technologies halted, which foodstuffs prevented from entering Israel? Who determines when enough is enough, Ali Abuminah?

        The whole idea of economic sanctions rests on collective punishment–make a society hurt badly enough and eventually (so the theory goes) the domestic political pressure in that society will force the target government to change its undesirable ways (undesirable to this or that grass-roots group who may or may not have political power in their respective national governments).

        So to me the argument needs to be made why collective punishment is moral. Collective punishment is not okay against the Palestinians, so why is it okay against the Israelis? Why is it okay against Iran? Against Cuba?

      • David Nelson
        April 16, 2014, 4:17 pm

        Ali Abunimah, rather. typo, or dyslexia.

      • Donald
        April 16, 2014, 4:22 pm

        “Collective punishment is not okay against the Palestinians, so why is it okay against the Israelis? Why is it okay against Iran? Against Cuba?”

        It’s a good question, but for me the answer is fairly simple. It depends on the severity of the sanctions. The sanctions on Iraq in the 90’s were genuinely barbaric–they killed hundreds of thousands by most estimates. The sanctions on Iran are also extremely severe, and so are the ones on Gaza, though I don’t know if those are having measurable effects on mortality.

        For me, anyway, it’s too simple just to say “collective punishment” is wrong unless you specify the sort of harm you are inflicting. All political acts of any consequence have good and bad consequences for innocent people. It’s unavoidable. But you can draw clear moral lines when the effects start having the same level of effects as a war. The sanctions on Iraq were near-genocidal in their effects. The BDS movement against Israel is nowhere near that level. It takes a bit of money out of their pockets and hurts their feelings. If it ever became so severe that Israeli children started to die, then I’d oppose it.

        You should really turn this around. I never, and I mean never, hear anyone opposed to BDS who also says that the sanctions on Iraq and Iran and Gaza were evil. You might be the first, but then, you’re talking about some hypothetical level of sanctions on Israel that is far worse than what is actually likely to occur. Can you imagine how the US press and government would react if Israelis had trouble obtaining medicine? It’s a back page story for Iran–if it was done to Israel then the BDS movement would be the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. When it’s Iran, the mainstream “peace advocates” praise the current level of sanctions and the opponents of negotiations want them made worse.

      • David Nelson
        April 16, 2014, 6:07 pm

        Donald,

        “Can you imagine how the US press and government would react if Israelis had trouble obtaining medicine? It’s a back page story for Iran–if it was done to Israel then the BDS movement would be the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. “

        How do you extract general principles/guidelines out of an inequality in power among any set of activists? Palestinian request for sanctions against Israel is okay because the activists are not powerful and could never hurt Israelis enough to matter. On the other hand, Israeli request for sanctions against Iran is NOT okay because the Israeli activists (and their counterparts in the world at large) are powerful and can actually hurt Iranians. What i am hearing is that sanctions against one nation are only valid if those who desire the sanctions could never harm the target country to a considerable degree to begin with.

        In a free society, an activist can support whatever cause he or she wants. The problem though is that the success of that cause is not necessarily a function of the righteousness of that cause. Case in point: Zionists in America. Most here would say the cause is unjust, and yet look just how successful their cause is.

        If you want to limit the power of Zionist activism, then you have to change the paradigm for activism generally. If you want to prevent the ability of powerful groups within powerful governments to do injustice in the world, then you have to curtail the power of groups generally, not just the powerful ones. Activist groups calling for siege warfare against nations in my view is not the function of citizens, but rather the function of accountable officials within government deliberating on a clear and present danger to the country’s security. There is no clear and present danger that Iran poses to the US, and so the sanctions against Iran (i.e. siege warfare) are unjust and Israeli friends in America should not be able to bring those sanctions about.

        The clear and present danger posed to America by Israeli actions towards Palestinians is a matter of fact to me, but to me that means American officials, not American activists, need to deliberate (with the voices of the citizenry allowed in that deliberation) what needs to be done about it. And yes, American officials are failing that deliberation, in no small part due to the corruption of the American system by rich and powerful activists. Activists got us into the Iraq war, activists have succeeded in their sanctions war against Iran and have almost succeeded in launching a hot war with Iran, and now those against the abuse of power that enables such warmongering are now trying to add on to that activist corruption through their BDS? NGOs (or even NG non-Os) have no business declaring war. The only check and balance in this set-up is defined by those who have money and those who don’t.

        If an activist wants to encourage the international and Israeli recognition of Palestinian human rights, an act of war (sanctions) is not the way to go about that, it is just not the mandate of the citizenry.

      • Donald
        April 16, 2014, 11:37 pm

        “If you want to limit the power of Zionist activism, then you have to change the paradigm for activism generally. If you want to prevent the ability of powerful groups within powerful governments to do injustice in the world, then you have to curtail the power of groups generally, not just the powerful ones. Activist groups calling for siege warfare against nations in my view is not the function of citizens”

        Yeah, look, David, if you’re not going to pay any attention to what I actually wrote that’s fine. You can state your own views without me as a foil. I already said I opposed siege warfare, and simply added that even if the BDS tried to do that, they wouldn’t succeed. I didn’t say they have tried to do that, to cause that level of suffering, and I also said I wouldn’t support them if they did. BDS hurts Israel to some degree economically, but its main value is symbolic. It has been drawing attention to the issue far more effectively than any other tactic in recent years and obviously Israel is concerned. Boycotts are a time-honored tradition among those pushing for social change, and no, they don’t have to be murderous like the ones used on Iraq. People boycott corporations in the US, they boycott states like Arizona and somehow, you know, they manage to do this without causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. So maybe you could acknowledge the distinction here, rather than pretend that one boycott is much like another. Or is the boycott against Chick fil A is the same as the sanctions on Iraq? I wouldn’t have thought so, but who knows? It’s a slippery slope. One minute you’re boycotting a company because of anti-gay views of its corporate owner and the next thing you know you’re plunging an entire country into destitution and greatly multiplying the infant mortality rate.

      • brenda
        April 17, 2014, 10:58 am

        Donald, your posts on the boycott are really excellent and completely reflect my own view. I have just one thing to add to “BDS hurts Israel to some degree economically, but its main value is symbolic. It has been drawing attention to the issue far more effectively than any other tactic in recent years and obviously Israel is concerned”

        Having read reactions in the Israeli press, much of which is defiant — “who cares? We can trade with China, India, lots of places other than Europe want our business” — there is also this: the Israeli elite is Eurocentric culturally. The important part of Israel is Western in orientation, not Eastern. It would represent a great loss at some significant level to be cut off from Europe economically and diplomatically, even if the trade can be made up for in the East.

      • American
        April 16, 2014, 5:20 pm

        No one says ‘collective punishment’ is right.
        Its a alternative to a shooting war, invasion , outside forces overthrow most of the time.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        April 17, 2014, 9:13 am

        @David Nelson

        ”Collective punishment is not okay against the Palestinians, so why is it okay against the Israelis?”

        Israeli society is collectively responsible for the suffering of Palestinians. ”Ordinary” Israelis serve in the army, live in the ‘settlements’, vote for the governments which enact discriminatory (and worse) laws against Palestinians, and broadly approve of the siege of Gaza and every single war in which Israel has ever been involved. In short, ‘ordinary’ Israelis are part of the problem. There’s no point pretending otherwise. Given that the topic of this thread is Max Blumenthal, anyone who’s read his book will know that there is no kinder, gentler Israel just waiting to get out. Au contraire. That myth has long since passed its sell-by date.

        Is every single individual Israeli part of the problem? Obviously not. The non-Jewish Israelis are clearly less likely to vote for Lieberman or serve in the army. Then you have the handful – and it really is only a handful – of Jewish Israelis who genuinely want justice for the Palestinians. I’m talking about the likes of Ilan Pappe or Amira Hass, but they are few and far between.

        What’s more, I am sure that most of the above would welcome BDS, just like those white South Africans who genuinely opposed Apartheid supported sanctions against RSA. The anti-BDS excuses voiced by ‘liberal Zionists’ are really, really threadbare, and show what a conundrum they are in.

      • Ellen
        April 17, 2014, 11:06 pm

        @David Nelson

        The difference in various sanctions regimes then is in the amount of social, media, and political power any one group has towards their government?

        No, this is simply a characteristic of a boycott. Each is unique.

        Where would the Iran sanctions be without the concerted efforts of the friends of Israel in the US media to demonize Iran? I do not understand this question. It appears to be full of assumptions, leaps and projection. The Iran sanctions have been going on for decades and have may levels, globally. It is not all about “concerted efforts of the friends of Israel….”

        …. or would BDS supporters go full throttle with all sanctions conceivable until Israel capitulated? What are you talking about?

        BDS is not about capitulating Israel. It simply calls for Israel to comply with international law and Palestinian rights. That’s it!

        You say, The whole idea of economic sanctions rests on collective punishment–make a society hurt badly enough … NO! This is not a fact and not a theory as you say. (It was, however, the theory and justification of the Israeli government for the slaughter and murder in Gaza — to punish the society so severely, they would chase their leaders out. This was the rhetoric from Israel at the time.)

        Sanctions can and do work when those in power, the elites in control of policy, feel the pain of loosing their position. That is why, for example, several business leaders in Israel now take the consequences of BDS much more seriously than the people in the street. They and their interests are threatened.

        And that is also how the Bus boycotts in the south affected the local municipalities and politicians (the power structure) but not the person on the street — who had a car.

        In other words, boycotts are not by definition collective and can be targeted. They need not be collective to be effective.

        I agree that severe collective punishment of a people (as when Iraq was boycotted, perhaps the boycott of Iran, and certainty the horrific collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza) may be immoral.

        But for you to take the leap and say, Collective punishment is not okay against the Palestinians, so why is it okay against the Israelis? Why is it okay against Iran? Against Cuba? Again, this is projection based on a false logic and projection claiming that BDS is collective punishment.

        As for your question: If American supporters of BDS could influence the US government towards its own direction, would they do so?

        That will not be needed. Boycotts (albeit under another name) are already happening. Foreign firms are pulling out of industries and services connected with the illegal occupation, for example. This will spread and governments will follow their people –after all, they want to stay in power.

      • a blah chick
        April 16, 2014, 7:17 pm

        I have to say that I have come 180 degrees concerning the academic boycott of Israel. I was all for an economic boycott but balked at punishing scholars there for what their country was doing. I liked to think of academia as that Ivory Tower, at its best, above politics. But as I educated myself on how Israeli universities supported the occupation I realized that nothing was going to change in that country until the Jews there felt just a LITTLE of the pain that they inflicted on others.

        It is time for Israel and Zionism to be held accountable for their actions.

      • Kay24
        April 16, 2014, 10:26 pm

        According the UNRWA the blockade of Gaza is the longest in history.
        Not long enough for the brutal occupiers, I guess.

      • pabelmont
        April 16, 2014, 8:32 pm

        Ellen, somewhat to defeat your defense of Burg —

        Most boycotts and sanctions have been aimed at non-democracies. Although I call America an oligarchy (ruled by the big-money boyz), it is still in some fashion a democracy and Israel (as far as I know) is more so.

        Of course, democracies may be run by racists, crazies, oligarchs, etc., but they have a chance to respond to pressure. The people, injured, have a chance to set things straight. tThey may not do it. They may get their backs up instead and dig in their heels. (Backs, heels, the mixed metaphors!) But in non-democracies where only the people are hurt, the people have no chance to re-direct their government.

        Israeli citizens and/or businesses — if hurt by boycott and sanctions — could decide to end the occupation (or, a bit less, to call back the settlers, etc.).

        I favor a general boycott and, later, general sanctions.

      • puppies
        April 17, 2014, 12:17 am

        But collectively punishing this particular society is precisely what one aims to achieve. Otherwise it doesn’t even begin to make sense!

      • brenda
        April 17, 2014, 11:17 am

        no, puppies, the aim is not ‘punishment’. It is as pabelmont says — in a democracy it is do-able and the aim is change of egregious government policies. The Israelis have got the option of changing their government and their government policies, and they will do this if they are pressed hard enough. Close to half the Knesset seats are held by politicians who favor a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 11:52 am

        I’ve always been a reluctant boycotter – there are always anomalous and unintended consequences. You have to be persuaded that the good outweighs the bad and you ought not to persuade yourself of this lightly. Still, the decisions as to what products you buy, where you put your money and whom you choose to associate with are decisions normally and properly entrusted to individuals with only very limited state intervention. If one person thinks that there is a moral issue that person may call on others to act in the same way, though of course may not usurp the powers of the state by enforcing rather than persuading.

      • puppies
        April 17, 2014, 1:10 pm

        @brenda – Getting a whole population (in this case a population of howling nationalists) to feel the pinch enough for change is called punishment in my book.
        “Close to half the Knesset seats are held by politicians who favor a peace settlement with the Palestinians.” Define “peace settlement”. I have a nice, slightly used bridge for you to buy.

  16. LanceThruster
    April 16, 2014, 1:57 pm

    It’s remarkable to me how many pro-Israel sites are like a Zionist Stormfront.

  17. Feathers
    April 16, 2014, 4:10 pm

    Does the Haaretz argument boil down to exculpating the shooter of antisemitism (in the defined sense), “Hatred of Jews just because they are Jews?

    Haaretz claims Blumenthal’s reporting on behavior — i.e. ‘facts on the ground’ by Jews against Palestinians enraged him to the point of taking action against a Methodist & doctor and his grandson, and a middle-aged Roman Catholic woman.

    It was the actions, the behavior of people that the shooter has been fulminating against, not a religious or ethnic identity.

    If Haaretz could get its analysis right, it’s 3/4 of the way to a solution: Change the behavior.

  18. seanmcbride
    April 16, 2014, 5:00 pm

    MJ (Mike) Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg Apr 14

    If I thought Max Blumenthal’s work advanced peace, it would be one thing. It doesn’t. It advances hatred.

    Mike,

    How is reporting the facts about racism (and hatred) in contemporary Israeli culture “advancing hatred”? What facts did Blumenthal get wrong in his book?

    Perhaps you could flesh out your charge with some well-reasoned arguments and solid documentation.

  19. yonah fredman
    April 16, 2014, 5:25 pm

    Implicating Max Blumenthal as a Jew hater because he was cited by this KKK murderous nut is a smear. (This is the price one pays for fame, being cited by David Duke and similars. It is unfair and unpleasant and a smear to associate Max with this killer, or alleged killer. (Do I really need to call him an alleged killer? Do I also have to call him an alleged nut or an alleged hater? Isn’t this “alleged” nonsense a bit too much, the first step in political correctness that is a bit much?) But there is an overlap of Jew haters and haters of Zionism and it is bound to happen that Jew haters will quote approvingly of famous anti Zionists. Max is now a famous anti Zionist and such a connection, though not relevant in a court of law or even in the court of public opinion, is bound to be quoted by Jew haters.)

    I’ve been reading Max B’s book Goliath and his monomaniacal one sidedness is frankly nauseating and I can see where it is not reporting, but is propaganda. (Again let me reassert that Naftali Bennett is a bigger threat to Israel than Max B. An aside: What percentage of American Jewish supporters of Israel even know who Max B. is? What percentage of American Jewish supporters of Israel even know who Naftali Bennett is? What about the percentage of Americans in general?)

    An example: In referencing the fact that Israel calls the city where the airport is located as Lod, Max says that Israel renamed the city from Lydda to Lod. Similarly in a report about the city of Acre, Max says that the city was renamed by the Israelis as Acco from Acre. This is just high school nonsense. Lydda and Acre were not the original names of these cities. In Arabic these towns are not called Lydda and Acre, but Lod and Acco. Those names (Lydda and Acre) are Western names given to ancient places and the more ancient names are Lod and Acco. But it is Max B’s monomaniacal “I hate Israel handbook” that requires him to fault Israel for renaming these cities, when the ancient names are not Lydda and Acre, but Lod and Acco.

    • libra
      April 16, 2014, 5:44 pm

      yonah fredman: I’ve been reading Max B’s book Goliath and his monomaniacal… ….it is Max B’s monomaniacal…

      yonah, I hope you too appreciate the irony of your accusation against Max B.

    • tree
      April 16, 2014, 6:24 pm

      According to Palestine Remembered:

      Lydda:

      City’s name through history: The city may have picked its name from a Greek tribe known by Lydda, who were the first to settle the area. During the Roman period, the city was known by Diospolis, but soon after the Muslim Arabs conquest, al-Lydd regained its original name until the Zionists changed its name to Lod in 1948.

      link to palestineremembered.com

      Acre:

      City’s name through history:
      Domination
      Period
      Notes

      Canaanites Acre was first foundedآ by either a Canaanite or a Phoenician Arab tribe known by al-Jar Jashyyein on Tel al-Fukhar, two kilometers East of the city.آ For the Canaanites, Acre was known by ‘Akkaw (meaning hot sand), which is derived from the Arabic word of ‘Akk, meaning intense rubbing.
      Ancient Egyptians ‘Akka (as it’s known to Arabs now)
      Israelites Accho
      Greeks Ptolemais
      Crusadesآ Accon, Acre, Acri, and Saint Jeand Acre (Nights of Saint John Mary).
      Zionist Akko

      link to palestineremembered.com

      So, according to Palestine Remembered, the city names in Arabic were al-Lyd and ‘Akka, not Lod and Acco as you contend.

      Max mentions the change in the city’s name here, in his description of the Palestinian flight from Haifa:

      Two weeks later, the Carmeli Brigade shelled Haifa’s central marketplace, sending the rest of the Palestinian population rushing toward the shore. There as they frantically boarded boats to Lebanon, Gaza and Acre – now an Israeli city renamed “Akko” where many would be expelled again just weeks later- they were literally thrown into the sea.

      page 145, location 3571

      Here’s his reference to the name change to Lod:

      …they had taken control of Al-Lyd Airport, formerly administered by the British colonial authorities. … As with the city of Lydda, the conquerors Hebraicized the name of the airport, renaming it Lod Airport.

      page 38, location 1027

      Nothing that Max said about either city’s name change was incorrect. Israel renamed the cities which were known as al-Lyd and ‘Akka in Arabic in 1948 to Hebraicized names after they conquered them. Your desperate attempts to smear Max’s book as propaganda are bordering on pathetic. You are engaging in your own propaganda while pretending to abhor it in other. Very hypocritical on your part and bordering on Nakba denial for implying that Israel did not change those cities names to Hebrew cognates when its been clearly demonstrated by a host of others that Israel did just that with numerous Palestinian cities, towns and villages.

      • yonah fredman
        April 16, 2014, 7:35 pm

        tree- Accusing me of Nakba denial is ridiculous. (Tossing around the phrase Nakba denial is stupid.) Lod is a name that appears in the Bible. To give it the name that it had before the Arabic version is not to rename it. If it had a different name after the Arab conquest of the 7th century that is fine and if that name was closer to the name that the Canaanites gave it, is also fine, but to call it renaming is just plain stupid. As if to call Jerusalem Jerusalem or Yerushalayim is to rename it, because it was called al quds by the Arabs. That’s just plain stupid. And I know that you are not stupid. But your words are.

      • Zofia
        April 16, 2014, 9:00 pm

        Take it easy plz.
        That’s the problem. Changing the names was dictated mainly by politics and Zionist historical narrative, which emphasized (although not from the very beginning, because even Gurion, together with the future 1st president of Israel wrote that Arab peasants in Palestine are descendants of the ancient communities) that the Jews are the “right” and “original” community in Palestine and not the Arabs in Palestine. The process of changing the names to ” biblical”, ie “original” started back in the 20’s. The problem is that even Zionists themselves (the researchers) argue that multiple translations of the Bible distorted the names, so they often had to rename the Arabic names instinctively and guess how they should sound like in Hebrew … All this action is political, to show that “original” inhabitants “returned”. The names of various places are intended to be the evidence of their “originality” – but as it turns out they are not. If you like it or not it is a proces of renaming the places- to justify the expulsion of Arab inhabitants and replacing them with new Jewish ones- to divert the attention from the colonization process and to give the impression that arch-absent residents are in fact “returning” and not colonizing.
        As Ra’ad writes: “Yohanan Aharoni (one of the early authorities on Israeli geography) and others are forced to admit the errors in Hebrew transcription, even as they want to insist that biblical or other Hebrew sources of names are the genuine or original ones: “the biblical sources have undergone a long process of oral and written transcription … some errors with regard to place names have crept in”. At the same time, to give more credence to the Hebrew forms, Aharoni has to argue that transcription problems “exist mainly in the non-biblical sources, especially the Egyptian and Akkadian,” although these are the only available and fairly reliable sources (Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, p. 100-104). Yael Elitzur, a recent Israeli writer on toponymy (place naming), concedes the role of the “autochthonous inhabitants” in continuing the preservation of names (Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, p. 2.), though who these undefined indigenous people are remains too sensitive for Elitzur to name them directly—viz. the Palestinians” (Ra’ad, p. 178)
        “Yohanan Aharoni’s The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography is a typical early example of how Zionists deal with toponyms. For Aharoni, the place names are the ancient ones confirmed in the Bible, transmitted later in Aramaic, and then with the Muslim conquest in 638 ce they took on the “Arabic mouth.” This fallacious premise leads to several linguistic jumps that contradict even his own list of toponyms that show ancient Egyptian or other regional variants are different from and more natural than the Hebrew. [...] Other Israeli writers attempt to maintain this illusion of continuity and naturalness in relation to the modern imposition of the Hebrew names. They want to consider the Arabic influence as a “distortion” and that the Hebrew names have now been “regained,” contradicting the linguistic evidence and failing to give any credit to the Palestinian population that preserved the names: “many of the place-names were transmitted from ancient times, from one generation to another”. (Ra’ad, p.184-185)
        “…a 1986 monograph by Thomas L. Thompson and F. C. Goncalvez entitled Toponomie Palestinienne: Plaine de St Jean D’Acre et Corridor de Jerusalem. This study shows how the Zionist toponymy project, originally established as early as 1920 to “restore” Hebrew names or to create names of symbolic meaning, went much further than its original mandate. There was simply not enough tradition to go by, so it could only continue by picking out biblical or Jewish associations at random. It had to Hebraize Arabic names, or in other cases translate Arabic to Hebrew to give the location an ideologically consistent identity. For example, some locations were rendered from Arabic into the Hebrew phonetic system: Minet el-Muserifa became Horvat Mishrafot Yam and Khirbet el Musherifa was changed to Horvat Masref. Sometimes, in this artificial process, the committees forgot about certain genuine Jewish traditions, as in the case of the total canceling of the Arabic name Khirbet Hanuta, not recognizing that it probably rendered the Talmudic Khanotah. This forced exercise of re-naming often even went against biblical tradition, most notably in erasing the Arabic names Yalu and ‛Imwas. Yalu became Ayallon, while ‛Imwas, Western Emmaus, associated with the Christ story, was one of three villages, along with Beit Nuba, razed in 1967. According to the Israeli writer Meron Benvenisti in Sacred Landscape, in order for a total map of the “Land of Israel” to be created, and since only a small number of place names could conceivably be linked to anything mentioned in the Bible, the renaming often became a forced exercise in making arbitrary connections, sometimes picking words at random from the Bible or translating to Hebrew the indigenous Arabic names and pretending they were Hebrew”. (Ra’ad, p.188-189)
        Read the footnotes he provides in his book: he quotes multiple scholars on the matter and gives detailed descriptions of language problems concerning the above issues.

      • RoHa
        April 17, 2014, 12:05 am

        “The problem is that even Zionists themselves (the researchers) argue that multiple translations of the Bible distorted the names”

        I don’t see how translations of the Bible would be a problem, since the Hebrew and Aramaic texts are available. Your quotations make it clear that some of the problems arise from uncertainties in those texts.

      • RoHa
        April 17, 2014, 6:00 am

        Is it that the translations are used to try to resolve the uncertainties in the originals? To try to pin down what the original vowels were, perhaps?

      • traintosiberia
        April 17, 2014, 12:48 am

        link to counterpunch.org

        France is paying the price . It has no history anymore .All that is left s the guilt . But people are not buying. So they have to be prosecuted or suppressed. Max is becoming a victim of a similar trend in US.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 10:10 am

        “As if to call Jerusalem Jerusalem or Yerushalayim is to rename it, because it was called al quds by the Arabs. That’s just plain stupid. ”

        That’s right. It should be called by it’s proper name: Aelia Capitolina.

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 12:13 pm

        yonah,

        You claimed: In Arabic these towns are not called Lydda and Acre, but Lod and Acco.

        This was wrong. The towns were called Al-Lyd and ‘Akka in Arabic. These were their names in 1948 before the Arab populations were expelled. As I pointed out by quoting Max verbatim, his statement was that the names were changed to Lod and Acco by Israel. This is correct and yet you fault him for making true statement and falsely claim that it is mere propaganda. Your attempt to prove your point was pathetic to say the least.

        The reason that I claimed your statement was borderline Nakba denial is because, as you clearly know from your subsequent comment, Israel engaged in wholesale renaming of villages, towns and landmarks in Israel for political reasons clearly having to do with the State’s attempt to erase the markers of the existence of the Palestinians as indigenous to the region and replace those markers with names that implied that Israel, founded by Europeans, was simply a continuation of the ancient Hebrews. Meron Benvenisti, a liberal Zionist, describes some of this renaming in his book, Sacred Landscapes. He quotes Ben Gurion on the purpose of this renaming:

        “We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arab’s political proprietorship of the land, so also do we not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.”

        The names of al-Lyd and ‘Akko were changed by the government of Israel to Lod and Acco. It was done for political reasons to cement the reality of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians so that the indigenous Palestinians could be more easily reframed as foreigners and usurpers in the minds of the Israelis. The fact that in the case of Lod and Acco the names the Israeli State chose were ancient names rather than some of the other pseudobiblical names they created in other places does not change the the fact that they did, as Max states, change the names of the two cities after their conquest in 1948. You are angry at Max for telling the truth, and skirting with Nakba denial in insisting that the change in names did not happen simply because the name change reverted to a name that had been used at one time in the distant past, even though the name change was part and parcel of the erasing of the presence of the indigenous Arab Palestinians by the state of Israel.

        BTW, Meron Benvenisti noted in at least three different places in “Sacred Landscape” that al-Lyd (or Lydda, as he referred to it) was “later renamed Lod by the Israelis” ( the exact wording he used in one such reference). Is he now on your list of “monomaniacal” “propagandists” for stating the same truth in 2000 that Max stated in Goliath?

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 1:45 pm

        Yonah, Posted here for lack of a reply button. On edit, this was a response to your post down below. I found a better way to put it after your comment to which I was responding.

    • Zofia
      April 16, 2014, 6:31 pm

      For the last part: The proper arabic name is Akka not Acco. The name was changed to represent the “original” name, but it is false. There are problems with the shifting of the vowels from Arabic to Hebrew, like from: a—o, ‘a—a, a—e. Akka is much closer to the original name not Acco: Canaanite ‛Aka. The same goes with other city names. Read: Hidden Histories. Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean by Basem L. Ra’ad (p. 176-179) or Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, by Meron Benvenisti. You should read the chapter in Ra’ads book: Politics of Place Names.
      He writes: “Place-naming in Palestine and Israel takes on an unusual character in that while Zionist organizers were not natives of Palestine they assumed nativity for themselves in their claim system, at the same time denying native status to the indigenous inhabitants who originally coined the names or continued them, and from whom the Zionists often took place names in order to translate them. Zionist claims assume that the Arabic forms are more recent and arose after the Arab/Muslim “conquest” in 638 ce, which changed or “distorted” place names, as if Arabic were a totally foreign language alien to its region. Ironically, however, the same city names assumed to be more recent (that is, the ones used in Arabic, ‛Asqalan and ‛Akka) are much closer to the original names found in hieroglyphic that date back around 4000 years…”. (p.176-177).

    • MRW
      April 16, 2014, 10:11 pm

      Your beef is nomenclature?

      • Jackdaw
        April 17, 2014, 5:49 am

        LOL.
        Zofia is opening up a new front.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 10:06 am

        “Your beef is nomenclature?”

        Oh, this is nothing, yonah went off once on whether someone’s writing was propaganda based on the use of the capital letter “L” in the word “lobby.”

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Zofia
        April 17, 2014, 10:39 am

        Just corrected an error that yonah fredman made-just that :) He first took on the subject not me. If you have a bigger issue with my correction than with the error fredman made it’s not my problem :) Besides the Zionists have been playing with nomenclature since the 20’s and even formed several committees that had to change the names of Arab towns (my other post shows that they even went against jewish tradition, only to erase the Arabic name)-it is part of their cultural policy. You should therefore read more on that matter rather than be fussy about my correction of an erroneous post.

      • yonah fredman
        April 17, 2014, 11:17 am

        Zofia- I am aware that Israel changed some names of some cities for ideological reasons and when that was the case, citing such facts is relevant. But in the case of acco and Lod that was not the case. And maybe some day I will have the time and patience to examine those two cases and discover the exact timing of the various names. Until then it is a prime example of the attitude of max b’s overall writing, which reflects an ahistorical point of view so that he can say one more reason why Israel should be hated. As if the real name of the city is Acre, which not even you claim. It is indicative of the tendentious nature of his book. That was my point. And the fact that Israel did erase villages and did rename places is a fact. But when he throws acco into the mix, it is purely out of animus, and I was pointing out why a pro Israel person who is willing to face facts, but maybe only reluctantly, instead faces not facts, but a variety of bullshit, which at best is propaganda, well that is what alterman and Rosenberg have called a hate book and I was pointing out that max’s writing in those examples exposes his hate rather than history.when I reacted to tree’s outrageousness I did not mean anything against you and if the choir here got on your case too, well welcome to the mosh pit.

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 12:30 pm

        But when he throws acco into the mix, it is purely out of animus, and I was pointing out why a pro Israel person who is willing to face facts, but maybe only reluctantly, instead faces not facts, but a variety of bullshit, which at best is propaganda…

        Funny how you can claim to know Max’s feelings as to why he stated the fact that Israel changed the name of those two towns to Lod and Acco, and you still claim that stating a fact is “bullshit”. You are clearly projecting again. You don’t like Max so therefore you feel the need to discredit his book on whatever spurious point you can dig up. You aren’t reading his book for edification; you are reading it to attempt to make your prejudicial point without regard to what he actually says. You are yourself engaging in propaganda. I gave you an example of Meron Benvenisti making exactly the same kind of statement that Max made, and given time, I’m sure I could find examples from other Israeli books that also make exactly the same point that Max made. You hate Max so therefore Max must be a “hater”, and truth be damned as far as you are concerned.

      • Zofia
        April 17, 2014, 1:11 pm

        oh, I only corrected your post: “Lydda and Acre were not the original names of these cities. In Arabic these towns are not called Lydda and Acre, but Lod and Acco. Those names (Lydda and Acre) are Western names given to ancient places and the more ancient names are Lod and Acco”- you are wrong. In Arabic its not Acco but Akka the same is with Lod, and they are the original names of the cities. Max writes on p.145:”…Acre—now an Israeli city renamed “Akko”…”- maybe for clarity’s sake he should have written the Arabic name (he didn’t write that Acre is an ancient name only that it was renamed), but his main goal was to point out the fact that the city was renamed on purpose, after the expulsion of its inhabitants- and he is right. You don’t have to examine or discover the exact timing of the various names because it is already done (the books and quotes I provided represent some of the studies about it). You should read my other post that says that Zionists changed the traditional names only to erase the Arabic ones- they didn’t care if the names were “historical” or not (that is “biblical”, since they give a lot of credence to that fact, as if somehow it justifies their doings). They did it to show that the “original” names are only the “Hebrew” ones and the new Jewish inhabitants are just “coming back” and not colonizing + throwing out the real colonizers- the Arabs who are “alien” to the land… The same is with the appropriation of the holy sites- many of them didn’t have any ancient Jewish connection (despite the claims), but were taken only because they had a “Jewish” like name or refered to some Jewish tradition, etc. It is not a reason to hate anyone, since such policy is quite typical for any nationalist movement. The problem is that many take those Zionist actions as “reclaiming” the land, etc. which is not…and are used to justify what Zionist did to Palestinians. So you are wrong writing that Akko is an ancient name, used also in Arabic- because it’s not (it’s Akka- you should have checked that first, before writing your post), and Max is right when he writes that Zionists renamed the city to Akko- which isnt’ the “original” name. There are even issues raised with the proper renaming it to “Hebrew”- that vowel problem I wrote earlier. Besides it wasn’t his main point in his chapter. But I can see that he should have clarified that the Arabic name was Akka not Acre :)

      • yonah fredman
        April 17, 2014, 1:23 pm

        Tree- I specifically stated that I appreciated max b’s report on yeshaya Leibovitz of blessed memory, so therefore you are wrong regarding my reading of his book. The facts that he depicts are painful and I again admitted that Naftali bennet is a greater danger to Israel than max b is.

        But let me defend mj Rosenberg who calls max a hater. And I challenge you to find one positive reference to any Jewish holiday or ritual in his entire book. I haven’t finished it and you know it by heart, so you can tell me where to look. Passover is merely a slant of Jewish paranoia fitting in with the national holidays of paranoia and militarism of the spring and Purim aside from yet another example of Jewish paranoia is an excuse for subjugating women. That’s what I have found so far and I have yet to find one positive iota about any single Jewish holiday or religious practice. That’s why I think mj Rosenberg is spot on calling him a hater. But you know the book by heart and you can enlighten me. I bet you can’t, but surprise me.

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 1:47 pm

        I haven’t finished it and you know it by heart, so you can tell me where to look.

        I don’t know it by heart. I merely know how to use a search function on a Kindle edition, and how to use an index. Since what you are asking me to look for, “one positive reference to any Jewish holiday or ritual in his entire book,” is first off nearly impossible to find by search function since it is a keyword function and not a “positive reference” search, and secondly is irrelevant to the topic that Max is writing on, such a search would be quite stupid, to use one of your favorite words.. He is not discussing Jewish holidays or rituals, he is discussing the political reality in Israel.

        Since you are now harping on what you think Max DIDN’T say instead of what he did say, can I assume that this is your silent acknowledgement that Max stated the truth, not propaganda, when he mentioned that Israel had renamed towns Lod and Acco? Have you give up the idea that it shows some animus on his part simply because he states the very same thing that Meron Benvenisti and others have stated? Or are you merely ignoring the point that Zofia and I are making because it undermines your prejudice that Max must be a “hater” of Jews and Judaism?

      • Zofia
        April 17, 2014, 4:57 pm

        There is no reply button next to your other post (about Passover), so I post here…
        Well… first you must remember that his book isn’t an academic one about Jewish culture as such. It has a purpose to show that the general POLITICAL narrative about Jewish ppl being besieged, threatened, and surrounded by enemies have its effect on the society who despite many political and media coverage isn’t as liberal, democratic, etc. as it paints itself to be. He describes how holidays are used politically and how it affects Jewish society in general.
        Actually there are lots of books about political use of holidays by Jews. Even before establishing the state of Israel Passover was used for political gain- since it is associated with ideas of freedom and independence. As Anna Shternshis writes: “By the end of the XIX century Jewish radicals in Poland, the United States, and Canada were employing Passover seder for the promotion of political views as well as a way to criticize their opponents (Soviet and Kosher: Jewish Popular Culture in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939, p. 27). Soviet Jewish activists organized so called “Red Passovers”, which also were used for political resons, etc. The same is happening now in Israel. Max isn’t the first author to raise those issues.
        Besides we can all see that lots of Jewish media covers about Passover often use it against other ppl, who are considered enemies like: Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims etc (like for example the article by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger). You can google: Passover, Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims and see for yourself that many media coverages and politicians use holidays for political propaganda.
        Holidays and rituals have their purpose (in general, especially in nationalist discourse), and in the case of main Zionist narrative (as a national project- I use it as a neutral term) the atmosphere of time immemorial antisemitism, fighting and liberation is often used for current socio-political goals. Other national narratives do it as well. Some settlers use special events- like Passover- for political gains (like Rabbi Moshe Levinger and later his son Shlomo who chose the time of Passover for a reason to start a settlement in Hebron. Avichai Stollar has an article in Haaretz about the new settlement in Hebron “History repeats itself in Hebron”).
        The instances of racist, anti-democratic acts did happen in Israel and he examines those events in a broader context of Israeli social politics. This political use of holiday events have a wide and strong influence on the society and this fact Blumenthal analyses.
        The same happened with Palestinian holiday Nabi Musa. It is normal for holidays treated as national to be used politically, and Max is describing that fact and its effects on the society. That is all. He focuses on Jewish political use of certain cultural and social elements and their impact. Do you see the difference now? The same analysis you can find about Palestinian festivals and holidays.

      • yonah fredman
        April 18, 2014, 12:19 am

        tree- You accuse me of bordering on Nakba denial and then you demand immediate answers from me and if I don’t therefore I must admit that you’re right?! Honey or sweetheart or stupid, whatever I call you, you are off the wall, singing to the choir. And I am not bordering on Nakba denial but you are full of shit and you are so used to your own shitty rhetoric that you think it is chocolate and smells like chocolate to you.

        Let me leave Lod alone for a moment because apparently it is also in the bible and I will get back to Lod if you insist at another time. But acco was called acco by the Zionists because that was its name in Jewish history. Go to the talmud and look up the name of Acco. It was called Acco in the Talmud. Look it up in tractate Gittin, a book which was compiled before the Arab conquest and it was called Acco before Arabic reached Palestine and that derivation of acco from the word sand, why that is creative etymology, a euphemism for possibly true, but probably bullshit.

        (And Meir benvenisti gets a break because he happens to be a Jewish thinker with time spent on the ground and not just 12 months spread out over 4 years, but decades and generations and Max gets no benefit of the doubt, because the hate rises from his rhetoric.)

      • Hostage
        April 18, 2014, 1:27 am

        Look it up in tractate Gittin, a book which was compiled before the Arab conquest and it was called Acco before Arabic reached Palestine

        FYI, We’ve all seen Hebrew words written with the letters of the English alphabet. Archaeologists have found Arabic and Arab language inscriptions, written phonetically in scripts borrowed from other languages too. They date back to the 1st century of the current era, like the one written by an Arab speaking person in the Nabataean alphabet at Ein Avdat canyon near Sde Boker, Israel (i.e. Palestine). link to islamic-awareness.org

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 1:54 pm

        BTW, welcome to the MW comment section, Zofia.

      • Zofia
        April 17, 2014, 2:39 pm

        Thank you very much! :)

      • Jackdaw
        April 17, 2014, 5:22 pm

        ‘.. and even formed several committees that had to change the names of Arab towns..’

        Arab town that used to be Jewish towns?

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2014, 6:54 pm

        Arab town that used to be Jewish towns?

        You mean the Palestinian Arabs that are descended from Jews who never left? After all, the Jewish DNA studies use them and their neighbors to illustrate that Askenazi and Sephardi Jews are of Middle Eastern origin and that a significant number of the members of all these communities had a common ancestor in the current era.

      • Zofia
        April 17, 2014, 7:03 pm

        Not quite :) I do recommend reading the books I mentioned above on the subject and their bibliography. Besides, the term “Arab ppl” I understand as the representatives of Arabic culture (proces of arabization- mainly through the arabic language) not as a group of people having one ethnic dimension + being associated biologically with each other in some way (as a race). Even Arab nationalists like Edmund Rabbat, Abd Allah al-Alayli, Qunstantin Zurayq or Abd ar-Rahman al-Bazzaz didn’t understand “Arabs” as some kind of race or one homogeneous group. Plus- after all in ancient times the land was not inhabited exclusively by Jews themselves (in addition often “Jews” are confused with such concepts like: “Hebrews” or “Israelites”), the land had never been inhabited by one group and magically completely replaced by another (you know the old pattern of thought: different religion or language= different people). Therefore, there is no such thing as a “Jewish town”(in the past or now, + how a town can be Jewish, Arabic, etc?) :) Often committee members (responsible for the renaming of places) couldn’t pinpoint the place itself- to correspond with biblical tradition, but in the end didn’t mind that much about that fact, the proces of renaming itself was crucial here. Those committees often worked like this: first check whether the name is similar to the Biblical one or whether the village is close to the village of ancient times, and then a city or village was defined as “Jewish” and renamed (using different technics). They did this even though Arabic often preserved the original ancient names… Many scholars write about this issue: you will find good bibliography in previously mentionsed books – wish you good reading! ps. the studies about Arabic and its relationship with Ugaritic are fascinating! Worth reading. Hostage also has a good point with the DNA issue.

      • Zofia
        April 18, 2014, 8:41 am

        Not quite :) I do recommend reading the books I mentioned above on the subject and their bibliography. Besides, the term “Arab ppl” I understand as the representatives of Arabic culture (process of arabization- mainly through the Arabic language) not as a group of people having one ethnic dimension + being associated biologically with each other in some way (as a race). Even Arab nationalists like Edmund Rabbat, Abd Allah al-Alayli, Qunstantin Zurayq or Abd ar-Rahman al-Bazzaz didn’t understand “Arabs” as some kind of race or one homogeneous group. Plus- after all in ancient times the land was not inhabited exclusively by Jews themselves (in addition often “Jews” are confused with such concepts like: “Hebrews” or “Israelites”), the land had never been inhabited by one group and magically completely replaced by another (you know the old pattern of thought: different religion or language= different people). Therefore, there is no such thing as a “Jewish town”(in the past or now, + how a town can be Jewish, Arabic, etc?) :) Often committee members (responsible for the renaming of places) couldn’t pinpoint the place itself- to correspond with biblical tradition, but in the end didn’t mind that much about that fact, the process of renaming itself was crucial here. Those committees often worked like this: first check whether the name is similar to the Biblical one or whether the village is close to the village of ancient times, and then a city or village was defined as “Jewish” and renamed (using different technics). They did this even though Arabic often preserved the original ancient names… Many scholars write about this issue: you will find good bibliography in previously mentioned books – wish you good reading! ps. the studies about Arabic and its relationship with Ugaritic are fascinating! Worth reading. Hostage also has a good point with the DNA issue.

      • Jackdaw
        April 18, 2014, 11:57 am

        @Zofia

        Take, for instance, the Israeli-Arab village of Jaljulia. The village is located on the east side of via Maris, the main ancient road from north (Damascus, Syria) and the south (Cairo, Egypt). For thousands of years caravans have passed this village. Even today the Israel’s main Toll road (6) passes this site.

        The site has been identified with Biblical “Gilgal” of the Sharon (not to be misplaced with the city on the Jordan river). The only remains that are seen today are located at the west side of the congested Arab village: the ruins of a large Khan (motel), and a Crusaders sugar factory.

        According to the ceramics survey in the village, the site has been inhabited from the late Bronze period (1550-1200BC), through the early and late Israelite/Iron period (1200-1000BC, 1000-586BC)), and on to the Persian period (586-332BC). Therefore, the scholars identify the place with “Gilgal” in the Sharon, as referred in Joshua (see references). The name of the Arabic village (Jaljulia) preserved the ancient site’s name-Gilgal – from the root word Galgal (Hebrew for circle or wheel).

      • MRW
        April 17, 2014, 9:00 pm

        Zofia says:
        April 17, 2014 at 10:39 am

        Zofia, my comment about nomenclature was to yonah fredman at April 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm, NOT you. Considering the moderating time delay and whatnot, it’s anybody’s guess when and where the comment will show up.

        I’ve been on this board for years. I ought to know better than to comment without referencing the original remark so that there’s no confusion. I thought you did a great job educating yonah who will get his panties in a bunch over spelling but has no problem with decades of destruction of lives over 3,000 year-old fantasy real estate deeds conjured up in a 19th C Viennese cafe. ;-)

      • yonah fredman
        April 18, 2014, 12:03 am

        mrw- Zionism would not have gotten off the ground without Herzl’s input, but it was not his idea. It predated him. Pinsker, is the name and the cause was hatred of Jews and the perception was 100% accurate. The location for the fleeing of Jews was primarily in the direction of North America and that predated Herzl as well, but the idea of self emancipation was a natural one and the place, why the place was obvious- the old homeland. Call it a fantasy real estate deed does not deprive it of the fact that a refuge was needed and a self emancipation was a natural conclusion and the location was merely the last detail which had only one answer.

        And let’s see you carry on a discussion without getting your panties in a twist. I doubt you know how to carry on a discussion of any sort with anyone but the choir.

        Max’s hate is perceptible. He has not an iota of friendship to the Jewish religion or to Jewish history or to anything Jewish except those who agree with him 100%. His mentality sucks and that’s why MJ rosenberg is on the right track in attacking him.

        But as I asserted and reassert: Naftali Bennet is a bigger danger to Israel than Max Blumenthal.

        But the choir here loves Max and so go preach to the choir. No one is stopping you. You must love getting cheers from the choir.

      • Shingo
        April 18, 2014, 1:19 am

        mrw- Zionism would not have gotten off the ground without Herzl’s input, but it was not his idea. It predated him

        No, the idea of a Jewish state began with Herzl and his idea was received with contempt by the majority of Jews who thought he was crazy.

        Max’s hate is perceptible.

        What is there not to hate about racism and and blood and soil racial supremacy?

        His mentality sucks and that’s why MJ rosenberg is on the right track in attacking him.

        On the contrary. MJ Rosenberg is clearly retreating into his tribal cocoon – he is alienating everyone and labelling anyone who disagrees with him an Israeli hater, anti Semite etc. It sounds like he’s probably auditioning for his old job back at AIPAC.

      • Zofia
        April 18, 2014, 8:16 am

        Sorry! :) I was confused who was writing to whom and wasn’t sure + the other person wrote that I was opening some kind of a new front here so I just wrote my thoughts down:) Thank you for your reply! Wish you all a happy Holiday!:)

    • talknic
      April 16, 2014, 11:30 pm

      yonah fredman Your concerns are so touching….

      Say, Is anyone gonna die because of anything Max writes? Is anyone gonna die because of Max’s alleged ‘monomaniacal’ renaming (which could be a simple error on his part)

      Meanwhile Israeli Governments’ continual and purposeful lies continue to cause plenty of death and destruction. link to wp.me

      Israeli Governments’ continual and purposeful lies continue to dupe Israeli citizens into believing the State of Israel can sell them land in occupied territory. Israeli lies cause actual death and destruction. Israeli lies split the Jewish community.

      Yet Israel’s purposeful destructive lies seem to be of no concern. Why?

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 3:22 pm

        I too welcome Zophia to our discussions and hope to hear more from her. She clearly knows her nomenclatural onions and the topic of names is very important. Gabriel Piterberg’s Returns of Zionism is good on this topic.

  20. crypticvalentin
    April 16, 2014, 6:00 pm

    Miller also seems to think favorably of Ron Paul and Voltaire, let’s go after them too!

  21. a blah chick
    April 16, 2014, 7:20 pm

    All that NSA surveillance that no one spotted this guy?

    What do we pay those people for!

    • ritzl
      April 17, 2014, 1:30 pm

      Ouch! :)

      • Shingo
        April 17, 2014, 10:24 pm

        I agree. They failed to stop the Boston bombing and now this, yet they insist the program is necessary for the protection of US citizens.

  22. Mayhem
    April 16, 2014, 7:26 pm

    Kane and Nguyen have laboured hard to discredit the accusations relating to the VNN forum but have had nothing to say about the last couple of paragraphs from the original article from Haaretz:

    In an article following Cross’ rampage, Blumenthal wrote “some pro-Israel fanatics seemed gleeful for an opportunity to attack those they resent the most: Muslims, Palestinians and those who advocate for their equality.”

    Referencing Cross’ remark, “If the Jews can have a Jewish state of their own, then why can’t we have a White Christian state of our own?”
    Blumenthal also compared the latter’s desire to create what he termed “an ethnically-exclusive white state in the Deep South” to the modern
    state of Israel.

    The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse. Is he bothered by the collateral damage he causes? He should face up to the consequences for empowering those who prefer to demonise instead of rationalize.

    Although Blumenthal’s remarks about Israel may not be construed as being anti-semitic per se, they do tend to encourage and foster strong outbursts from anti-semites who hang around in the wings of the anti-Israel lobby.

    • Kris
      April 16, 2014, 9:11 pm

      @Mayhem: “The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse. Is he bothered by the collateral damage he causes? He should face up to the consequences for empowering those who prefer to demonise instead of rationalize.”

      What are you talking about? Cross said, “If the Jews can have a Jewish state of their own, then why can’t we have a White Christian state of our own?” How is it “demonizing” Israel for Cross, or anyone else, to point out that white supremacists want what Israel has: racist rule and ethnic privilege.

      You say, “(Blumenthal) should face up to the consequences for empowering those who prefer to demonize instead of rationalize.” Saying that Israel is all about ethnic privilege and apartheid is not “demonizing” Israel, it is being truthful.

      To “rationalize,” which seems to be what you think is the proper course of action, means to “attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.” That is to say, to mislead and deceive. Why is lying better than truth-telling?

    • Shingo
      April 16, 2014, 9:47 pm

      The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse.

      What it inspired was to have the same arrangement for white men, seeing as we have an Israeli minister on the reocord ans saying that Israel is that land of the white man.

      This extremist clearly admires Israel and wants to replicate it.

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 1:04 pm

        Mayhem on the right to a Jewish State:

        Anybody who reads between the lines can see that the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept Israel as a Jewish state is the fundamental blocker…

        As for the latter just to mention a few that Israel has to deal with:
        1. Unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state…

        …a malicious effort to undermine the Jewish state that they are unwilling to recognize.

        Cross/Miller recognized the Jewish State. He wanted another one for White Christians. The problem is not with what Max said, its with what Netanyahu says, and what Israel does.

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 17, 2014, 10:17 am

      “The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse. Is he bothered by the collateral damage he causes?”

      What collateral damage? That people might think? Because Max is absolutely right.

      I’ll pose the question to you, Mayhem and all your fellow Zionists here: What could possibly be your objection to instituting, in the United States, a country for “White Christians” if we stipulate that Jews and African Americans would suffer exactly that which the Zionists imposed on the Palestinians: First, they would be subject to martial law for a generation and most of their property would be seized by the state, then they would split into two groups – one half would become second-class citizens but subject to discrimination in dozens of different ways, and the other half would be subject to occupation of their land, oppression in every way, restriction on travel, random killings, destruction of their economy and way of life, and that would go on forever, but 47 years at a minimum.

      What possible problem would you have to treating American Jews and African Americans in this fashion?

      • seanmcbride
        April 17, 2014, 11:09 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        I’ll pose the question to you, Mayhem and all your fellow Zionists here: What could possibly be your objection to instituting, in the United States, a country for “White Christians” if we stipulate that Jews and African Americans would suffer exactly that which the Zionists imposed on the Palestinians: First, they would be subject to martial law for a generation and most of their property would be seized by the state, then they would split into two groups – one half would become second-class citizens but subject to discrimination in dozens of different ways, and the other half would be subject to occupation of their land, oppression in every way, restriction on travel, random killings, destruction of their economy and way of life, and that would go on forever, but 47 years at a minimum.

        What possible problem would you have to treating American Jews and African Americans in this fashion?

        This is a point to keep bearing down on with maximum pressure: all ethnic and religious groups in the world have as much right to pursue their nationalist agendas as Jewish Zionists — with just as much intensity and aggression, and with as little regard for the interests and rights of ethnic and religious outgroups. Pro-Israel activists have no answer to this argument — usually they fall silent or run away from the debate.

        In truth, David Duke is no worse than Benjamin Netanyahu. White Christian nationalism is no less legitimate than Jewish nationalism (Zionism). Certainly Jewish nationalists are responsible for many more human rights violations in recent decades than white nationalists.

        This is the dilemma liberal Zionists face: on what possible grounds can they object to the ethnic or religious nationalism of any group in the world? The more they get tangled up in these intellectual self-contradictions, the more enraged and abusive they become — they really are suffering a major mental breakdown — hence all the irrational fury they are directing at Max Blumenthal.

      • hophmi
        April 17, 2014, 11:25 am

        “This is a point to keep bearing down on with maximum pressure: all ethnic and religious groups in the world have as much right to pursue their nationalist agendas as Jewish Zionists — with just as much intensity and aggression, and with as little regard for the interests and rights of ethnic and religious outgroups. Pro-Israel activists have no answer to this argument — usually they fall silent or run away from the debate.”

        You don’t like the answer, but we certainly have one. The answer is twofold. First of all, Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state. It is multiethnic and multiracial. Its representative body is not exclusively Jewish. Its Supreme Court is not exclusively Jewish. Its universities are not exclusively Jewish.

        Second of all, the manner in which Israel was founded was no different than the way most nations on Earth were founded, except that it was a lot less bloody. The US was founded by murdering millions of Native Americans and by enslaving African-Americans. European countries were founded as Christian states, and remain essentially Christian; they are more homogeneously Christian than Israel is Jewish. They simply use euphemisms to enforce their notion of Christian supremacy, whether it is through the banning of head covering in France, or the banning of kosher slaughter in some countries, or the restrictions on mosque building in places like Switzerland, or the election of right-wing anti-immigrant parties. These countries have little moral credibility to criticize Israel when the fact of the matter is that they spent hundreds of years practicing various forms of the religion and ethnic exclusivism, and then, after hundreds of years of exploitative colonialism and a World War when they participated in the collective slaughter of 12 million people who were not like them, including 6 million Jews, they decided to sweep that history under the rug, especially since they already had established societies that were more than 90 percent Christian. Even with that reality, these countries continue to practice various forms of discrimination, and continue to cut deals with dictatorships around the world.

        So, as usual, Sean relies on false assumptions to make a nasty, offensive, straw man argument meant to compare the world’s only state with a Jewish majority, a state of refugees, to the KKK.

        “This is the dilemma liberal Zionists face: on what possible grounds can they object to the ethnic or religious nationalism of any group in the world? The more they get tangled up in these intellectual self-contradictions, the more enraged and abusive they become — they really are suffering a major mental breakdown ”

        And this is Sean’s standard response; never one to make a real intellectual argument, he blows a lot of hot air about how Zionists are suffering a “mental breakdown” and how they are the ones who are abusive (and not the guys who obsessively make Jewish-Nazi comparison). Yes, it’s the Zionists who are abusive, and not the guys who post their agreement with fabricated quotes about how Jews are historically responsible for their own persecution.

      • adele
        April 17, 2014, 12:13 pm

        Hophmi says: “First of all, Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state. It is multiethnic and multiracial. Its representative body is not exclusively Jewish. Its Supreme Court is not exclusively Jewish. Its universities are not exclusively Jewish.”

        In this multi-ethnic/multi-religious paradise that is known as Israel, why does it then insist that it be recognized as a “Jewish state”?

      • seanmcbride
        April 17, 2014, 12:25 pm

        hophmi,

        You don’t like the answer, but we certainly have one.

        And your answer doesn’t address the main question: on what rational grounds can you object to all ethnic groups being as single-minded and aggressive in the pursuit of their narrow ethnic nationalist interests as Jewish nationalists are about theirs?

        You are so encased in your ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist cult bubble that you fail to realize just how dangerously out of sync you are with most Americans and Europeans on these issues.

        Most Americans and Europeans are not ethnic nationalists — but you would have no grounds to object if they chose to pursue their respective “Zionisms” as obsessively as you do. There are already plentiful signs that quite a few Europeans are beginning to use Israel and Zionism as a model and justification for reviving their own ethnic nationalist traditions and energies. One doubts that you will be happy with the outcome.

      • Shmuel
        April 17, 2014, 12:42 pm

        Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state. It is multiethnic and multiracial. Its representative body is not exclusively Jewish. Its Supreme Court is not exclusively Jewish. Its universities are not exclusively Jewish.

        Apartheid South Africa was also multi-ethnic and multiracial. It all depends on how the “multis” are treated. The granting of significant political and civil rights — including representation — to some of the non-Jews under its jurisdiction, is what makes Israel within the Green Line an ethnocracy (with a charter ethnic group), rather than a Herrenvolk regime. The other side of the Green Line is, of course, another story.

      • tree
        April 17, 2014, 12:59 pm

        You ignored Woody’s question, hophmi. Let’s state it again and see if you will answer it.

        What could possibly be your objection to instituting, in the United States, a country for “White Christians” if we stipulate that Jews and African Americans would suffer exactly that which the Zionists imposed on the Palestinians: First, they would be subject to martial law for a generation and most of their property would be seized by the state, then they would split into two groups – one half would become second-class citizens but subject to discrimination in dozens of different ways, and the other half would be subject to occupation of their land, oppression in every way, restriction on travel, random killings, destruction of their economy and way of life, and that would go on forever, but 47 years at a minimum.

        What possible problem would you have to treating American Jews and African Americans in this fashion?

      • hophmi
        April 17, 2014, 1:02 pm

        “And your answer doesn’t address the main question: on what rational grounds can you object to all ethnic groups being as single-minded and aggressive in the pursuit of their narrow ethnic nationalist interests as Jewish nationalists are about theirs?”

        Your assumptions:

        1. Jews are “single-minded and aggressive in the pursuit” of “narrow ethnic nationalist interests.”

        2. Every ethnicity has the same needs as Jews did in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

        3. Israel is open to only one ethnicity.

        The truth: We are not “single-minded” or especially “aggressive” and our interests are not “narrow” or exclusively “ethnic.” We also do not have the same history as every ethnicity. Israel is overwhelmingly a country of refugees.

        I can 0bject to a people living in comfort who violently take over a piece of territory in some far-flung place for no other reason than economic exploitation of it and its natives. That’s what European colonialism was. That is not what Israel is.

        I would not object to victims of persecution deciding to buy land and build a society as a way of escaping that persecution. I also would not object to the creation of more or less ethnically based states in regions of Africa where arbitrary colonial borders became fractious nations that broke down along ethnic lines over and over again. I think there would have been a great deal less bloodshed in Africa over the past 50 years had groups like Tutsis and Hutus not been thrown together in the same state. Sudan just recently broke into two countries more or less on ethnic and religious lines.

        Europe is, again, a continent where the countries are ethnically homogeneous. That’s not an accident. I’m glad that European has finally given up its history of horrific bloodshed and persecution of others. But you don’t get to do that for hundreds of years to other people, pay no real price for it, and then tell others who you persecuted how to start and run countries in other parts of the world.

        “You are so encased in your ethnocentric and ethnic nationalist cult bubble ”

        I’m immune to the namecalling, Sean.

        ” that you fail to realize just how dangerously out of sync you are with most Americans and Europeans on these issues.”

        You are so encased in your obsession with the Jews and with Israel and with the false assumptions that you make that you fail to realize that you are the one who is far out of step with virtually all Americans and many Europeans, and that Israel’s history differs little from American and European history, except that it has entailed far less bloodshed.

        “Most Americans and Europeans are not ethnic nationalists”

        Yes, after persecuting minorities for centuries, Europe can claim to have given up the label of “ethnic nationalist”, even as its countries put anti-immigrant after anti-immigrant government in power. America is different from everybody else because of its history, but even here, we have a fairly strong nativist contingent.

        In any event, Sean, as usual, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Israel does not have to be exactly like America and Europe. Israel can be a Jewish and democratic state with an enfranchised Palestinian Arab minority. It’s really not that difficult, particularly in the context of a two-state solution.

        ” but you would have no grounds to object if they chose to pursue their respective “Zionisms” as obsessively as you do. ”

        LOL. Set up a straw man, knock it down. That’s your technique.

        “There are already plentiful signs that quite a few Europeans are beginning to use Israel and Zionism as a model and justification for reviving their own ethnic nationalist traditions and energies.”

        Again, I have to just LOL. Who cares what these crazy people cite? There is more than enough for them to rely on in their own European fascist history without dragging the Jews, Zionism, and Israel into their craziness.

      • seanmcbride
        April 17, 2014, 1:06 pm

        hophmi,

        Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state. It is multiethnic and multiracial.

        How many non-Jews — especially Christians and Muslims — have been high-level members of the Israeli government from its founding to the present day? The equivalents of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Jack Lew, Elena Kagan, Alan Greenspan, Eric Cantor, etc?

        Please name them.

        Do you think that most Israelis/Zionists believe that Christians should be represented at the highest levels of the Israeli power elite in the same proportion as Jews are in the American power elite?

        How likely would that be considering that Israel insists on being officially defined as a Jewish state?

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2014, 1:07 pm

        Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state.

        That’s a mistatement of fact. Israel is still excluding the bulk of the Arab population that was originally entrusted to its jurisdiction by the United Nations and all of their descendants, who would have otherwise been citizens, if not for the adoption of a racist ex-post facto nationality law.

        The laws in effect in Palestine on the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948), were specifically retained under Chapter 4 of the Transition Act on Law and Administration. That included the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council. Individuals born abroad to a Palestinian father were automatically citizens of Palestine by operation of subsection 3(b) of that ordinance. The Law that replaced it was the epitome of ethnic exclusion.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 1:53 pm

        “…the world’s only state with a Jewish majority, a state of refugees…”

        No, the refugees were the people that that “Jewish majority” terrorized and ran out of occupied Palestine at the end of a gun, in order to steal the Palestinians’ land and houses.

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 1:41 pm

        The reply I would put into liberal Zionist mouths is that White Christians do not have the need to do any of those things, since their own survival has never been threatened. Nor do they have a right based on being unjustly expelled from the very same soil in ancient times or on having a culture which depends for its very existence on acceptance of their special rights in that place (and only in that place, be it noted) so that denial of those rights amounts to a kind of genocide. Situations that are unique – recall that endless, every-generation threat of destruction – create rights that are unique. For my part I would be critical of that reply, but I think that’s what they would want us to consider.

      • seanmcbride
        April 17, 2014, 2:12 pm

        MHughes976,

        We know what would be the reply of white Christian nationalists in Europe and the United States to this argument: for demographic reasons their own traditional cultures are under seige and falling apart and they must take forceful measures to protect themselves and their societies. They are leaning on precisely the same arguments that are regularly used by Israeli leaders to justify Israeli/Zionist policies — and it is true that demographic trends are moving against them.

        (My point of view on all this is that all cultures are in a state of perpetual change and evolution in interaction with other cultures, and that this is usually a good thing — not something to fear. But many people disagree with me.)

        If Israel thinks that it is going to receive a special pass from the modern democratic West regarding the expression of aggressive ethnic and religious nationalism, I think it is mistaken. Either the West will oppose Israel on this issue or it will revive its own ethnic and religious nationalist traditions — it will be one or the other.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 2:26 pm

        MHughes,

        Interesting response. Not one of those reasons stand up to scrutiny, but I think you’ve done about as well as anyone can.

      • hophmi
        April 17, 2014, 2:28 pm

        “How many non-Jews — especially Christians and Muslims — have been high-level members of the Israeli government from its founding to the present day? ”

        Israeli governments have had non-Jewish cabinet members for years now. Salim Joubran has sat on Israel’s Supreme Court since 2003. Ayoub Kara was deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Nawaf Massalha was a deputy speaker as well. Salah Tarif was a deputy speaker and a cabinet minister. Majalli Wahabi was a deputy speaker and briefly as Acting President of Israel. Raleb Maladeje held cabinet positions in two successive government when Labor was in the coalition.

        Druze in Israel are certainly not Jewish, and many are openly Zionists.

        “Do you think that most Israelis/Zionists believe that Christians should be represented at the highest levels of the Israeli power elite in the same proportion as Jews are in the American power elite?”

        Sure, why not? Christians certainly have access in Israel. But what does one have to do with the other, exactly? Christians are 2.1% of the country. The Arab Christians identify mostly with the Palestinians. So I’m not sure why they’d want to be part of the “power elite” in Israel. I’d think they’d want to be part of the power elite in the future Palestine.

        But many here have admitted many times that Christians are quite involved in Israel, particularly evangelicals. In fact, most think they are too involved. But they’re certainly not Jewish.

        “How likely would that be considering that Israel insists on being officially defined as a Jewish state?”

        Oh, quite likely, if they were devoted to helping build Israel as a democracy, rather than in showing solidarity with a future country of Palestine, as most Arab Christians are. The Druze are certainly quite involved, in government, in the army. They don’t seem to mind that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2014, 4:16 pm

        The Druze are certainly quite involved, in government, in the army. They don’t seem to mind that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.

        Entire volumes have been devoted to the subject of the Zionist’s use of the Druze in their propaganda as the “good” Arabs and the fact that they have been dispossessed like other non-Jews and share the same feelings about the Nakba as other groups of Palestinians. Here’s the synopsis of Kais M. Firro, “The Druzes in the Jewish State: A Brief History”:

        Following the war of 1948 Palestine’s Druzes became part of the state of Israel. Overwhelmingly rural, they sought to safeguard their community’s age-old ethnic independence by holding on to their traditional ethno-religious particularism. Ethnicity and ethnic issues, however, were ready tools for the Zionists in the pursuit of their policy aims vis-a-vis the state’s Arab population. Central among these was the cooptation of part of the Druze elite in an obvious effort to alienate the Druzes from the other Arabs – creating “good” Arabs and “bad” Arabs served the Jewish state as a foil for its ongoing policy of dispossession and control. The author painstakingly documents the political, social and economic factors that ensured the “success” of these Zionist policies, but concludes that the fissured identity of Israel’s Druzes today bespeaks a feeling of “musiba,” tragedy, within the community itself.
        link to amazon.com

    • talknic
      April 17, 2014, 10:58 am

      Mayhem “He should face up to the consequences for empowering those who prefer to demonise instead of rationalize”

      There’s nothing rational in Israel attempting to illegally usurp a people from their land. It’s self demonization 101.

    • Hostage
      April 17, 2014, 11:30 am

      Blumenthal also compared the latter’s desire to create what he termed “an ethnically-exclusive white state in the Deep South” to the modern state of Israel.

      The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse.

      I’ve pointed out time and again, we reserve the right under our Constitution to prohibit the establishment of either a Jewish or White Christian state anywhere in the territory that is subject to our own government’s jurisdiction. The establishment clause of the first amendment prevents it on religious grounds and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents it on grounds of ethnic differences.

      There is nothing illegal or immoral about Palestinians objecting to a Jewish state in their territory on those same grounds. That’s why Great Britain and the Zionists have always refused to adopt a Constitution that safeguarded the existing rights of the communities under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as required by the explicit terms of the San Remo resolution, and Articles 13, 14, and 28 of the Mandate.

      • hophmi
        April 17, 2014, 11:43 am

        “There is nothing illegal or immoral about Palestinians objecting to a Jewish state in their territory on those same grounds. ”

        Are you seriously arguing here that the Palestinian objection to a Jewish state (and the Arab objection to a Jewish state) is based on the 1st and 14th Amendments or anything like them?

        In what sense do Palestinians or Arabs practice anything like either of these standards in their societies? Their objection is based on two things – history and the presence of a non-Muslim, non-Arab state in a region that is otherwise ethnically exclusive. The history part is a land claim. It is not a quest for a freer society or for a democracy. You’ll have to point to any indicator that the Arabs can actually keep a democracy that is based on something other than the ascendancy of one ethnic group over another before you make that claim.

      • talknic
        April 17, 2014, 12:01 pm

        hophmi “Are you seriously arguing here that the Palestinian objection to a Jewish state (and the Arab objection to a Jewish state) is based on the 1st and 14th Amendments or anything like them?”

        At that point Hostage was talking about “we reserve the right under our Constitution “.

        “Their objection is based on two things – history and the presence of a non-Muslim, non-Arab state in a region that is otherwise ethnically exclusive”

        The Arab claim has been based on rights and legality, from the outset til the present day.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2014, 12:46 pm

        Are you seriously arguing here that the Palestinian objection to a Jewish state (and the Arab objection to a Jewish state) is based on the 1st and 14th Amendments or anything like them?

        Are you seriously trying to use a rhetorical question to misstate and distort what I said in plain English? You aren’t half smart enough to pull that off.

        I’m seriously arguing that the Palestinians had the very same right to adopt a constitution, just like our own, that prohibits the establishment of a Jewish religious or ethnic state anywhere in their country.

        The Palestinians always objected to the establishment of the Jewish National Home through alien Jewish immigration on the grounds that no constitution which permitted such a thing would ever be acceptable to the Palestinian people. See : CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION, Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, JUNE, 1922.
        LONDON: – See more at: link to unispal.un.org

    • ritzl
      April 17, 2014, 1:34 pm

      Shorter Mayhem: Shoot the messenger.

  23. Daniel Rich
    April 16, 2014, 7:47 pm

    @ Alex & Phan,

    Thanks for a great, in-depth article, gyus. Facts over fiction, what a great way to start the day.

  24. seanmcbride
    April 16, 2014, 8:45 pm

    Two tweets of interest (Gareth Porter vs. Buber Zionist):

    GarethPorter @GarethPorter: Pro-Israel right drags Blumenthal into KC killings, shows no smear is too sleazy 2 be used against a critic of Israel. link to bit.ly

    Buber Zionist @buberzionist: .@norabf Israel-Haters whine as Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh & company in linking Slappsie Maxxie 2 KC shooter suspect link to mondoweiss.net

  25. Dan Walsh
    April 16, 2014, 9:02 pm

    @Donald Nelson

    “So to me the argument needs to be made why collective punishment is moral. Collective punishment is not okay against the Palestinians, so why is it okay against the Israelis? Why is it okay against Iran? …”

    BDS is not a form of “collective punishment”: it is a form of “collective action”. There are distinct and important differences. Zionism can obviate the effects of BDS simply by abiding by international law. Same with Iran.
    Moreover, BDS did not emerge from a historical vacuum. Zionism introduced the very first boycott/sanctions regime in modern Middle East history in the 1920’s with its “Buy Hebrew” campaign which sought to eviscerate the established indigenous Palestinian agricultural system.

    Another component of that Zionist sanction regime was the “Conquest of Labor” campaign that sought to replace all indigenous Palestinian workers with Jewish immigrants. It is important to point out that Zionism took no notice whatsoever of the negative effects that its “Buy Hebrew” and “Conquest of Labor” campaigns had on Palestinians and their society. The nuanced concerns you voice: “Which medicines should be sanctioned? Which banks should be sanctioned? Whose bank accounts frozen, what technologies halted, which foodstuffs prevented from entering Israel?” – these are not the kinds of questions people living under foreign military occupation ask themselves.
    Perhaps your question about the morality of collective punishment would best be addressed to the Netanyahu administration relative to the Gaza blockade which is collective punishment and has been publicly described as such by the Israeli government.

    • ritzl
      April 17, 2014, 1:48 pm

      Great comment, Dan Walsh. I would throw in the more tactical issue to Mr. Nelson as well.

      Assuming BDS actually is collective punishment, when one is faced with the choice between losing and suffering oppression forever, and the legitimate moral question of “two wrongs…,” which does one choose?

      I think what he poses as a moral binary/lefty dilemna is more a matter of degree and/or the stakes involved.

  26. seanmcbride
    April 16, 2014, 9:24 pm

    pabelmont,

    (Again, no reply button is available.)

    One notices that many pro-Israel activists indulge in verbal abuse and personal attacks on a regular basis.

    Consider a few examples:

    1. Alan Dershowitz
    2. Ben Shapiro
    3. Bret Stephens
    4. Caroline Glick
    5. David Greenfield
    6. David Horowitz
    7. Debbie Schlussel
    8. Jennifer Rubin
    9. John Podhoretz
    10. Orly Taitz
    11. Pamela Geller
    12. William Kristol

    There is a tone of brutal aggression in their communications that seems to reflect the xenophobic ethnic nationalist (supremacist?) culture (cult?) in which they are embedded.

    In any case, M.J. Rosenberg often falls into this style of speech — whether he is going after “the enemies of the Jews” (antisemites, Jew haters, Israel haters, etc.) or AIPAC (his former employer). Check out his tweet stream for numerous instances.

    This kind of lobbying and political agitation usually backfires, obviously — most people are turned off by the hysteria and the perpetual din.

    Pamela Geller takes the cake for this kind of thing — she’s the Queen of Screech — but there are many other pro-Israel militants like her.

    • hophmi
      April 17, 2014, 11:26 am

      LOL. And pro-Palestinian activists, of course, never engage in any verbal abuse. Why, the dialogue on this site is positively civil!

  27. jayn0t
    April 16, 2014, 9:56 pm

    To accuse Blumenthal of having anything to do with violent white extremists is beyond ridiculous, and symptomatic of the disintegration of Zionist ideology: a welcome development. Before his mild criticisms of Israeli fanatics, he was a leading light in the ‘hate industry’ – the exaggeration of white extremism – for what purpose, I don’t know.

    This entertaining article also raises a serious issue. What do you do when David Duke agrees with you? Mearsheimer and Walt expressed embarrassment. But why? Their critique of the Lobby DOES bear some passing resemblance to some of what the ex-KKK leader has been saying for decades in a cruder and more offensive form.

    The honorable and logical reaction to finding that SOME white extremists sometimes express SOME truthful ideas, is to simply say one agrees with SOME of what they say.

  28. MRW
    April 16, 2014, 10:15 pm

    Hostage made a comment (actually two, but of a piece) on the other KS/Max thread that was brilliant. Stands repeating here because I doubt many saw it.

    [In reference to]max seems pretty willing to except that this inciden proves Israel makes Jews less safe rather then more.

    That ought to be obvious, but the headline struck me in an entirely different way. We recognize that this guy is completely unhinged because he is willing to kill others to establish a White Christian State. But none of these Zionist buttheads in the Twitterverse have commented on the sanity or morality of the thousands of Jews who have acted out in the very same way over the years in Palestine. Thousands of unhinged Jewish racists there have killed thousands of their neighbors in an effort to create a homogeneous Jewish state. But they don’t question the morality or sanity of that situation for even one moment.

    The ADL audit hadn’t registered any harassment, vandalism or acts of violence against Jews or persons who were thought to be Jews in Kansas for years. See for example the zero totals for 2012 and 2013 in the 2013 audit. link to adl.orgYou will find similar totals 2011.

    In those very same years, some of these very same Twitter accounts reported that Jews in Israel were the objects of numerous rocket attacks, bus bombings, shootings, and vehicular assaults.

    There weren’t any assaults in the United States in 2013 that required hospitalization, that certainly isn’t the case for any year in Israel. link to adl.org How on Earth can you argue that Israel makes anyone safer?

    link to mondoweiss.net

    [In reference to]However-based on what and how he writes he will never ever understand what the majority of American and Israeli Jews do. That incidents like these would be ten times as frequent without the existence of Israel.

    Israel was established by a bunch of armed raving lunatics no different than this fellow. Thousands of them died fighting wars of aggression against their non-Jewish neighbors in order to establish a homogeneous Jewish territory and population. The sad part is that we recognize this person as an evil, racist, murderer, but allow bigots like you to treat the founders of Israel like heroes.

    link to mondoweiss.net

    MJ Rosenberg needs to take note, as well.

    • Shingo
      April 16, 2014, 11:02 pm

      I agree MWR. That comment by Hostage was indeed brilliant. I only wish there was a way to post the same argument to Twitter.

  29. Basilio
    April 16, 2014, 11:15 pm

    And people like Pipes provide cover for people who seek to ethnic cleanse the Palestinians. Blumenthal has good intentions. Those who attack him have more in common with that shooter than Max does, believe it or not. They’re right wing Jews, he is a right wing hater of Jews. They’re related in a certain way through their hatred.

  30. traintosiberia
    April 17, 2014, 12:35 am

    Why are these people blaming Max?
    Here is Admiral Thomas Moorer ” if the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government ,they would rise up in arms . Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on”

    That warning was delivered in frustration,pain,and anger in late 1960s
    Page 106 – Israeli Peace Palestinian Justice by Thomas L Are.

    Americans are being prevented from acceess to reality , using every conceivable means by these professional experts who wants to shut down Max and whose expertise is based on the claims of being an expert often anointed by the media and created by the letter head organization . Open discussion has long been absent.
    But this Miller guy does not represent the American citizen who would be able to respond more effectively without resorting to random violence.if information were not destroyed or suppressed.

    • unverified__5ilf90kd
      April 17, 2014, 9:42 am

      Excellent paragraph. “Americans are being prevented from acceess to reality , using every conceivable means by these professional experts who wants to shut down Max and whose expertise is based on the claims of being an expert often anointed by the media and created by the letter head organization . Open discussion has long been absent.”

      This is it in a nutshell. Miller is the white Christian version of the rightwing Israelis. Max’s amazing book makes this abundantly clear just by listing the facts on the ground and that is why he is attacked by the Zionists.

  31. unverified__5ilf90kd
    April 17, 2014, 2:03 am

    MJ Rosenberg says on twitter tonight “The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!”

    However, the strategy of these liberal Zionists it totally irrational and laughably illogical. His way of attacking us (discrediting the truth) is to say that those who criticize Israel and support BDS are anti-semites and Israel-haters. It is quite the reverse. Most of us do not hate Israel at all. We want to save Israel from pariah status and self-destruction brought on by the Israeli right-wingers. The evil liberal Zionist as he defines himself, is indeed doing something evil and is also a phony who is giving lip service to the outrageous Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. This confirms what Philip Weiss wrote in March 2014 that “Liberal Zionists are the new front line against BDS” based on the writings of Rosenberg which are tacitly supported by people like Thomas Friedman. Zionists have spent the last thirty years labeling anyone who makes a negative statement about Israel as an anti-semite. It has worked and people are widely and significantly intimidated and suppressed by the lobby’s extraordinary momentum and power to punish. If they had their way every Western government would put a critic of Israel in jail for being an anti-semite based on an utterly vague, inappropriate and spurious definition of antisemitism by these Zionists (as currently in France). Therefore, the Rosenberg school is using this established logic and culture of intimidation in an attempt to suppress the worldwide burgeoning momentum of BDS. But it will not work because their argument is so flawed that their posturing only raises awareness and recruitment for BDS by revealing that it is necessary and historically justified to punish Israel for their behavior against the Palestinians. The beauty and strength of BDS is that is equates the Israelis with the apartheid of the white South Africans in their tragic and unsuccessful struggle to cruelly contain and discriminate against the blacks. That by definition is a much more urgent and appealing argument than the theory that BDS and liberal Zionism are incompatible. Prior polite appeals to Israel to uphold international law have been scorned. It is not incompatible to support BDS and be a liberal Zionist. Rosenberg’s argument is irrational. BDS is the only method that will force an intransigent Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. The USA was the great white hope to do this but the financial power of the geriatric Israeli lobby has intimidated the USA into inaction in forcing this issue. We are left with the outrageous situation in the UN where the USA is almost alone in voting to support Israel when the rest of the world literally indicts Israel for genocide. In other words, the intimidation of antisemitism is being used to force people who see themselves as so-called liberal Zionists to reject BDS because BDS will destroy Israel. Yes, my goal is not to destroy Israel but to destroy the current rightist Israeli government and force Israel to make a just peace with the Palestinians. I see this talking point of “BDS is antisemitic and will destroy Israel” as linguistic fraud which only arouses the fear of being called antisemitic in the BDS subscriber. Similarly, I hear another talking point which is roughly expressed as “there is no hope for negotiations – they are a waste of time – stop negotiations – negotiations are futile – there is no partner – the Palestinians are not serious et cetera”. I see this as a crude strategy for delaying a peace process until Israel has succeeded in taking so much from the Palestinians that there is nothing left to negotiate for and a greater-Israel is a fait accompli impossible to reverse. In other words a short term triumph and a longterm disaster.

    • Shingo
      April 17, 2014, 5:16 am

      MJ Rosenberg says on twitter tonight “The BDS and Mondoweiss Israel haters succeed at nothing except driving us evil liberal Zionists far far away. Brilliant strategy!”

      Rosenberg is the embodiment of the prediction made by Beinart – that when confronted with a choice, liberal Zionists will opt for tribalism before liberal values.

  32. traintosiberia
    April 17, 2014, 10:49 am

    “Take for example Michael Goldfarb, founder of The Washington Free Beacon. Goldfarb was paid by the governments of Georgia and Taiwan to lobby for their interests as a partner at Orion Strategies. Part of that meant lobbying for maintaining and increasing US power projection in Eurasia and East Asia.

    As a lobbyist for foreign governments Goldfarb was forced to disclose some of his politicking on behalf of those foreign governments with American journalists. The press contact lists for story pitches from Goldfarb could act as a roll call of neoconservative journalists in Washington, some of whom ended up working at the Free Beacon. The mixture of foreign money and domestic journalism is an odd brew, though from all accounts legal.”

    link to news.firedoglake.com

  33. seafoid
    April 17, 2014, 11:05 am

    I can understand why Rosenberg gets ratty. Zionism is the only thing between certainty and the abyss. It is going to be excruciating for ordinary jews to realise that the goodwill generated post WW2 was blown on a deluded messianic project and all for nothing. Rabbis are going to have to tell their congregations that the return to zion was a flop and that praying for it is pointless. Rosenberg is naturally concerned about his people losing power. It is far less traumatic in the short term to hope problems blow over and critics are nuts.

  34. endalloccupations
    April 17, 2014, 1:42 pm

    Thanks for the article. Haarertz is not only deceptive, they’ve hoisted themselves by their own canard: link to haaretz.com.

  35. sparrow
    April 17, 2014, 2:18 pm

    In all of this discussion of BDS, the one determining factor which has been left unaddressed is that this is a call from Palestinians themselves under siege and occupation. This whole discussion so far smacks of hegemonic arrogance.

  36. seanmcbride
    April 17, 2014, 2:28 pm

    hophmi,

    (Again, no reply button.)

    We are not “single-minded” or especially “aggressive” and our interests are not “narrow” or exclusively “ethnic.”

    The 6000+ comments you have posted on Mondoweiss are a perfect example of a single-minded obsession with one’s narrow ethnic nationalist interests — and with Israel and Zionism in particular. Very few Irish-Americans, British-Americans, German-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc. would be bogged down in such a fanatical crusade — they are focused on much more important public policy issues that are relevant to humanity as a whole.

    With regard to “aggression”: do you have any idea how many abusive and insulting remarks you have directed against your fellow commenters here? They have all been captured in the MW archive. And then we also have at our fingertips the archives of Frontpage Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Press, Commentary, Israel National News and dozens of other Israel First publications — they tell the tale, and future historians will be analyzing them in depth.

  37. Kris
    April 17, 2014, 2:31 pm

    “Israeli forces fire tear gas in Hebron prep school” link to maannews.net

    “Young Palestinian dad died from Israeli torture, forensic expert says”
    link to electronicintifada.net

    While the endless, daily news reports like these might sit well with racial supremacists like Frazier Glenn Miller, most people who learn of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians are horrified.

    I think that many Jews will just turn away from the synagogues and religious establishment of Judaism in disgust, just as many Christians have left their churches and religious organizations: the hypocrisy becomes too much to bear. Just as many Christians don’t want to be identified as “Christian” because that has come to represent a cruel, mean-spirited, pro-war ideology, many Jews will refuse to be identified with apartheid, fascist “Jewish” state of Israel in any way.

  38. seanmcbride
    April 17, 2014, 2:38 pm

    hophmi,

    It seems impossible to break through your iron wall of ethnic self-absorption, but one more try:

    Would you have any objections if white Christians in the United States, Britain, France and Germany treated Jews in the same way that Israel treats Arab Christians and Muslims?

    And a second question: haven’t Israel and all Zionists lost the right to lecture Western nations about how they govern themselves concerning modern Western democratic and liberal standards? What if those nations decide to go full-bore “Zionist” in defense of their traditional ethnic and religious values and cultures — just like Israel? How could Zionists possibly protest in a persuasive way?

    It’s really quite simple: either every group gets to play ethnic and religious nationalist games, or none do. Jews around the world will need to figure out on which side of this grand divide they stand.

    • JeffB
      April 18, 2014, 9:59 am

      @seanmcbride

      Would you have any objections if white Christians in the United States, Britain, France and Germany treated Jews in the same way that Israel treats Arab Christians and Muslims?

      The situations aren’t comparable but let’s look at your first example. When Jews migrated to the United States they became American, joined American society supported it and integrated culturally with it. For example they constructed forms of Judaism that were structurally protestant. They even shifted religious doctrines to end up adopting core Protestant notions to help make Judaism more acceptable to an American context.

      In Germany Jews assimilated as well often becoming Christian. This assimilation process was what the German anti-Semitism league objected to, and was one of the key reason that racial theories of Judaism became popular. German Jewry was then mostly killed off with some remained living in the USA and Israel. There are a bit over 100k German Jews at this point a tiny fragment.

      BTW both Germany and France have pretty nasty state discrimination against Scientologists so I’m not sure how much you want to use them as models of tolerance.

      It’s really quite simple: either every group gets to play ethnic and religious nationalist games, or none do. Jews around the world will need to figure out on which side of this grand divide they stand.

      Different states choose to govern themselves differently. The United States defines itself as a nation of immigrants. The USA doesn’t have a given ethnic identity. The American nation is formed by people adopting American ideals. Which incidentally is now Israel works. Ashkenazic, Mizrahim and Sephardic joined to become one people. The Palestinians have mostly refused to join. The Russian Christians who have joined are being adopted successfully which proves that your caricature of Israel policy simply isn’t accurate.

      • Citizen
        April 18, 2014, 11:01 am

        re: ” The USA doesn’t have a given ethnic identity. The American nation is formed by people adopting American ideals. Which incidentally is how Israel works. ”

        Does the US identify itself as a white Christian and democratic state?

      • seanmcbride
        April 18, 2014, 11:10 am

        JeffB,

        You are unable to see the forest for the trees: if Jews around the world are going to organize their politics around narrow ethnic nationalism and the aggressive pursuit of their ethnic self-interest, every other ethnic and religious group (especially in the United States and Europe) is free to play by the same rules.

        As a dedicated Jewish nationalist yourself, you have no basis on which to object to or complain about the ethnic or religious nationalism of any other group. They will do whatever they please, no doubt often citing Israel and Zionism as a model and justification for their ethnic or religious nationalist beliefs, policies and actions.

        Do you really not see where this is going? Zionism has opened up a major can of worms in Western culture and politics and left Diaspora Jews in a highly precarious position.

        By the way, once again: where are you coming from on Mideast and Israeli politics? — in a general cultural and political way — I am not trying to pry in your private life:

        1. ethnic background?
        2. religious background?
        3. nation(s) of citizenship?
        4. political affiliations?
        5. position on the Iraq War?
        6. position on an Iran War?
        7. position on Israeli settlements?
        8. position on the Israel lobby?
        9. position on neoconservatives?
        10. position on ethnic and religious nationalism in general?

  39. seanmcbride
    April 17, 2014, 3:07 pm

    hophmi,

    (Again, no reply button.)

    While you are trying to sell us on the idea that Israel is a tolerant society open to all ethnic groups and religions, I am looking at this article which just came my way:

    Palestinians Are Being Forced to Destroy Their Own Homes link to vice.com

    While the Palestinian population in the city has quadrupled to over 300,000 since 1967, municipal authorities have only zoned nine percent of East Jerusalem land for Palestinian construction. Even with this space being set aside, permits are rarely granted, and the result is widespread “illegal” Palestinian construction—which, of course, Israeli authorities can then order to be demolished.

    Tens of thousands of Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents now live under the constant threat of having their homes demolished by Israeli authorities, part of a policy of displacement that has been taking place in Jerusalem with a startling degree of public support for more than four decades.

    Wringing the city dry of any Palestinian or overtly Arab presence is not a new Israeli practice. What is relatively new, however, are the self-demolitions being inflicted on the Palestinian community—the financial penalties giving people no other option than to destroy their own homes and move away. Meanwhile, Israel saves face; houses are being cleared without the pesky publication of photos depicting their systematic ethnic cleansing of the area—no bulldozers, no Israeli youngsters wielding M-16s, and no wailing women. It is a PR miracle.

    Cognitive dissonance, much.

  40. joer
    April 17, 2014, 3:17 pm

    Personally, I am sick of every tragedy like this that involves a Jewish person being shamelessly by “lovers of Israel”. Now they are using it to smear Blumenthal as well, blaming him for inspiring this nut. The obvious response to this-at least to me-is if you want to look for Jews who are inspiring anti-Jewish violence, you don’t have to look further than the Knesset.

  41. seanmcbride
    April 17, 2014, 4:02 pm

    hophmi,

    What the world will look like if everyone goes down the path of aggressive and discriminatory ethnic and religious nationalism:

    Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine link to usatoday.com

    Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to “register” with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media.

    Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city’s Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee “or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated,” reported Ynet News, Israel’s largest news website.

    The leaflet begins, “Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality,” and states that all people of Jewish descent over 16 years old must report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and “register.”

    It says the reason is because the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta, a reference to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement that fought for Ukrainian independence at the end of World War II, “and oppose the pro-Slavic People’s Republic of Donetsk,” a name adopted by the militant leadership.

    By the way, we need to know much more about the origins of this campaign — it may well be a twisted psyop of some kind.

    • Ellen
      April 18, 2014, 10:15 am

      Apparently it is nothing more than a very twisted psyop. The crude flyers calling for registration are not attributed to any governmental authority.

      With ADL playing this down and the Jewish communities of the Ukraine calling it nothing more than a “provocation,” it could likely be a Russian attempt to create controversy and highlight to the West the thuggish and ultra nationalistic nature of the Ukrainian opposition.

      Whatever….everything points to false flags and psyops.

  42. The Hasbara Buster
    April 18, 2014, 2:05 am

    @hophmi

    Israeli governments have had non-Jewish cabinet members for years now.

    Just to clarify your ambiguous phrase, not a single non-Jew serves in the current Israeli government.

    Salim Joubran has sat on Israel’s Supreme Court since 2003. Ayoub Kara was deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Nawaf Massalha was a deputy speaker as well. Salah Tarif was a deputy speaker and a cabinet minister. Majalli Wahabi was a deputy speaker and briefly as Acting President of Israel. Raleb Maladeje held cabinet positions in two successive government when Labor was in the coalition.

    Exactly, and the question posed to you was “How many non-Jews — especially Christians and Muslims — have been high-level members of the Israeli government from its founding to the present day? ” From the hundreds and hundreds of cabinet members that Israel has had in its 33 governments, you can come up with just 2 non-Jewish ones — neither of which high-level. From the hundreds of Supreme Court justices, just one has been non-Jewish.

    To put things in perspective, 3000 Jews openly lived as Jews in Berlin through WWII — they were not killed, they were not harmed, they were not jailed, and everyone knew they were Jewish. The existence of those Jews does not disprove the Holocaust, and the existence of a couple of Arab former low-level ministers does not disprove the ethnocratic character of Israel. It is shameful that you use Holocaust-denial-like techniques to argue your points.

    • hophmi
      April 18, 2014, 11:19 am

      “From the hundreds of Supreme Court justices, just one has been non-Jewish.”

      Before 1916, the United States had zero Jewish justices in its 140-year history up until that point. And Jews were in any way at war with the United States.

      “From the hundreds and hundreds of cabinet members that Israel has had in its 33 governments, you can come up with just 2 non-Jewish ones”

      Has there been a great push by Arab legislators to join these governments, particularly Likud-led governments? Does Ahmed Tibi want to be Israel’s FM?

      Clearly, Druze in Israel are happy. So it’s not about being non-Jewish. Arabs have chosen to stay apart, form their own parties in a system where they are unlikely to be able to join governing coalitions. When they have joined Likud and Labor, they have been able to become government ministers.

      “To put things in perspective, 3000 Jews openly lived as Jews in Berlin through WWII ”

      How on earth does this put things in perspective? Non-Jews in Israel do not live in fear that they might be sent to the gas chamber tomorrow.

      “he existence of a couple of Arab former low-level ministers does not disprove the ethnocratic character of Israel. ”

      No, it simply proves that Arabs in Israel have chosen to have their own parties, and to set themselves apart politically, and it proves that when they do not, they can become government ministers in coalition governments, as Rajeb Majalede and Salah Tarif both did.

      If African-Americans in the United States chose to form three small third-parties, instead of becoming Democrats and Republicans, do you think that there would be any African-Americans in Congress?

Leave a Reply